Search the Community

Showing results for 'climate doom' in content posted by Jonathan.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Objectivist Living Corner Office
    • Purpose of Objectivist Living and Legal Stuff (please read)
    • Announcements
    • Tech Support / IPB Help Desk
    • Links
    • Web Stuff and Other Tech Issues (not OL specific)
  • Objectivist Philosophy
    • About Objectivism
    • 1 - Metaphysics
    • 2 - Epistemology
    • 3 - Ethics
    • 4 - Politics
    • 5 - Aesthetics
  • Objectivist Living
    • Meet and Greet
    • Objectivist Living Room
    • Art Gallery
    • Articles
    • Creative Writing
    • Writing Techniques
    • Persuasion Techniques
    • Psychology
    • Parenting
    • Humor - OL LOLOLOLOL
    • The Library
    • Quotes
    • Romance Room
    • Movies and Entertainment
    • Music
    • News and Interesting Articles
    • Events and Happenings
    • Tips for Everyday Living
    • Inky's Room
    • The Kitchen
    • Science & Mathematics
    • Sports and Recreation
    • Stumping in the Backyard
    • Objectivist Living Room Copy
  • Objectivist Living Den
    • The Objectivist Living Den
    • Offers from OL Members
    • The Culture of Reason Center Corner
    • The Objectivist Living Boutique
  • Corners of Insight
    • Barbara Branden Corner
    • Nathaniel Branden Corner
    • Ed Hudgins Corner
    • David Kelley Corner
    • Chris Sciabarra Corner
    • George H. Smith Corner
    • Corners of Further Insight
    • TAS Corner
    • ARI Corner
  • Outer Limits
    • Rants
    • For The Children...
    • The Horror File Cabinet
    • Conservative News
    • Chewing on Ideas
    • Addiction
    • Objectivism in Dark Places
    • Mideast
    • PARC
    • The Garbage Pile


  • Objectivist Living Community Calendar
  • Self-Esteem Every Day


  • Kat's Blog
  • wanderlustig
  • Hussein El-Gohary's Blog
  • CLASSical Liberalism
  • Ted Keer' Blog
  • RaviKissoon's Blog
  • hbar24's Blog
  • brucemajors' Blog
  • Ross Barlow's Blog
  • James Heaps-Nelson's Blog
  • Matus1976's Blog
  • X
  • Tee-Jay's Blog
  • Jeff Kremer's Blog
  • Mark Weiss' Blog
  • Etisoppa's Blog
  • Friends and Foes
  • neale's Blog
  • Better Living Thru Blogging!
  • Chris Grieb's Blog
  • Gay TOC
  • Sandra Rice's Blog
  • novus-vir's Blog
  • Neil Parille's Blog
  • Jody Gomez's Blog
  • George Donnelly
  • plnchannel
  • F L Light's Blog
  • Donovan A's Blog
  • Julian's Writings
  • Aspberger's World
  • The Naturalist
  • Broader than Measurement Omission
  • The Melinda's Blog
  • Benevolist Ponderings
  • Shane's Blog
  • On Creative Writing (Chrys Jordan)
  • Think's Blog
  • Kate Herrick's Blog
  • Rich Engle's Blog
  • thelema's Blog
  • cyber bullying
  • Shane's Blog
  • x
  • Mary Lee Harsha's Blog
  • Mary Lee Harsha's Blog
  • George H. Smith's Blog
  • Jim Henderson's Blog
  • Mike Hansen's Blog
  • Bruce's Blogations
  • Prometheus Fire
  • equality72521's Blog
  • Sum Ergo Cogitabo's Blog
  • Robert Bumbalough's Blog
  • Troll reads Atlas
  • dustt's Blog
  • dustt's Blog
  • Closed
  • Tim Hopkins' Blog
  • Objectivism 401
  • PDS' Blog
  • PDS' Blog
  • Rich Engle's Beyond Even Bat Country
  • Negative Meat Popsicle's Blog
  • politics and education
  • J.S. McGowan's Blog
  • Aeternitas
  • Shrinkiatrist
  • AnarchObjectivist
  • Brant Gaede's Blog

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







Full Name



Favorite Music, Artworks, Movies, Shows, etc.

  1. By the way, virtually no one truly believes the above, including the people who performed the analyses and published them, and we all know it. Their actions betray them. They don't live as if they believe what they're preaching. In fact, generally speaking, the opposite is true: they usually have much larger carbon footprints than the average person. I'll believe that the alarmists are serious about their claimed beliefs about climate change when they behave accordingly. And that applies to you, Billy, as well. When y'all focus on yourselves and your own actions, and voluntarily take real steps and give up the luxuries in your lives which contradict your positions on climate (and I mean real actions based on a consistent, disciplined regimen for the rest of your lives, and not just occasional, superficial, virtue-signaling, publicity-seeking symbolic actions), then I will begin to believe that you believe what you claim. You want us to believe that you believe this shit? Then show us. Lead by example. No more lame excuses. Walk the walk. J
  2. Check out the article below. While reading it, do any critical questions come to mind? Is this science? Is it settled? PUBLIC RELEASE: 28-FEB-2019 Climate change shrinks many fisheries globally, Rutgers-led study finds Researchers find losses as high as 35 percent in some regions RUTGERS UNIVERSITY SHARE PRINT E-MAIL IMAGE: BLACK SEA BASS ARE ONE OF THE CLIMATE CHANGE "WINNERS " THAT HAVE SEEN THEIR PRODUCTIVITY INCREASE WITH WARMING OCEAN TEMPERATURES. view more CREDIT: ORION WELDON Climate change has taken a toll on many of the world's fisheries, and overfishing has magnified the problem, according to a Rutgers-led study in the journal Science today. ---
  3. I thought that it might be time again to share one of my favorite things about Climate Doom and the alleged consensus. Remeber this? It's what got the whole 97% thing started: Notice that the papers were not read, but only the abstracts were considered. And what isn't noted in the above is that even the abstracts weren't actually read, but were only electronically scanned for predetermined words and phrases which might indicate agreement with or rejection of man-blamed climate change. So, they immediately eliminated from consideration two-thirds of the papers due to their not expressing an opinion. And why? Who decided that not expressing an opinion is not a valid position? One must have a strong opinion pro or con, or else one is not counted? Heh. And it gets worse. The deeper you look into it, the more pathetic these people's notions of science is in regard to the alleged consensus. Anyway, Billy, I'm curious if you find anything to criticize in their methodology. Is it what you would call good science? J
  4. Flirt'n' wit' 'zaster -- flashback croakings of The Doom: U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked PETER JAMES SPIELMANNJune 29, 1989 UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP...
  5. Check this out below: yet another Climate Doom™ alarmist whose actions don't match her words. Are there any who practice what they preach? I don't know of any. I've never heard of any prominent climate scientists or activists who have a smaller carbon footprint than I do. Usually, their footprints are multiple times that of mine. Do you know of any, Billy? Has anyone else here ever heard of a climate scientist or activist who claims to hold the belief of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change and who also behaves consistently with that stated belief? J --- Gas-guzzling car rides expose AOC’s hypocrisy amid Green New Deal pledge By Isabel Vincent and Melissa Klein March 2, 2019 | 7:32pm | Updated Enlarge Image Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-CortezAFP/Getty Images MORE ON: ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ Ocasio-Cortez explains why she hitched a ride in gas-guzzling minivan This Trump speech leaves him on-course for 2020 victory and other commentary Socialism's Millennial fans don't even know what it is Ocasio-Cortez leaves parade in 17-mpg minivan — blocks from the subway Freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wants to save the planet with her Green New Deal, but she keeps tripping over her own giant carbon footprint. “We’re like, ‘The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change,’ ” the progressive darling said in January, speaking of herself and her fellow millennials. “And, like, this is the war; this is our World War II.”
  6. What are you trying to say, Billy? Are you trying to suggest that I'm being silly, tee hee hee, in characterizing leftists as presenting the issue as imminent Doom? Or what? J
  7. Billy, I'm curious if you've ever critically investigated weather instrument shelters. Do you feel that you have a handle on that subject? I find it interesting that some scientists, who believe in The Doom and preach it, have expressed the opinion that the methods that were primarily used ten years ago are now considered unreliable, and even junk. Stone Age crap. Yet the predictions of The Doom from back then are still revered. We should have listened to the warnings! And, even though the screen system used prior to that were even worse, trust us, it was settled science as far back as the seventies, which had pre-Stone Age sub-crap. Do you have a take on the issue? Thoughts or feelings about homogenisation of stations? And I'm asking what you think, not what Scott Adams or some twitter alarmist whom you like thinks. Not looking for a document dump, but a genuine response. J
  8. Yay! We're going to "defeat climate change." Yeah. We're going to control climate. We're not just going to impose massive hardships and restrictions to make a tiny one percent dent. No, we're going to somehow achieve stasis, whether Mother Nature wants us to or not. We're going to tax, regulate, and punish people until the temperature is always the same forever. Jay Inslee: Washington governor to run on climate change 1 hour ago Share this with Facebook Share this with Messenger Share this with Twitter Share this with Email Share Related Topics US election 2020 Image copyrightKAREN DUCEY/GETTY IMAGES Image captionGovernor Inslee after speaking at a rally during the March for Science on April 22, 2017 in Seattle, Washington Washington State's Democratic Governor Jay Inslee has announced his 2020 bid for the US presidential nomination, joining a lengthy list of contenders. Mr Inslee, 68, will make climate change his number one issue, calling it "the most urgent challenge of our time" in his first campaign video. He is the first governor to throw his hat into the ring, joining 12 other Democrats, including six senators. The two-term governor has been a fierce critic of President Donald Trump. "I'm running for president because I am the only candidate who will make defeating climate change our nation's number one priority," Mr Inslee says in the video, released on Friday. Who will take on Trump in 2020? The lessons US Democrats can learn for 2020 Which Democrats are running in 2020? Mr Inslee's mid-term elections campaign ran on the platform of creating new energy jobs - his 2020 campaign video echoed the same, tying "defeating climate change" with transforming the economy.
  9. Hahahaha! "Orange man bad. Freedom bad. And, of course, Climate Doom™!!!! I'm not an expert on it, in fact I don't know anything about it really, but Climate Doom™!!! Seriously. I don't have the cult mindset anymore. The Others™ do. Orange man bad." J
  10. Yeah, I don't know how to bridge the communication gap here. I'm not asking to be educated. I'm not asking for you to determine what you'll need to teach me, what holes in my knowledge you need to show me how to fill, what learning disabilities you'll need to detect in me and remedy, etc. I'm not asking you to guide me and nurture me. I'm not in need of anything like this: "Let's see, hmmm, do you know what molecules are? You've heard of those? Okay, well, that's wonderful, and maybe we can move along a little faster in your education than I had anticipated. Energy? Have you ever heard of that? Tell me what you think the term 'energy' means, and that might help me in gauging where I should start in your little education..." The resolution being debated in the world today is that significant global warming is currently happening, that it is caused primarily, if not completely, by human activities, that it is very dangerous, and perhaps even catastrophic. I'm not asking to see 'the science' which led people to hypothesize the above. Here's a colloquial version of the hypothesis as you seem to want me to learn it: "Scientist X discovered in 1904 that Y causes badness in certain amounts under certain conditions, therefore it logically follows that, since mankind is producing piles of Y, mankind is responsible for the levels of badness that we've adjusted our raw data to report, and The Doom™ is imminent." Such statements are not the end of science, but the beginning. They are the point where testing happens via a very well-defined, controlled method which conforms to the questions that I've repeatedly asked, and which is open to review and is inviting and welcoming of criticism. I'm asking to see 'the science' which puts the hypothesis to the test, and succeeds reliably and repeatedly. I'm asking for open access to all of the information. What was the hypothesis, precisely what predictions were made, when were they made, what potential results were identified ahead of time as falsifying or invalidating the hypothesis, what were the start and finish dates of the experiment, what are the unmolested data, the untainted control, and the unmanipulated historical record? J
  11. It's just so adorable that you're suddenly concerned about someone tolerating dissent in regard to the Climate Doom™ issue. Hahahaha! J
  12. Hey, Billy this should excite you -- new and refurbished croakings of doom, fresh methods of conjuring up combinations of crises to arrive at extra-scary scare predictions, which of course include Climate Doom™ and population explosions (Yay, Ehrlich might make a comeback!): Scientists fear end to Mankind not 'decades away' but ‘much sooner’ OUR CIVILISATION is doing pretty well – but how long do we have left? ----- J [WSS: Edited to make the URL 'live']
  13. Billy posted a video which he likes to believe defeated the above claim. The video shows that someone decades ago used the term "climactic change" in a paper, and that therefore it has always been called climate change and not just global warming. So, we're supposed to forget what we experienced, and believe this fictional alternate history based on this one use of the term. We're also, apparently, supposed to forget that studies in climactic change at the time included theories that we were doomed to experience a new ice age. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia, see, here's a document from long ago which shows that Oceania was at war with Eastasia back then, therefore it has always been. J
  14. Because of the Man-Made Climate Doom!!!!!!!!!!!!! Everything is proof of the Doom!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If it's hot, cold or average in Tucson, it's cited by alarmists as proof. On the other hand, when "deniers" use the same tactic, the alarmists are very quick to remind them that weather is not climate. The rules generally shift seasonally. Aw, Billy's having feelings about punctuation. Poor dear. Sheath your interrobangs, everyone, lest he develop a case of the vapors‽ Science is a real, specific thing, Billy, regardless of your disliking that fact and attempting to mock it. Your little act of posing as superior while trying to find a way around the scientific method isn't working here. Acting as if we're unreasonable for not letting you slough off the scientific burden of proof is a lame tactic. We're not imposing it on you, science itself is. That's the way that it works. And no, your reading recommendations are not a substitute for the science. They're yet another distraction. A wild goose chase. Science is what it is, and your emotions aren't going to change it. Trying to skip steps in the scientific method is not science, but rather an admission of a failed hypothesis. Attempting to skirt the requirements of science, and to then whine when caught doing so, isn't the way that science works. We're not being bullies and meanies and denier poopyheads in adhering to the rules of science and not letting you substitute something else for them Your distractions aren't working. After all this time, you still can't answer the challenge of presenting the science of repeatable, successful predictions. J
  15. People have forgotten about a bit of very important settled science from the past, and I think that we should get back to it: As long as we need to take immediate action to stop Climate Doom™, we should also revive the immediate action on population control. We've lost focus and have let the issue slide. It's still an imminent threat. We can't just forget about it because Ehrlich might have gotten one or two minor details wrong. He was generally right, and, as he believes, his only mistake was in being too optimistic in his predictions. We need to act now! J
  16. OMG, look at this! A giant bee that was extinct became unextinct because of man-made climate change! And the climate scientists predicted it years ago! The world's largest bee is a big, black wasp-like insect as long as an adult's thumb, and it was extinct — or so scientists thought. The massive bee was rediscovered alive in Indonesia last month, decades after it was last seen. It was settled science that it was extinct -- more than 97% consensus -- but now it's been seen alive again, so that can only mean that it somehow became unextinct (because the consensus can't be wrong), and the only way that that could happen would be through the power of man-made climate change, which is caused by, and can cause, anything and everything. Scientists predicted that weird, unexpected and extreme stuff would happen because of man-made climate change, and this is definitely weird, unexpected, and extreme, so, see? It's proof. We're definitely going in the direction of finding the road that leads to the path that leads to arguments and questions that lead to the science! Now if we can only sharpen our persuasion techniques! J
  17. Not as kooky as AOC's belief that the world will end in 12 years, but close: Kamala Harris: “In a Relatively Short Time, Portsmouth, NH Will Be Underwater” During a speech at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics on Tuesday, California Senator–and Green New Deal supporter– Kamala Harris had a dire warning for the Granite State: The city of Portsmouth will soon be underwater due to climate change. And then there's Judy the science denier: Judith Curry Retweeted Energy Brief‏ @EnergyBrief Feb 20 More How close is Portsmouth, NH to being “underwater?” “Not very,” says climatologist @curryja. … via @IAMMGraham @InsideSourcesDC
  18. “However, these scientific and national security judgments have not undergone a rigorous independent and adversarial scientific peer review to examine the certainties and uncertainties of climate science, as well as implications for national security.” OMG, they can't be serious! We don't have time for rigorous review and criticism! It's settled science that we can't wait to do actual science. J
  19. Turdeau really liked Butts, but Butts gots to go, even though he dindu nuffin: Gerald Butts resigns as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's principal secretary On his way out, of course he had to promote the DOOM™: A well-known policy wonk, Butts has been a vocal defender of the government's Canada Child Benefit and an advocate for carbon pricing as a solution to climate change... ...In his resignation letter, Butts said he hoped fighting global warming "becomes the collective, non-partisan, urgent effort that science clearly says is required. I hope that happens soon." So, I had heard claims that global warming is "settled science," and also that the blame being mankind's is "settled science," but I had not heard that it had been scientifically settled that there's DOOM™ right around the corner, that we're on the fucking verge, that a collective, non-partisan urgent effort involving carbon pricing is "required." When did that become what science "clearly says"? Where can I review that science? Is it the same place that I can review all of the other unsuccessful predictions behind the "settled science"? J
  20. Who should we sacrifice first in order to prevent the Doom™? What's the scientific consensus? And they should probably be tortured before being killed, right? J
  21. More from Judy the denier who hates science and probably deserves to be killed:
  22. I wrote: No? No answers? No curiosity? Just tee hee hee? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller? I had heard that this was going to be the "Year of the Arctic!” here on OL, with “robust arguments” and donation prizes, excitement galore, and unbound enthusiasm for exploring, learning and lecturing all about arctic climate and its contributions to and indicators of the DOOM. Let’s see what we know, and have sleepover parties, and write essays, and scrapbook our favorite scary pictures of Earth on fire. But, suddenly, no interest whatsoever in my questions about the history and accuracy of predictions of alarmists’ uses of the issue of polar vortices? WTF? Why is that? Did I not know the rules? Were we supposed to limit ourselves to looking at only what we would be guided to look at, and to dare not consider any larger context or history? What gives? Why the 180? How did we go from full throttle to zero in half a second? J
  23. Damn it! The cold weather hasn't quite reached record cold. That would've been an extra-exciting propaganda tool. So, I guess we'll have to run with something else. Hardships, frostbite, power-outages, deaths. All due to cold temps due to climate doom. Freezing to death is what your future looks like unless you surrender your freedoms immediately.
  24. Is Limbaugh wrong? What would we need to know to answer that question? When did alarmists begin citing polar vortices as proof of climate change? What, specifically are their predictions about them? When were the predictions first made? J
  25. The accusatory approach hasn't been working, and has maybe even beenbackfiring. So the leftist climate activists are adopting a new strategy of lessening the focus on blame and hiding their urge to punish, while also upping the scary doom. The "settled science" is that these hick deniers "livelihoods and health will be at stake"? Everything will be worse: "Local crops are dying or washing away at alarming rates"? Oh, fucking no! More panic! More doom! Urgency, emergency! Good luck trying to sell those lies to those who live in ag regions, and who grow crops, and who therefore know that you're full of leftist shit. When the lefty predictions have not succeeded in reality, but yet lefties still want to act as if they have, I guess the only option is to act as if hypothesizing is the final step in science. It's also interesting that these "scientists" are proposing "solutions" which deal with fields way outside of their areas of expertise, such as the economic risks versus rewards. They know nothing about these subjects, and have not analyzed or weighed any of the consequences of what they are proposing, but rather are just shouting the first thing that pops into their leftist heads: More government! More control! Less freedom for the Others! Shiftng to a new semantics isn't a scientific mindset. It's still a political ploy, despite the article's claim that they want to avoid appearing to be political. The scientific approach would be to debate the science with informed critics, rather than avoiding them, shutting them out and vilifying them. Answer their criticisms. Release all of the data and the models/programs. Open up access to everything. Instead of telling doom stories and making emotional appeals to hunters, fishermen and farmers who don't have access to any of the "science," exhibit the courage of inviting expert critics to present their arguments, rather than maligning and ostracizing them. But I think we all know that that's not going to happen, because this isn't about climate. It's about power. Actions speak louder than words, and the leftist actions are not consistent with their words, which is why they are focused on semantic tactics. J