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. 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.
  2. The key sentences in the above: "That at some point this chronic reality do reach a breaking point and I think for our generation it reached that, I wished I didn’t have to be doing every post, but sometimes I just feel like people aren’t being held accountable. Until, we start pitching in and holding people accountable, I’m just gonna let them have it.” Yup, we need to get down to the business of punishing the Others™. Gaia thirsts for blood. Violence is virtuous in the name of stopping climate doom. Killing is the cure. J
  3. Ohmyfuckinggad! Weather in Nukualofa, Tonga Now 77 °F Partly cloudy. Proof of climate doom! If this keeps up at the current rate, Tonga will melt into glass and be completely underwater in three weeks. It's settled science. The only cure is to create a one-world government with absolute power and then to immediately begin torturing and killing deniers and skeptics and their children and pets. J
  4. Oh, no! More proof of man-made global warming/climate doom: 4.7 Magnitude Earthquake Reported Off Coast Of Ocean City... Its settled science, brah. I mean just look around. You can see the global warming, man. J [Edited to change the color so that it's hotter and scarier]
  5. Wahoo! The revival of Greta! The leftist media had spent all of that time and effort shoving Greta in our faces, trying to make her influential, but then the damned Covid ended all of that. Solution? Let's have Greta be an expert on Covid! Fuck yeah! Which policies will she support? Which punishments? How have we stolen her childhood and her dreams this time? By not wearing ineffective masks early enough? By not obeying soon enough? How daaaare you. You must bend the knee. Beyond parody: CNN taps Greta Thunberg for expert coronavirus panel The brave, hard-hitting journalists over at CNN are hosting a town hall Thursday evening on Coronavirus: Facts and Fears. Our First Amendment warriors are only bringing viewers the best of experts, such as former CDC Director Richard Besser, former HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, and … teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg.
  6. She's better than Billy at serving up tasty steamed octopus! Dayyam! People are DYING!!!! Fuckers need to be punished right goddamned now for future catastrophes! We can't wait. Immediate pain to the grups for what they done to Greta's childhood and her future of doom. J
  7. Yes. The issue is so important, and such a scary threat, that we can’t wait for stupid old fashioned true science to be practiced. We have to use the new special emergency “science.” You can’t expect consistency. 9 to 16 years of unpredicted, unexplained “pause” or “hiatus”? Heh, an insignificant blip. 1 year of arctic melt? Ha! See? Incontrovertible proof of the Doom! We need to practice such double standards, and proudly, because, as MSK said in the above, the survival of humanity is at stake! J
  8. A couple of days ago, on the issue of saving the world from climate doom: "We need to invent technology that's never even been invented yet." -- Alexandria Ocasio- Cortez
  9. Yup. Actions versus words. Obama knows that the rising seas doom is total bullshit. He doesn't believe it. J
  10. Heh. No, it's not a setback at all. Not in the slightest. The critic is a mere meteorologist, an insect, and not an officially recognized and accredited Climate Science Authority. Plus, he has a history of mildly criticizing officially recognized and accredited Climate Science Authorities, or at least of expecting them to not employ double standards. He is therefore a "science denier," and soon he will have to be destroyed. Aroused yet, Billy? Yes, I thought so! What do you look forward to the most? What's your favorite part: strangling, emasculation, evisceration, beheading, or placing the head atop a pike? Which is most satisfying to you, the screams or the blood?
  11. Trump should pivot, and rename it the Affordable Universal Transgender Muslim Climate Doom Space Force. Dems would increase funding.
  12. Sully is giving opinions while trying very hard to avoid saying anything: Here’s some of Sully’s philosophy: "In every situation, but especially challenging ones, a leader sets the tone and must create an environment in which all can do their best. You get what you project.” Really? Is that true? Hmmm. So, when Obama projected cool confidence in the lie that we could keep our doctors and insurance plans, and save $2500 per year, we got what he projected? When he projected supreme calm and certainty when calling ISIS the “JV team,” we got what he projected? Omaha’s fabulous tone made up for his failed ideology and magically delivered what he projected? More Sully: "Whether it is calm and confidence — or fear, anger and hatred — people will respond in kind. Courage can be contagious.” Yeah, and Trump supporters view him as being courageous, and they are catching that contagion themselves. Trump stands up to the activist leftist press where previous Republican leaders feared to do so. So, Trump would be an example of courage, right? Is that what Sully is saying? Sully continues: "Today, tragically, too many people in power are projecting the worst. Many are cowardly, complicit enablers, acting against the interests of the United States, our allies and democracy…” Name names, Sully. Have the courage to do so! It’s a bit cowardly to deal in vagueness and innuendo, no? Who are you talking about? Give examples. How do we know that you’re not 'projecting the worst' right now if you won’t identify specifically whom and what you’re talking about? Sully: “...encouraging extremists at home and emboldening our adversaries abroad...” WHO is doing so? Do you mean Trump, or Maxine Waters, or whom? Sully: “...and threatening the livability of our planet...” Seriously?!!! The “livability of our planet”? Climate doom? Such statements don’t sound like the cool, deliberative leadership that you’ve just been promoting, but rather like the panicky fear-mongering that you’ve been denouncing. Sully: "Many do not respect the offices they hold; they lack — or disregard — a basic knowledge of history, science and leadership; and they act impulsively, worsening a toxic political environment.” You got that right. Most people who run for or hold political office disregard basic knowledge, specifically of the history of economics and the consequences of horrible ideologies. Sully: "The fabric of our nation is under attack, while shame — a timeless beacon of right and wrong — seems dead.” Shame is dead? Yeah, I think that’s a legitimate sentiment. The left is shameless in its attacks. That began with GW Bush. The left saw that their lack of shame was effective, and increased it against McCain, and then ever more so against Romney. Trump’s immunity to it has made them lose their minds in ramping up their shamelessness. Sully: "This is not the America I know and love. We’re better than this.” Again, I don’t know what Sully is talking about. Which ideals does he value? Is he saying that we should always be nice? Is that his ideal? Socialism is okay, or communism, or even a monarchy or dictatorship, just as long as the leaders are nice when imposing those systems on us, and they speak calmly and gently? Sully: "Our ideals, shared facts and common humanity are what bind us together as a nation and a people.” Which ideals? Have the courage to name them. Sully: "Not one of these values is a political issue, but the lack of them is.” Which values? Civility over everything else? Sully: "When I volunteered for military service during wartime…” Aren’t military service and war the opposite of civility? So, then, we must assume that incivility is sometimes acceptable to Sully? Sully: "I took an oath that is similar to the one our elected officials take: 'I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.'” Great! So then Sully must be saying that those who have ideologies which are opposed to the Constitution are our enemies, and we should fight against them? But do so nicely, unless we have to kill them military-style? And now I wonder what Captain Phillips would think of all of this. He and Sully should have a debate. J
  13. Billy, your religion didn't do too well in Australia. Btw, why do "Labor" parties continue to call themselves "Labor" now that they're openly opposed to workers and labor? Australia’s Conservatives Win Surprise Election Victory Voters in mining areas turned on center-left opposition that had campaigned on climate change issues, preliminary results show SYDNEY—Australia’s conservative government eked out a surprise victory in Saturday’s national elections after voters in resource-rich districts turned against center-left opponents who had put climate change at the heart of their campaign...
  14. "Scientists" and "experts" have decided that our current technologies are the end. We won't develop anything new in the future. We won't address any problems with our current usage of devices and the effects that they have on us. Doom! They've predicted it, so it's settled science. Hunched backs and double eyelids: How tech-obsessed humans might look in 2100 SCIENTISTS have imagined how humans may look in the future – and it’s not pretty. Humans in fewer than 100 years may also have claw-like hands from gripping their phones.
  15. What Brad is doing is trying to bog down the discussion by overwhelming it with minutiae. The game is that we asked for repeatable, so Brad is going to pretend to not understand the context, and give all sorts of examples of repeatable in regard to noncontroversial pieces of the puzzle, while hoping that we didn't notice that he switched to talking about pieces when we were specifically asking for repeatable entire picture. It's like someone saying that granite floats on air. You ask for proof via repeatable experiments, and douchebag then goes into the repeatable science of the mineralogical composition of granite, and what evidence there is to label it felsic. Do you know what felsic means? Huh, stupid? No? But yet you have your big important opinions about rocks not floating! Science denier! That, and another tack is bickering about how badly Brad's being treated, and who said what. Boo hoo hoo. Brad has lots of time for all of that, but no time for answering my questions. That's fanboy/activist stuff, not science. Science is actually the mindset that the alarmist fanboy/activists ridicule: critical thinking, skepticism, caution, testing, etc. A truly scientific mindset is that of trying as hard as one can to find flaws in any theory. I don't get the impression that Brad, Meatball2, or Billy have ever taken that approach. Their mindset seems to be that of confirmation bias, heroically fighting the silly "denier" rubes, tee hee heeing, and high-fiving. But maybe I'm wrong. I guess Meatball2 is gone, but I'd like to ask Brad and Billy to tell us about their critical examination of the idea of anthropogenic climate change. What are your biggest criticisms? Do you have any? What holes have you found in the theory? What are the biggest weaknesses in whatever theory you have the most confidence? Do you feel that you have to hide them? Show us your critical scientific side rather than just the fanboy side. After all, even the IPCC identifies severe weaknesses. It admits to significant limitations. Anyway, there's no need for the trick of trying to obscure the forest with leaves. It's really as simple as X amount of CO2 over time period Y should equal temperature Z. Sounding like a broken record: In regard to the big picture issue of anthropogenic climate change (and not isolated, smaller pieces of the picture), show us the repeatable, successful predictions. Identify specifically 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 the start and finish dates of the experiment were, provide the unmolested data, the untainted control, and the unmanipulated historical record. J
  16. 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
  17. I'm not participating in a debate. Where did you get the idea that it was a debate? Pay attention: Billy asked what it would take to change our minds on the issue of anthropogenic climate change. I answered. I named my conditions. I simply explained that I'd need to see the details of the scientific method being followed, and I listed specifically what that would mean. Identify and define the single successful hypothesis, the duration of the observations, how that duration was chosen, identify the predictions, the specific conditions of falsifiability, independent repeatability and validation, etc., etc. I didn't ask for a debate. I didn't ask for douchebags to try to talk me into opting for a different method of what would convince me. But, anyway, regarding your statement above, no -- bullshit -- it is not necessary to see where each party agrees or disagrees. All that is needed is for you to state your case, define it, and support and defend it. That's all that my questions represent. Answer the questions. Stop trying to push the distraction of setting up a "debate." J
  18. Okay, so how to sum up Brad’s return? Let’s see. I asked about the details of the successful hypothesis which “settled” the science once and for all regarding anthropogenic climate change. In response, first Brad substituted different questions that he liked better, and answered those instead: I had asked what the scientists who had achieved the successful model had identified, prior to making predictions and testing them, what length of time must be observed, and how was that length of time arrived at. Brad decided to pretend that I was asking what HE thought should be the proper duration, and not back prior to the predictions being made, but today, long after they’ve been made, and after reality as been observed in regard to those predictions. I asked what percentage of warming mankind is responsible for, and, in response, Brad took two different positions at the same time. He didn’t identify a single hypothesis which represented either of those two positions, or any of the details and conditions of the predictions, durations or falsifiability of either of those positions, but rather just stated that it was what certain unnamed people believed. Etc. With all of Brad’s maneuvering, I think that the potency of my questions is clear, and it’s also clear why Brad, and Billy, are so opposed to answering them. Distractions. Substituting their own distortions of my questions rather than answering mine. Pretending. Lying. Getting caught doing exactly what I’ve said they would do, and illustrating the need for my insistence on answering the questions that the scientific method demands. QED. J
  19. Yeah, it is about time for them to shift back to climate doom. Btw, has anyone suggested yet that the Russians' chaos/disruption/influence campaign began much earlier than anyone had thought, and that they sent Ayn Rand over here to trick us into not voting for democrats? I haven't seen it (I haven't actively looked either) but it has to be a pet theory that someone is preaching out there. J
  20. Let me guess before following the link: Doom? Punishment and control needed? Freedom bad? J
  21. See, the reason that all of the questions go together is because they apply to the same specific single hypothesis, and only to it. Your trick of answering one bit at a time has the purpose of shifting between different hypotheses while hoping that no one notices. A good example would be one of the items on the list that you posted on the issue of falsifiability was a hypothesis about Pinatubo. The subject at hand is the hypothesis that mankind is the primary driver of global warming, and has been for a long time. The subject is not the predictions of the effects of the eruption of Pinatubo. The subject at hand is not the other isolated items on the list. Perhaps you're confused due to the inclusion of one of the questions on my list. That question asks that you specifically identify the hypothesis that was proposed prior to predictions and testing. In case you're confused (or, more likely, in case you're hoping to cause confusion), that doesn't mean that I'm asking you to provide any hypothesis that pops into your head -- say, about Pinatubo, for example -- but that the hypothesis must be that mankind is the primary driver of global warming, and that the people who proposed the hypothesis specifically identified it as such. Understand? Earlier in this discussion, Billy clipped and pressed a floret of mine: "Oh, okay, well then let's talk about the repeatable science of making vinegar and baking soda volcanoes! Douchebag." That was in response to your douchebag maneuver of switching hypotheses and hoping that we didn't notice. The idea behind the comment is that you will look for any and every opportunity to slither and stray from the actual subject in order to attempt to pass off something that doesn't actually address the subject at hand, but which you only hope appears to do so. If I demand falsifiability and repeatability, you will cite falsifiable and repeatable experiments, but ones which do not pertain to the subject at hand. The same is true of predictions and experiment dates and durations, and the choice of definitions: I ask that you identify the terms and conditions of the specific hypothesis and experiments, and instead you substitute your own idiotic pondering about how long of a time period you personally want as the defining aspect of "climate," and therefore how long of a time period that you feel should be required to be tested. Numbnuts, the questions are not about you and your moronic opinions, but about what the scientists themselves have actually proposed, defined, identified, and delimited in their hypotheses, predictions, etc. Specifically what are you accusing me of denying? Anyway, what would happen if you, or Billy, were to provide actual answers to all of my questions would be that we would then apply the identified criteria to reality. Not just to a portion of it here or there, and not while selectively omitting falsifiability on this section or repeatability on that section. The issue that I have is that you haven't answered the questions, but, once again, have only answered your own substitute questions which you seem to think are going to fool us into believing that you've actually answered the questions that I asked. J
  22. Did you not read and comprehend my questions? In the very first sentence I knew that you would pull the moronic tactic of trying to disconnect the questions from their context of referring to the same hypothesis and its resulting predictions and testing, which is why I parenthetically included the comment "and not isolated, smaller pieces of the picture." And here you are being moronic enough to do exactly what I predicted you would, and asked you not to. I didn't ask you to tell me anything that you felt like saying in regard to falsifiability. I asked specific questions. Read them again. The questions all go together, and apply to the exact same hypothesis, predictions and testing. They do not apply whatever random phenomena you wish to substitute. In regard to the issue of falsifiability, my question is what are the specific conditions of falsifiability in relation to the single hypothesis and its climate model which settled the science once and for all. Honestly, you are working way too hard to try to not understand questions which are so very easy to grasp. J
  23. Oh, darn! So, you were going to answer my questions, and, in fact, you were just on the verge of doing so, but now you won’t because I accepted your invitation to join you in snark? Yeah, okay then, we’re all buying that. As earlier, you could easily answer the questions, but you just don’t want to right now? Because you’re having feelings? Because demanding that being treated in a way better than the way that you treat people is more important than scientifically nailing down the climate issue once and for all? Heh. Fuck off, pretender.
  24. My favorite thing in all of this was Brad's original acceptance of my questions about following the requirements of the scientific method. Initially, he had no problems understanding my questions and their relevance, because, at the time, he believed that the climate alarmists must have been complying with true science, and that the answers could be easily found. He has since discovered otherwise, and is therefore now dodging the questions, and trying to treat them as if the don't exist, or are not worthy of consideration, while offering no explanation of why the are suddenly not worthy. So, as is true with Billy, open honest discussion is to be avoided, and all that's on the menu is mound after mound of Tasty Steamed Octopus.
  25. Are you trying to express something, Billy? Searching for some way of continuing to avoid real science while still believing that science is on your side? Which tenets might be jettisoned, and how might we justify doing so, but only in regard to climate? Tee hee hee? Oh dear, oh dear, our discussion has gone off the rails. How might we get it back? Please don't suggest that Billy might help get it back on the rails by answering the questions which have been asked of him repeatedly, or by explaining why he thinks that the questions are not valid or pertinent. No. Billy is not the problem. The problem is the lesser Others. They must be fixed. Billy, I know you're very upset about the requirements of science. You seem to be taking it personally, and it's almost as if you feel that I invented them, and that I did so just to spite you. The truth is that I'm just the messenger. You're really not angry with me, but with the idea of science not conforming to your feelings and wishes. J