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. The end of the distinction between the sacred and the profane marks the end of civilization. You are the majority so you are getting your wish. Greg Awesome! More magic predictions of doom and fantasies of others getting punished! I wonder: Is having an ape-like brain a "lifestyle choice," or is it a defect that certain people are just born with and will never overcome? J
  2. No one has to dig to find dirt in your life! Greg Good comeback, Apey! Way to try to skirt the issue once more of the failure of your magical predictions of doom. Very effective! J
  3. But your digging for dirt in mine -- such as your concluding that I'm an evil feminized leftist who has never succeed at anything because I laugh at your failed magical predictions of doom -- somehow makes your life cleaner? Hahahaha! J
  4. You're actually referring to females not women. And they don't think... they feel. Greg That's what apey males do: they feel that predictions of magical dates of doom must be real. J
  5. Do you feel better about yourself now, Apey? That's right, let it out! Express your anger about having been shown to be a complete fool in believing magical predictions of doom where everyone but you would get punished. J
  6. Really? Heh. That sounds really kookypants to me. But anyway, practice Objectivism and prove your statement. Objectively show how you've objectively measured and evaluated the intellectual status of the past two centuries compared to that of the entire history of mankind. Again, WTF? Where are you getting these doom fantasies? Are you twelve? Why are you interested in Objectivism yet you don't actually practice it, but instead just make up panicky, overblown nonsense? I think that maybe you're letting the romanticism of Rand's fiction distort your thinking. Where you should be thinking rationally, you're thinking romantically and emotionally. You're having fantasies of doom and destruction, and of superhero Rand and her mighty followers swooping in to save the day. When supper had ended, Rand took the cup and said, "Take this all of you and drink from it; this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant..."J My answer to all this - Read DIM Hypothesis and judge. Yeah, that's what I thought, you're a DIMwit rather than an Objectivist. Stop following Peikoff and his nutty, half-baked judgments, and start applying reason and rationality to reality. How is it that you can study Objectivism so passionately and then turn on a dime and abandon it? Objectivism is supposed to be about observing and judging reality, where what you're practicing is the act of ignoring reality in favor of obeying an authority figure and his kooky, frantic theories. J
  7. Really? Heh. That sounds really kookypants to me. But anyway, practice Objectivism and prove your statement. Objectively show how you've objectively measured and evaluated the intellectual status of the past two centuries compared to that of the entire history of mankind. Again, WTF? Where are you getting these doom fantasies? Are you twelve? Why are you interested in Objectivism yet you don't actually practice it, but instead just make up panicky, overblown nonsense? I think that maybe you're letting the romanticism of Rand's fiction distort your thinking. Where you should be thinking rationally, you're thinking romantically and emotionally. You're having fantasies of doom and destruction, and of superhero Rand and her mighty followers swooping in to save the day. When supper had ended, Rand took the cup and said, "Take this all of you and drink from it; this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant..." J
  8. Actually, I've known many more leftists who were truly self-suffient than nut job conservative doomsday preppers who were. The lefty hippies actually independently produced their own food, clothing, etc., where the right-wing paranoid pretender preppers were totally dependent on society and just bought all of their prepper goods from the system that they claimed to oppose. In fact, all of the loony right-wing conspiracy preachers of imminent doom that I've known made their money by complying with, and even taking great advantage of, government's licensing or otherwise regulating their chosen professions and industries. I think the same is probably true of Apey Greg. J
  9. Ellen The difference between climate-alarmists (and other polluters of the concept of science) and Danto is that Danto was correct about art. Warhol's Brillo boxes are art, regardless of whether most people would see them as such, and they are even art by Rand's and Kamhi's definitions and criteria. So, it's not just Warhol's of Danto's "theory of art" that makes them art, but Rand's and Kamhi's as well. They are selective re-creations of reality according to the artist's metaphysical value-judgments. J
  10. She used her definition's genus in the statement. She said, "As a re-creation of reality, a work of art has to be representational..." That is the same thing as saying, "As a work of art, a work of art has to be representational." There is no getting around the fact that she is referring to her criteria of all art. Why don't you think that? After all, you claim that she was only talking about visual art in that statement. You seem to be randomly picking and choosing which aspects of the statement that you want to apply to all art and which that you want to apply only to visual art. Her use of the phrase "As a re-creation of reality" is her use of her definition and criteria of all art, therefore what she says in the second half of the same sentence refers to all art. The context in which she said it doesn't change that fact. You're confusing the concept of "subject" with the concept of "subject matter." Rand's requirement that all art must have an intelligible subject applies to all of the arts, including music, architecture and dance: She expected and required them to be about something -- heroism, depravity, love, struggle, triumph, failure, etc. -- and that that thematic something, that subject, must be identifiable/intelligible. When she said that every work of art must have an intelligible subject, she didn't mean that it must have perceptible "subject matter." Yes. Her view was that music was different in that it was a language of emotions -- it did not deal in concretes or even descriptions of concretes, but rather told a story via emotions. She believed that it communicated the composer's view of man and existence. She also believed that one mood or emotion wasn't enough to do that in art, and that a series of emotions were needed in order to add up to a story of emotional events which would deliver the composer's meaning. She was saying that each individual brings his own details to experiencing the plot of emotions in music, but that those details aren't important. Her view was that the emotions themselves were the story, and that the details didn't really matter. In a "triumphant" section of music, Rand might envision vikings raising their swords to the sky in victory, where Frank might see Shogun ninjas lighting a victory fire. Either way, her view was that the triumph was in the music, as were the emotional events that preceded it in the music's story. Wrong. She expected that music would one day be discovered to have objectively intelligible subjects (not subject matter) and meanings. Some day in the future, she would be shown to have been right about her judgments of the subjects/meanings of works of music, and also of the morality of their composers. Beethoven's work, for example, would be objectively shown to have the nasty subjects and meanings that she believed them to have -- man being fated to doom and despair and all that. J
  11. Rand's view was that specific sequences universally trigger or evoke specific emotions, and listeners then conceptualize those emotions (her view was that music operated in the reverse of the other arts). So, I think that the accurate way to say it would be that Rand thought that a musical sequence evoked an emotion, and then that the emotion communicated a concept. The melody and chords therefore only indirectly conveyed the concept -- the experiencing of the emotion was an integral step in the "language." The chain was: Music > emotion > meaning. The discovery of her hoped-for "conceptual vocabulary" would mean that there would be only one objectively valid emotion that could be experienced due to hearing a specific section of music, and the emotion would lead to only one objectively valid meaning. That's a language. Yes, she was. Her (mistaken) view was that a specific section of music would evoke the same emotion in everyone. There are a lot of things that Rand said about art that must be ignored or taken as contradicting everything else she said about it. I think that she meant that music cannot tell a story to the same degree or with the same amount of precision and detail that literature can. But she believed that it could indeed tell stories of "defiance" and "victory" and such. And I think that she believed that music would be much better at telling stories once the future "conceptual vocabulary" was discovered. It doesn't take any "imagining." Read Rand's own words. She very strongly, and very hatefully, vilified anyone who experienced in art what she did not, or who had a different interpretation than she did. It is not fanciful or whimsical to think that she would very likely do the same in all of her judgments of others' tastes and interpretations of art. What do you mean "obviously"? Heh. Um, re-read the first few words of the quote that I provided: "As a re-creation of reality..." Recognize them? They are the genus of Rand's definition or "art"!!! She is saying that anything that qualifies as art -- a re-creation of reality -- by her criteria HAS to be representational, and that her requirement of intelligibility applies to it. ALL ART. She classified music as a valid art form. Therefore, logically, she classified it as a "re-creation of reality," and therefore required it to be representational and objectively intelligible! I think that the mistake you're making is one of a simple logic error. You seem to be saying that since Rand's comments that I quoted were said while she was discussing her hatred of abstract art, then those comments must only apply to abstract art. Non sequitur. Does not follow. Anyway, Rand DID think that music, and all other art forms that she classified as valid, had to be representational, which is why she was hellbent on trying to make music qualify as being representational at some point in the future. Her definition of art is that it must be representational -- it must "re-create reality." Her entire approach to art was to start with a mimetic theory that seemed to work well with literature, and to then try to force it onto the other art forms. Some of the other art forms, not being representational, then had to be adjusted to fit the theory, and therefore contradictions and double standards had to be introduced as fixes. Her trick with music was to give it a pass based on assertions about future discoveries. Her trick with architecture was to place it in a special "class by itself" (a class which contradicted her criteria of art). Apparently it didn't occur to her that anyone could apply the same tricks to anything else, and therefore classify anything as art: Someday a "conceptual vocabulary" of abstract painting will be discovered, making it objective, and therefore we can objectively classify it as a legitimate art form today; I want furniture, automotive and product packaging design to qualify as art according to Objectivism's criteria, and therefore even though they serve utilitarian purposes and don't re-create reality, I will put them into special "classes by themselves" which magically allow them to be classified as re-creating reality while not re-creating reality, and as not serving utilitarian purposes while serving utilitarian purposes! As for architecture and dance, Rand just didn't think any of it through. Her philosophy of aesthetics is so sloppy/hasty that she didn't take the time to apply her own criteria to the art forms that she accepted as valid. She didn't address the issue of architecture and dance not meeting her requirement of being mimetically representational and intelligible, but just kind of tried to gloss over it. She didn't write anything on the subject of architecture or dance that was philosophically disciplined, but merely advised her readers to review her fictional portrayal of architecture to understand her views on the subject, and just bluffed and blustered off the top of her head on the subject of dance. She seems to have been blissfully unaware of her blatant contradictions and double standards of accepting architecture as a valid art form, at least until a Ford Hall Forum audience member asked her very late in life to clarify her contradictions during a Q&A. She fumbled in her answer, but the issue apparently stuck with her, because she is rumored to have reconsidered her views on architecture as an art form (which is why there is no entry on the subject in the Lexicon). I understand that that's what she believed, or wanted to believe. My point is that her opinion about listeners universally identifying the same depersonalized emotion is unwarranted. It is not something that she scientifically tested, but rather something that she merely asserted after introspecting and giving way too much weight to sloppily gathered samples of tainted anecdotal evidence that confirmed her biases. Where's the proof of the above assertions of universal experiences of emotion? Where are the results of the tests that Rand performed in which she exposed test subjects to music while denying them access to "outside considerations," and where she applied the same standards which she used when rejecting abstract art because the emotions it evoked were too vague? The same is true of colors, and of color-palettes. Most people wouldn't describe a collection of cool dark grays and warm blacks as lighthearted gaiety, nor bright pinks, yellows and oranges as mournful. It's not enough to say what a song or a set of colors IS NOT (not lighthearted, not mournful, etc.). Rand requires us to say specifically what it IS. See, our understanding of Rand's standards of classification and judgment are informed by her rejection of abstract art. Abstract sounds -- music -- are just as vague and subjectivity-laden as abstract visuals. In fact, in my experience in testing Objectivists and Objectivishistics, music may be more vague than abstract visuals. And let's not forget some of Rand's comments on various composers and works of music. Her opinions about their "malevolence" and such. Are we to take such silly views as representing the universal identifications of emotions conveyed by the music? The most common reaction that I hear from people about Rand's "identifications" of the emotional content of works of music is, "Seriously? WTF? How is she imagining hearing doom or defeat in this piece of music, or Romantic joy in that one?" Not exactly a ringing endorsement of Rand's view of universal emotion identification, or of her absolute confidence in her own musical connoisseurship and the inevitable objective superiority of her tastes! J
  12. I see, you're not an Objectivist. So I misidentified you as being uptight and fretting about people not being converted by the films to Objectivism. You're actually uptight and fretting about their not being converted to laissez-faire capitalism. Yeah, I don't think that you feel doomed, or that you like doom per se, but rather that you like the feeling of being above the doom. You seem to really enjoy finding something to bitch about so that you can feel superior to it. Your review doesn't sound like laughter. It sounds like bitching and disappointment. It comes across as too personal and important to you to be laughter. No, I think that the problem is that the book isn't something that translates well to film. It's romanticized, heroic talky-talk. It's not cinematic. It would be quite difficult for even the best people in Hollywood to make a great film (or films) of Atlas Shrugged. Rand called her style Romantic Realism. The people who produced these films decided to go contemporary, thus placing more emphasis on the Realism half of the equation, and the films' harshest critics (at least the ones that I've read) have suggested that the style should have leaned even farther toward the Realism side -- they wanted deeper character development (much deeper than what was contained in the novel), they wanted realistic-sounding dialog (despite its not being in the novel), etc. I think the opposite approach should have been taken. Every frame of the films should have had the look and feel of a clearly alternate reality. On a previous thread, Michael Marotta suggest the visual style of Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, as well as possibly steam punk/diesel punk. And I agree that the novel demands something like that when translated to film: more Romanticism than Realism in the mix -- both in visuals and in acting. Maybe even something like Sin City. The posed, talky-talk artifice needs to be ramped up rather than toned down. I don't think that any of the three films were great, nor were they bad. Compared to their contemporaries at Redbox or on Netflix streaming, I'd say that they're better than 50 or 60 percent of their competition. J
  13. I wasn't aware that laughter is a sign of panic. Laughter isn't a sign of panic. You're not laughing, but worrying about a generation who won't be converted to Objectivism because you think the movie was so bad. Your posts are uptight. You're fretting about the movie's quality, not laughing about it, just as you were fretting about buildings on the architecture thread -- about a "much needed" design "revolution," and about "dramatic change" being "badly needed." You're an art-panicker. You like to piss and moan and preach doom. J
  14. You made a personal comment and I answered you personally. You don't and never will because of your attitude. Greg So, my attitude of laughing at your irrational posing will doom me to economic poverty? That's your theory? What an assclown. It's not a theory. Just a principle. You won't succeed in life with your attitude. If you changed it, you'd have a much better odds. Greg I've already succeeded in life. So much for your "principle." J
  15. You made a personal comment and I answered you personally. You don't and never will because of your attitude. Greg So, my attitude of laughing at your irrational posing will doom me to economic poverty? That's your theory? What an assclown. J
  16. I agree with what MSK just said in post 411: "Thus, a sense of life is not a type of concept. It is essentially a long-term mood with qualifications, but there is a concept defining what a sense of life is." The same is true of any concept: A car itself is not a concept, but our "mental integration" of cars via "a process of abstraction" and uniting them with "a specific definition" is a concept; a vague sense of doom in itself is not a concept, but our mentally integrating the state that we're referring to when discussing vague senses of doom is a concept, etc. Her notion of sense of life sounds deterministic because it is "pre-conceptual," it is "emotional" and "subconscious," and it is formed "long before" a person "is old enough to grasp such a concept as metaphysics." In other words, it is not chosen. It merely happens to people, apparently at a very young age, and then it becomes "a habitual pattern" and an "automatic response to the world around him." It becomes a "compelling motivational power" that "underlies all of his experiences" and influences all of his future values and decisions. J
  17. If the observed temperatures in reality don't fall within that range, are you saying that the model which predicted temperatures within that range is therefore falsified, or is it still just a "minor discrepancy"? See, it would be nice if you would actually answer my questions, rather than bluffing and blustering while avoiding them. I have to wonder why you refuse to answer the questions. Is it because you know that once you actually identify precisely what you mean by "minor discrepancies" versus observations which would falsify a given model, then we can begin to apply your own stated standards to the "consensus scientists'" models, at which point you'd have to try to explain why so many of them are outside of your own stated acceptable range? So, once again, the unanswered questions are: What standards are you using to judge a "discrepancy" to be "minor" versus "major," and, more importantly, how large can a "discrepancy" be before it would count as falsifying an AGW model. How far off from reality could AGW models be in their predictions before you would classify the models as falsified? Yes or no, if a model fails to "explain at least 50% of the variation in temperatures with 95% certainty," has that model therefore been falsified? If your answer is "no," then which observations in reality would falsify the model? J Yes, at the 95% level. Thank you for the direct answer! Finally!!! Okay, so, now, which single climate model and its single set of predictions represents the "scientific consensus" view and is considered to be "settled science"? Who created the model, when were its predictions made, and when were they announced publicly? How and when, and by whom, was it decided that the model's predictions had been going on long enough to have "settled" the science? How was the timeline derived for accepting the "settling" of the science? Was that timeline explicitly identified prior to the predictions being made? Please post graphs of the model's predictions. Include visual indicators of when the predictions began, which areas are included in the "95% certainty" range, and a line representing observations recorded in reality. Thanks, J
  18. My favorite part of the rest of the article is this: "But none of the climate simulations carried out for the IPCC produced this particular hiatus at this particular time. That has led sceptics — and some scientists — to the controversial conclusion that the models might be overestimating the effect of greenhouse gases, and that future warming might not be as strong as is feared." I love the author's classification of "sceptics" and "scientist" as two mutually exclusive categories. Heh. If you're a sceptic, you are, by the author's definition, not a scientist! J
  19. You have no real-world knowledge of the scientific method or how "real science" works. As always, you're bluffing and blustering. You're making shit up. Actually, your model IS falsified under those conditions. That's completely illogical. Being that far off in your predictions DOES NOT mean that "you're on the right track." The new model does not predict reality, and is also therefore falsified. "Minor" by what rational standard? How large of a discrepancy would it have to be before you would label it "major"?!!! Would ANY discrepancy, no matter how great, count as falsifying AGW?!!! Indeed they need to be explained! And they need to be explained before people can legitimately claim that the "scientific consensus" is that it's a "settled matter, a fact of reality." No, that's not how science works. You're just making shit up off of the top of your head. One needn't come up with a slightly better theory. The absence of a better theory doesn't make any theory true. If I claim that invisible pixies are the cause of climate change, and then my reporting of the pixies' predictions of what they're going to do to future temperatures turned out to be better than AGW theories' predictions, that wouldn't mean that I was "on the right track," and that the pixie theory could only be "falsified" if another theory made better predictions. No one has to. Scientifically, the absence of better theory doesn't make AGW correct. You're talking out of your ass. You cannot know, control for, or compute all natural factors. You're just making shit up. J
  20. Tard, What Bob means is that when climate alarmists' models and predictions are shown to be wrong -- when they are shown to have been falsified -- the alarmists deny that they have been falsified. In other words, they allow for no possible logical disproof of their theories. Understand? That's what it means to call a theory "unfalsifiable." See, it's like when climate scientists recognize that their predictions didn't pan out, and then try to come up with an explanation of why they didn't pan out, yet they don't admit that their failed predictions disprove their theory. They assert that their theory is still valid, but that some unexplained phenomenon must have affected it and given it a false appearance of failure. They will not name or accept any possible outcomes as disproving their theory. Over the next century, temperatures could rise by 10 degrees, or they could cool by 10 degrees, or they could remain exactly the same, and regardless of which turned out to be true, the alarmists would be claiming that it is proof of their theory, and not disproof. J
  21. Because he's a population biologist and not a climate scientist. In all of your deep studies of climate science, you've never come across Ehrlich's views and his influence over the subject? Wow. I guess that's what happens when one has a hasty Google search/Wikipedia "education." So, your position is that he is employed at Stanford as Professor of Population Studies and Biological Sciences, as well as President of Stanford's Center for Conservation Biology, because Stanford doesn't take him seriously? Where did you get the idea that he has never published in a peer-reviewed journal? You just now discovered who he is, and instantly you're an expert on what all of his peers think of him and his work? I'm not surprised. It appears that your notion of "just enjoying yourself while you can" includes the thrill of attempting to control others, inflict pain, and try to make them as pessimistic and miserable as you are. Typical AGW alarmist mentality. J
  22. How could someone who is the serious student of climate science that you pose as being not have heard of Ehrlich? Do you mean "no one" other than Stanford University and the leftist media and Ehrlich's leftist "critics" who think that he hasn't gone far enough? Since you've just now heard of Ehrlich for the first time, why are you claiming to know who does or doesn't take him seriously? Do you really believe that you can make us believe that you've had enough time to study the issue to come to a rational and informed conclusion? I'll believe that you believe what you say about AGW when I see evidence that you've voluntarily changed your life accordingly. All the rest is just bluff and bluster. J
  23. You can mock me all you like, but it won't change the fact that your belief has no basis in reality whatsoever. Leftists don't actually believe in the eco-doom that they preach. Actions speak louder than words, and for people who are shrieking in hysteria about imminent catastrophe due to AGW, they're amazingly unconcerned about their personally not taking any voluntary actions themselves to eliminate from their own lives the alleged cause of the coming apocalypse. Here and there they take minor symbolic actions which cost them very little, and often those symbolic actions actually add to their carbon footprint when all things are considered, but generally, they not only exempt themselves from the "solutions" that they seek to impose on others, but they often use and waste significantly more energy and create more CO2 than the average person. I'll believe that there is an actual "scientific consensus" on AGW when I see the leftist scientists and their followers and supporters eagerly voluntarily giving up the technologies that they claim are causing the imminent doom. I'll believe that they believe what they say when their actions match their statements. J
  24. At least Ehrlich appears to have learned to stop making predictions with specific dates. I have to wonder what Naomi thinks of Ehrlich. Did he discredit himself long ago? Or is he deserving of the respect that he still gets from the "scientific" left? Are his failed predictions of mega-doom evidence that he might not be very good at science, or does Naomi buy into the spin that Ehrlich's only mistake was that he "underestimated" the doom? J
  25. "A noted researcher who questioned the climate's sensitivity to greenhouse gases says his paper is not being published for ideological reasons and because it might fuel doubt in the climate change story..."