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. From the Popper article: "However, these ideas are intended to guide how we do science, but are not really intended to impose a set of rules that we never violate." No, they're actually rules that can't be violated. They're the defining elements of real science. They're not suggestions, or sort of kind of rough, optional guidelines which we can ignore if we feel that we want to be free to color outside the lines. Without them, we have pseudoscience. The fact that so-called scientists are beginning to advocate the idea of eliminating falsifiability, or at least sometimes skirting its requirements when things aren't working out well for their theories, is quite telling. "In most cases, the systems we’re considering are too complex for a set of simplistic rules to be applicable." Ah, the rules that govern science are "simplistic" when we want our theories to bypass them, huh? I would imagine then that logic would also be icky poopy "simplistic," since it's really no different from the notion of falsifiability. Why can't science just be about feelings? After all, it's too complex and advanced for most childish idiots and the stupid logic stuff that they believe from grade school! Are there other scientific principles which will also soon be too stinking simplistic? Perhaps prediction and testing? I mean, how inconvenient! Gosh, the little people with their elementary school ideas of science just don't understand the complexity involved in something as grand and important as our work in climate science, so their foolish rules about prediction and testing should be reconsidered. We're scientists, after all, and they're just stupid nobodies, so why should they tell us what to do? So let's skip the predictions and tests part, and just go from hypothesis to analysis. My analysis is that I feel really good and confident in the brilliance of my hypothesis! I'm amazing, and it's settled science.
  2. Rand was very focused on the issue of volition, and I think that she did everything she could to push it in her art. It's effective, and it definitely makes her work distinctive, but I think that sometimes it's so volition-happy that it backfires: the characters sometimes come across as not being real humans who are engaged in making volitional choices, but as unreal playthings of a higher being (their creator, Rand) who are deterministically destined to serve a purpose outside of themselves (their creator's plot and message). Rand believed that determinism in literature resulted in doom and despair. She overlooked the fact that characters who are fated to be brilliant heroes and stars of their professions can just as powerfully represent determinism. J
  3. Jonathan, you're behaving like an envious liberal failure who imagines privilege where there is none. Are you trying to claim that unlicensed people are free to compete with licensed electricians in all areas of electrical work? Are you claiming that there are no regulations which prevent them from selling any and all of their services to whomever they choose while not being licensed by the state? Are you trying to peddle the falsehood that the state does not use the initiation of force, or the threat of the initiation of force, against unlicensed electricians who simply wish to sell their services without the government's permission and restrictions? We are not living in a "Capitalist private sector free market." A system which imposes licensing and regulation on businesses is not properly called a "Capitalist private sector free market." No one has claimed otherwise. Indeed, some are much better, but, despite being better, they are prevented by the state from doing tasks which the state allows only licensed electricians to do. Try to pay attention, Apey. The issue is not that there is or is not "work here for all of us." The issue is that the state forcibly prevents what you call mere "handymen" from competing with licensed electricians. The "handymen" will be punished by the state if they perform certain tasks without a license from the state. Address the actual issue here, rather than trying to slither out of if with your really lame Clinton-esque maneuvers. I'm saying I do very well regardless of a license because I'm decent responsible competent and honest. Does that mean that you don't have a license or that you do? Are you saying that you do have a license, but that you'd do just as well without one? Are you just arbitrarily asserting that the license has had no impact, no benefit at all, on the amount of money you've made compared to what you could make without it? When a state mandates licenses and prevents unlicensed competitors from entering the field in any and all capacities that they choose, it is not a "voluntary" system. When a state-licensed electrician is protected via government initiation of force from having to compete with unlicensed electricians, he is not dealing in a voluntary system. You're being a Clinton. There IS a difference between a license and a degree. A HUGE difference. A license involves the state's use of force. But your attitude is pretty common among people who benefit from government force. They tend to downplay the involuntary nature of the benefits that they receive. People on welfare, for example, will say that there's no difference between welfare and charity, just as you say that there's no difference between a license and a degree. Yeah, when you can't answer questions, and when your Clinton-esque equivocations and distractions don't work, your last resort is always to try to put a magic hex on me. My disagreeing with any position of yours, or catching you in one of your many moments of stupidity, is going to bring me doom! J
  4. The only scene in Rand's novels which I think would qualify as producing an imaginal semblance of a full-fledged Kantian sublime type of emotional response is the one where a break in a smelting furnace happens at the Rearden mills. An event overwhelming to "the senses" and presenting frightful danger overcome with decisive action probably enacted in an exhilarated joy-tinged state. The Winston Tunnel disaster is horrific, but the narrative indicates that the people on the passenger train had likely passed out from smoke inhalation before the freight train hit the passenger train. The people in the cab of that train would have had only moments of ghastly anticipation of their doom. No overcoming possible with the walls of the tunnel collapsing. Dominique's exhilarated state during the Cortlant dynamiting meets the specs in terms of her reaction, but the event is distanced for the reader, since the noise and falling rubble happen quietly off stage. I think that the general emotional frame of Rand's fiction makes it a good candidate for the "unsettling" variant of "the aesthetic of the strange," as described briefly in the post above. Ellen Heh. Electron Ellen is so lost in the act of 'lectron chasin' individual scenes from Rand's art that she can't see the big picture Sublime? Say it aint so! Okay, so, let's try to focus on the big picture. In Rand's art, she presents the individual against the what? What threatening and destructive phenomena did Rand's art present as gray and shapeless, and as being "everywhere and nowhere"? When Galt sought to stop the motor of the world, was he speaking of actually physically stopping the Earth from turning, or was he talking about something else? What was he rising against? Was it of immense magnitude? Was it a powerful, threatening and destructive force? Which entities did Rand's fictional characters speak of as using "terror in place of proof," of using "fear as your weapon" and of "the horrors they practice." Which phenomena did her heroes describe as having "horrors are their ends," and that "their bloodiest horrors are unleashed to punish the crime of thinking"? To what or whom did the heroes ascribe "the terror of unreason," and as being "expert at contriving means of terror," and of "giving you ample cause to feel the fear"? Which phenomena did the heroes in Rand's art, as well as readers, feel their power to resist and rise above? J
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. "James Lovelock, who first detected CFCs in the atmosphere and proposed the Gaia hypotheses, claims society should retreat to ‘climate-controlled cities’ and give up on large expanses of land which will become uninhabitable." South Park guy overcome by global warming: J
  14. Quick question: Have there ever been any Anthropogenic Global Warming supporters/proponents who have identified the results which would disprove their theories? I have yet to hear of any AGWers who specifically state which conditions would falsify their theories. In fact, whenever any merely logically implied conditions of disproof are found to exist, the goal posts are always then moved, even to the extent of renaming the theory itself to erase the obvious falseness of the previous name. (It makes you wonder if "Climate Change" would give way to "Climate Smothering Stagnation/Sameness" if all evidence of change disappeared). J
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. Yeah, um, did I miss something? I was asking to be shown actual scientific models/experiments which accurately predicted future observations, not an outline or summation of someone's opinions of how the science is possibly suggestive and potentially useful. I haven't declare anything "useless." Even failed models/experiments can have great use. Science is very much about learning from failed predictions. I don't know. I haven't made a catalog of failed AGW predictions/models over the years/decades, and they don't tend to remain easily publicly accessible once they've seriously gone down in flames. They just kind of disappear, much like Obama's statements about keeping your doctor or saving $2500 quietly disappearing from government healthcare websites. Maybe do a Google search for "climate model fail"? Sorry that I don't have time to be more helpful. J
  21. Yes, I mean something like a global climate model. I mean a set of predictions based on a hypothesis. I mean a proposal to be tested, such as, "If mankind produces X amount of substance Y, then temperatures will increase to Z over the specified period of time." I mean actual, real science. Testable explanations and accurate, repeatable predictions. I mean hypotheses, experimentation, observation, and, of course, the inclusion of falsifiability. J
  22. Indeed. I think that we could take the average leftist and ask him to rate Ehrlich versus anyone who points out how hilariously wrong his predictions and croakings of doom have been, and that average leftist would answer that Ehrlich is a true scientist who is deserving of great respect, and has only been slightly somewhat off in one or two of his predictions, and, in comparison, any hateful denier who attacks Ehrlich's errors is a non-scientific kook who deserves no respect, and should probably be forcibly silenced. J
  23. I've very rarely seen AGWers embarrassed to associate with the lunatic preachers of doom. J
  24. Lately I've heard a lot of AGW activists pouring their hearts out in concern for their fellow man. They claim to be very concerned about the livelihoods and lives that, in their opinion, will most definitely be lost if we don't impose all sorts if restrictions on mankind's activities right fucking now. Only horrors await. Incalculable wealth and lives will be destroyed. Oceans of blood will be on the hands of the deniers if they succeed in preventing "the consensus" from doing what's right. And the cost of implementing the restrictions on human freedom and productivity would be minuscule in comparison to the apocalypse that will result from not restricting all of mankind. But what if they're wrong? What if they impose their restrictions on mankind, costing trillions and trillions, and imposing immense hardships, poverty and death on billions of people over a threat which existed only in their minds? What consequences do they think that they should face for being so stupid, arrogant and destructive? Why are they betting with others' lives, placing blame, and now even proposing banning dissent, jailing "deniers," and otherwise punishing those whom they believe are sending the human race to its doom, yet they bring no skin to the game themselves -- they propose no consequences for the possibility of their being fooled by pseudoscience into being the ones who will have destroyed lives and livelihoods? It's easy to be certain when there's no accountability. But would "the consensus" scientists and activists be willing to put their own fortunes and lives on the line? If they succeed in imposing massive economic hardships on mankind, and it turns out to have been done for no reason other than their own gullibility or short-sighted greed, will they agree to compensate their fellow men by surrendering everything they own and blowing their own brains out in the public square? J
  25. I was thinking today about how Bill seems to be impressed by the idea that the global warming issue has a historic timeline which includes people from long ago who studied it seriously, fretted about it, and pondered our potential doom. It made me wonder if there are any population-spooking hobgoblins that we could invent off the top of our heads which we couldn't back up with similar histories. I can't think of any. J