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. 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
  2. I've very rarely seen AGWers embarrassed to associate with the lunatic preachers of doom. J
  3. 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
  4. "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
  5. 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
  6. Another interesting article: It's okay to lie about climate change. J
  7. Okay, I've apparently misunderstood you. You had mentioned that you were an AGWer, and after I asked you to clarify which "consensus" you were referring to, you posted the two links, which I assumed meant that you agreed with their content, and that they represented the "consensus" views that you thought would have to be falsified in order to disprove AGW. Sorry if I got that wrong. And if I did get it wrong, then I don't understand the point of your posting the two links. I didn't check for "reason for doubt." Powell did, as described here: "Articles that merely claimed to have found some discrepancy, some minor flaw, some reason for doubt, I did not classify as rejecting global warming." SA's frantic Chicken Little Ashutosh Jogalekar then misidentified the graphic as showing that "more than nine thousand" of the scientists/authors "agree with the basic fact of global warming" -- Jogalekar falsely counts even those who have "reason for doubt" as agreeing with AGW. Honestly, I really don't care about the "consensus" and what exactly it means, or how one might go about defining it. I only asked because I was interested in discovering your view of AGW. I'd rather you just tell me what you think rather than post links to others' opinions that apparently don't represent your views anyway. And I'm not trying to Phil Coates you. I'm not demanding a single-spaced 2000-page paper, but just asking for maybe a simple overview paragraph. You say that you're an AGWer. Okay, to what degree? What percentage of global warming or climate change is mankind causing? What temperature should the globe be at today, as well as one hundred years from now, if mankind wasn't causing it to rise? What do you think the effects of global warming will be? What will happen if nothing is done to stop mankind from changing the global temperature? Would the effects be negative? Positive? Apocalyptical? What changes, if any, do you advocate in mankind's behavior? If your preferred changes were implemented throughout the world, how long would it take for us to measure their beneficial effects? What would you recommend if it were discovered that your preferred changes didn't result in the conditions that you predicted? Here's mine: "Minnestrata." It might also help if I were to clarify my question a little. I'm not necessarily looking for specific responses to specific arguments, but asking more generally what method you would use in deciding which opposing positions is valid. For example, assuming that you don't have access to the actual computer models that are used by AGW proponents, and you therefore can't run them through tests yourself, and you can't obtain the raw data or access any of the original equipment or files on which it was gathered/stored/edited, and therefore you can't independently verify firsthand any of the materials, processes and conclusions or criticisms, how do you decide what to believe? By what method? J
  8. Bill, a few questions occurred to me today: Which prominent critics and their criticisms of AGW have you read, and how would you answer the substance of their criticisms? What do you think of the mindset of certain proponents of AGW in the sciences, academe and politics of ostracizing and intimidating dissenters, and now even proposing using the force of law to silence and punish them? Why is it that only supporters of AGW are the ones trying to silence critics and punish them? Is that a scientific mindset? Isn't a truly scientific mindset to encourage and welcome criticism, rather than to do everything to prevent it? Do you think that massive public financial incentives involved in AGW research play any role in motivating people to believe what they believe, and to advocate putting their fellow men in cages for having a different opinion? If not money, what do you think would motivate anyone to have such a desire to be so abusive to one's fellow humans? Do you think that governments who have funded climate research should consider how their methods of funding may have tainted the science, and how they may have incentivized and rewarded any predetermined outcomes? Can you give some examples of governments funding and encouraging aggressive criticism of the theories that they support and of refuting the outcomes that they clearly wanted ahead of time, and of incentivizing and rewarding dissent rather than ignoring, ostracizing or punishing it? J
  9. I don't think that the language of actual science is to "imply" things, but to state them as explicitly and specifically as possible. The implying thing is more the art of propaganda. The blog post misidentifies what the infographic states, as do you. The infographic reveals that 1 in 9137 authors explicitly rejected anthropogenic global warming. But, contrary to the blog's author's statement, the graphic and the data used to create it do not reveal that "more than nine thousand" scientists "agree with the basic fact of global warming." The fact that the 9136 have not explicitly rejected anthropogenic global warming theory does not mean that they agree with it. In fact, in reviewing the methodology that was used in creating the graphic, it's clear that many of those who have "reason for doubt" were not counted as explicitly rejecting it, but were counted as accepting it. They should be counted as neither rejecting nor accepting it. I'm reminded of Monty Python's Life of Brian crucifixion scene: "All right! We'll soon settle this! Hands up, all those who don't want to be crucified here." Additionally, the blog authors have not read and understood all of the reports, but merely did some computer assisted searches for certain terms that they thought might indicate explicit rejection of AGW. And they also appear to have applied rather subjective, not to mention biased, judgements as to what might constitute "minor" disagreement with AGW versus "explicit rejection." So their goal appears to have been to add just enough of a trace of science to their propaganda to make it fool people. But, it my experience, this is typical of how the climate game works. Make an assertion that is not supported by the data, declare victory and announce that the "deniers" have "no scientific credibility," all the while demonstrating such a nonchalant attitude toward science as to be unable to accurately report what a simple infographic actually states and what it does not. Incidentally, let's run the logic of the "no credibility" claim. If "deniers" have "no scientific credibility," then the one author out of 9137 has no credibility, since he is a "denier." Therefore his paper doesn't count as actual credible science, and therefore there are zero credible scientists who reject AGW. And since the one has falsely represented himself as a real scientist, maybe we should arrest him, and "put him to the question" until he confesses and retracts his rejection of the proper beliefs? Here's what the link says: "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities..." So, in other words, the idea of "consensus" as reported by the Obama Administration and the lefty media is not true. Their claim is that the consensus of scientists agrees that anthropogenic global warming is an established, scientific fact. Conversely, in the link above, it says that the scientists don't consider it to be an established, scientific fact, but only "very likely." J
  10. 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
  11. An assistant professor of philosophy wants to lock up "deniers": I'm thinking that torture might be worth considering too. Commenter Helen Stream nailed it: ...And to the author of this article, why should you not be considered to be deceitful yourself on this, when you cite the discredited '97% of scientists agree' claim in the link​ as an affirmation of the truth of CAGW and of the criminal culpability of sceptics? ​The 97.1% is only 97.1 % of the 4014 accepted for assessment---those who agreed , not specifically with the consensus on CAGW, but with the vague wording specifically designed to be impossible for anyone to disagree with ---namely that there is some warming and that humans are responsible for some of it, whether via CO2 or other factors. Cook et al extrapolated that to a claim that 97.1% of scientists agree with the CAGW consensus. A reasonable person would see that, as 'research' designed to get a good number by making it impossible for anyone to not agree with that statement? They may as well have asked, 'Does night follow day?' and then claimed big numbers of agreement or consensus. It was 97% of only 75 abstracts ---and even then apparently they had wrongly included in it a bunch of very famous sceptic scientists who ----the whole world knows---- don't believe in CAGW and have confirmed that. And one of the authors narrowed it down even further, saying... [ 'Among the relatively few abstracts (75 in total) falling in these two categories, 65 (87%) endorsed the consensus view.' ] That's 87%, not 97.1%. It's the warmist scientists you seek to protect by criminalising dissent, who are the ones engaged in contrivance and deception ---red herrings to divert attention from the facts that their models don't work, and the science is crumbling. Any reasonable person would conclude that you yourself are practising to deceive when you end your piece with this sly exhortation to jail dissenters , that belongs in some totalitarian regime backed by gulags----but never in a democracy.... You say... [ ' I believe we understand them correctly when we know them to be not only corrupt and deceitful, but criminally negligent in their willful disregard for human life. It is time for modern societies to interpret and update their legal systems accordingly.' ] ----- J
  12. I think the idea is that "state-controlled science" doesn't produce science. In other words, the initiation of force is not compatible with free inquiry. Soviet agricultural genetics would be a good example. As would the pseudoscience of man-made global warming/climate change. J
  13. Like Al Gore on climate change, the Stalker takes every possible outcome on every subject as proof of his theories -- all outcomes confirm his theories, none refute them. J