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

Product Groups

  • Widgets


  • 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


  • Articles

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. Let me guess before following the link: Doom? Punishment and control needed? Freedom bad? J
  2. 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
  3. OCASIO-CORTEZ ON MILLENNIALS: ‘WE’RE LIKE THE WORLD IS GOING TO END IN 12 YEARS IF WE DON’T ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE’ ‘At some point these chronic realities do reach a breaking point’ Jan 21, 2019 10:17 PM By Tom Elliott Play Video The world is going to end in 12 years unless the government takes action, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said Monday at a Martin Luther King forum in New York City. Here’s an excerpt from her interview with Ta-Nehisi Coates: “And I think the part of it that is generational is that millennials and people, in Gen Z, and all these folks that come after us are looking up and we’re like, the world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change. You’re biggest issue, your biggest issue is how are going to pay for it? — and like this is the war, this is our World War II. And I think for younger people looking at this are more like, how are we saying let’s take it easy when 3,000 Americans died last year, how are we saying let’s take it easy when the end person died from our cruel and unjust criminal justice system? How are we saying take it easy, the America that we’re living in today is dystopian with people sleeping in their cars so they can work a second job without healthcare and we’re told to settle down. It’s a fundamental separation between that fierce urgency of now, the why we can’t wait that King spoke of. 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.”
  4. Flirt'n' wit' 'zaster -- flashback croakings of The Doom: U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked PETER JAMES SPIELMANNJune 29, 1989 UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP...
  5. What are you trying to say, Billy? Are you trying to suggest that I'm being silly, tee hee hee, in characterizing leftists as presenting the issue as imminent Doom? Or what? J
  6. Yeah, I don't know how to bridge the communication gap here. I'm not asking to be educated. I'm not asking for you to determine what you'll need to teach me, what holes in my knowledge you need to show me how to fill, what learning disabilities you'll need to detect in me and remedy, etc. I'm not asking you to guide me and nurture me. I'm not in need of anything like this: "Let's see, hmmm, do you know what molecules are? You've heard of those? Okay, well, that's wonderful, and maybe we can move along a little faster in your education than I had anticipated. Energy? Have you ever heard of that? Tell me what you think the term 'energy' means, and that might help me in gauging where I should start in your little education..." The resolution being debated in the world today is that significant global warming is currently happening, that it is caused primarily, if not completely, by human activities, that it is very dangerous, and perhaps even catastrophic. I'm not asking to see 'the science' which led people to hypothesize the above. Here's a colloquial version of the hypothesis as you seem to want me to learn it: "Scientist X discovered in 1904 that Y causes badness in certain amounts under certain conditions, therefore it logically follows that, since mankind is producing piles of Y, mankind is responsible for the levels of badness that we've adjusted our raw data to report, and The Doom™ is imminent." Such statements are not the end of science, but the beginning. They are the point where testing happens via a very well-defined, controlled method which conforms to the questions that I've repeatedly asked, and which is open to review and is inviting and welcoming of criticism. I'm asking to see 'the science' which puts the hypothesis to the test, and succeeds reliably and repeatedly. I'm asking for open access to all of the information. What was the hypothesis, precisely what predictions were made, when were they made, what potential results were identified ahead of time as falsifying or invalidating the hypothesis, what were the start and finish dates of the experiment, what are the unmolested data, the untainted control, and the unmanipulated historical record? J
  7. Climate deniers caused the fire. We need to punish them. Dishing out punishment is virtuous. The deniers thought their wrong thoughts, and those thoughts caused thought waves which created sparks, and the thoughts dried out brush and wood, and made the temperatures super hot. It's settled science. If you disagree, then you are a science denier and will be punished accordingly. J
  8. Who should we sacrifice first in order to prevent the Doom™? What's the scientific consensus? And they should probably be tortured before being killed, right? J
  9. Check out this wonderful opening line of "journalism": Heh. Sea level doom is an "established fact!" Manhattan WILL be underwater in a few years. Lady Liberty will be up to her chin in ocean in a few more. It's a fact. An established fact. And the evil billionaire isn't obeying us! Damn it! We must be allowed to punish him! But until then, the best we can do is find solace in our smug fantasy that his property investments will be underwater soon. That'll show him to disrespect us and our Narrative™! How utterly gauche and uncouth of this Peres thing to not heed his betters. J
  10. Jonathan


    OMG, Newbsie loves death. He worships it! It's his sense of life and his view of existence. Death is his metaphysical value judgment! Everything to him is doom, frustration and despair. Heh. But, seriously, cool painting. J Michael Newberry November 25, 2018 · He has borne me on his back a thousand times; and now, how? (Stealing Shakespeare) mixed media, 24x20”, private collection. My attempt at a gesture oil sketch, I like it. Skulls are dark, light, anatomical, morbid; serving artists well. #skull #mixedmedia #naturemorte 4646 14 Comments
  11. I think we've learned that climate isn't an important issue. It's now much less interesting than Q, or, really, any other subject. It was THE shit. But now? Meh. J
  12. Years ago I saw a great variation on that cartoon: First panel, titled "Then," shows that same cartoon of a man holding a sign prophesying doom, with people walking by laughing at him. The second panel, titled "Now," shows a man holding a sign which states that we are not doomed, and all of the people walking past are laughing at him. J
  13. You're right. My initial comments here were aimed at AGWers in general, but then as the conversation continued here, we've drifted more toward you and your views. My intention wasn't to target you like that. I think that some of my complaints apply to you, but when I was griping about my past discussions with AGWers, I was mostly referring to others, and not to you. To me it's an issue of having seen the goalposts move year after year, due to advocates of AGW having access to multiple sets of differing predictions, and switching back and forth between them at their convenience. That's not science. Advocates often cite the most dire predictions of the most dire models as being our fate and doom. Then, when challenged by being shown that those predictions have not held up in reality, they switch to more recent, unfinished, and more reasonable tests and predictions, but lump them in with the dire ones. The attitude is that all AGW models are pretty much equivalent because they're all on "the same side," and therefore the doom is just as valid. And beyond that. Not only are all AGW models inappropriately lumped together as predicting the same doom that needs fixing with the one solution of government control over people's lives, but even stagnation and cooling -- predictions outside of any AGW model -- are claimed to be evidence of AGW! There are no possible outcomes which falsify the theory. No, you haven't let me down, and I apologize for the misunderstanding. My complaints really weren't aimed at you personally. Some may or may not apply to you. My purpose was not to attack you, but to suggest to others what I think is a potent course of action when dealing with "settled science" AGWers, especially those who have the wrongheaded view that science is about being opposed to skepticism, and who are of the mindset that they are being scientifically virtuous in believing that their case is made stronger if they admit to no conditions which would falsify their position, rather than recognizing that that "virtue" actually puts them in the realm of pseudoscience. J
  14. It really looks desperate. Heres more of classy, civil Obama: Remeber when ex-presidents had the dignity to fade from view, and then only occasionally return to elegantly deliver a few sage observations? Heh. Not Barry the agitator. Can't control himself. And he can't get beyond his favorite tactic of lying about his opponents via straw men. "They're saying that if our plan to make X happen succeeds, then the consequences will be horrific doom Y and Z. Fear mongering! Th th that th th that's all they've got is f f f fear-m m m mongering." ("Intellectual stammer," as the left press dubbed it.) And yet no one has ever made the statements that Barry claims. Rather, they are just the fear-mongering smears that he has invented about Them. Jumping around, sweating and stammering. Stumbling and bumbling. And the leftist media wishes us to believe that Barry is the ultimate in calm, deliberate sensibility, where Trump is the emoting, gesticulating infant throwing tantrums.
  15. Yes, and she has probably not only concluded that the one river that she was observing would run out of water, but that globally, all rivers would run out of water, that it was therefore settled science, and that it would be so, so wonderfully lovely if she could only beg and pressure Mr. President to take the issue seriously and agree that Punishments are needed to prevent universal doom. J
  16. Well, titter-snicker-tee-hee-hee! But where do you stand, Billy? Do you have a position? Which course would you recommend? How would propose that your nation navigate tariffs, unfair relationships, double standards, etc.? I know, I know: Trump is a dangerous buffoon and he is seriously risking offending our dear friends and allies by being nasty and not instantly acquiescing to their opinions and demands. Oh, dear lord, how embarrassing! How uncouth! And the forecasts of doom! Let's not forget those! My, how utterly ghastly, Maude! But what's the right course, Billy? What would you advise? Which ideas and policies aren't tee-hee-hee shamefully naive, insane, despicable, and frightfully ill-bred? J
  17. We need to take action now. And by "we," I mean Others™. In the short mean time, Billy, I know that you're not going to (can't) answer any of my previous questions about "the science" (tee hee hee), but might you have enough intellectual curiosity to offer up some thoughts on what "the science" should consist of? What are the ground rules? What is the methodology? Can you give some idea of how you think it should work, and maybe show that proposed method successfully applied to phenomena other than or in addition to climate? No? More steamed octopus? M-Kay. J
  18. Seriously? You don't see, or remember, a reply from me?Maybe the problem is that you've not reread the thread closely enough to remember that it shifted over to the "Scientic Fraud becoming endemic?" thread? In the discussion, I asked you to define what you meant by "the consensus." You replied, not with specific numbers of one single scientific model, but with the vague statement "AGW is happening." You provided links to what "the consensus" means and how it was allegedly established "scientifically," I responded by revealing the unscientific slop that was used to come to that pretend consensus, and you conceded my points and backed away from your earlier implied acceptance of the slop. I continued to press for specifics on the issue of "consensus," and specifically what your views are, and you disappeared. The only actual "consensus" that the information at your own links supports is not that "AGW is happening," but that it is only "likely" happening to one vague degree or another. Yet here you are today, with all of that forgotten, and back to talking about a vague "consensus" again. For this AGWer, a demonstration that CO2 does not act as advertised in the consensus, does not contribute to a 'greenhouse' effect, does not have a relationship with Earth's long-term temperature swings, that would tend to make me question the fundamentals. [...] More close to home, a swing to world-wide temperature decreases, a cooling ocean, a resurgence of lost icefields and glaciers, a lowering of sea levels -- despite increasing CO2 -- these would cause me to get back to my climate science homework! Even sharper situations I can think of: if I live for another twenty-five years, say, until 2040. There is going to be a point on that road where I would get doubtful about my understanding. If the arctic regions of Canada began to experience a downward trend in warming. When the arctic processes reverse themselves, especially with regard to sea ice. If indicators begin to 'recover' in various regional frameworks (ie, ocean acidity, permafrost lake loss, pest-killing deep freeze winters). It comes to mind that another useful question is 'what evidence helped solidify your opinion?' I have begun laying that groundwork, I think, but await your feedback. In reading this over and digging into my Big Files, I see that there are a couple of posts by you, addressed to me in other threads, which together render a list of strong questions. I have attempted answering them -- but the answer languishes. It is one of my secret OL shames. I think it would do good for my bona fides if I went back and finished the long-owed set of answers. It's good. I wonder how one could turn this to ask of a climate-change skeptic what "outcomes in reality" would lead to doubt their 'side,'" so to speak. Or maybe 'what kinds of evidence would be likely to alter your understanding. I am one of the squirmers and skirters. It is good that Jonathan links to his questions. Since I am having a small run of extra mental energy lately, and since his questions are still pendant, I will put effort into finishing the overdue answers -- and do that first. Well, except for a note in the APS thread about the new APS climate-change statement whoopee. But i will have to let some excellent commentaries here pass by unremarked in the meantime. The questions that I asked remain unanswered. They're the ones that I asked of Naomi, and included at the end of my last post, but which you clipped and didn't address:"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." My questions from the "Scientific Fraud" thread also remain unanswered. As I've said, when AGWers are asked to identify the specific numbers from the single model which represents the "settled science," they punt. It seems to me that they don't want to get that specific because they need to rely on much more that one predicted outcome, and, in fact, they need to be able to claim ALL possible outcomes as supporting their theory. The pseudoscience of unfalsifiabilty. J
  19. The new settled science of advanced imaging is that that individual storm was caused by pretend climate activists whose carbon footprints are hundreds of times larger than the average person. They are a very large group. J
  20. Lately I've been hearing and seeing hints of the idea that attacking falsifiability may be the next tactic of the alarmists. I've heard and read climate scientists being interviewed who briefly mentioned that too much has been made of the concept of falsifiability in science, that real science isn't limited to your average person's childhood science education which includes falsifiability, and that climate science is much too important and complex to be limited to having to be falsifiable. One interviewee actually said something along the lines of, "Do these deniers actually expect our predictions to be accurate? Is that what they think science is?" Sorry that I have no links. I think I'll start collecting references to these statements as I come across them from now on. J
  21. Yes, we need to mete out the punishments right now. We can't wait any longer. The climate gods crave blood. We must quench their thirsts. The Little Others™ must experience more hardship while forced to pay for our studies and cushy lifestyles. Pain. Glorious austerity. It's so very exciting! J
  22. No one is asking about ice cream octopus. Have you forgotten the questions again? Heh. How is it that you are so passionately, actively uninterested in them? Here they are again: 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. And here, again, are the questions that your surrogate/ringer-wannabe, disappearing Brad, couldn't answer: How long of a time period must we observe temperatures rising, without leveling off or falling, in order to conclude not only that temperatures are indeed rising enough so as to be considered climactic change, but also primarily caused by human activities? Which models/experiments have identified this timeframe prior to the models' predictions being made, and prior to reality then being observed? Where may I find the details of these types of ground rules? We already know that some scientists are asserting that a 12 to 15 year "pause/hiatus," or even a 15 to 18 year one, is not sufficient to falsify their favorite models. With such assertions, determining exactly when the ground rules were established becomes very important. Without these details, it can seem that people are just making it up as they go along. What are the specific conditions of falsifiability? What results in reality would invalidate the hypothesis? And why? And let's add just one more question. Which single model is the settled science model? I've seen a range of models with a range of predictions. Some have fallen by the wayside over the decades, and we don't hear about them anymore, but, anyway, which of the differing and competing current models settled it once and for all, and what date was it officially determined by the consensus scientists that that single model nailed it? Thanks, J
  23. Are you suggesting that the adjustments referred to above are the only adjustments or modifications that have ever been made by any and all scientists and scientific organizations in regard to the issue of climate change??? No, its observation, and also a prediction, which could turn out to be wrong, but I doubt that it will. And I haven't suggested a conspiracy. One's not needed to explain the behavior of alarmist zealots. They don't need to organize, and I don't believe that they do, at least not often. It's probably pretty rare. No, they're motivated and rewarded more than sufficiently without any conspiracy behind it. i've seen the treatment of dissenters. It's exactly as I described. J
  24. Please let us know when you can say, and when you can address all of the questions that I asked. One of the requirements that I've insisted on repeatedly here is that all information be disclosed, and that would include all of the relevant dates. And keep in mind that it would also include any modifications which were made mid-experiment to, say, instruments, methods of collecting and handling data, etc. -- you know, the type of things that actual real true scientists, as opposed to activists, would be eager to know about and to consider critically, and which, in many cases, should properly be considered the marking of the end of the experiment and beginning of a new one. One thing that I've found both amusing and disturbing during my decades of observing the climate scares is how often I've seen predictions not working out, and then, all of a sudden, mid-experiment, voilà, hey, we just realized that we need to apply a new method and equipment, and, whaddayaknow, look what happens when we apply it: our predictions just happen to work out perfectly now! And a month from now, there will no longer be any reference to our predictions not having worked out prior to our adopting the new method and equipment, and, in fact, there will be no reference to the changes in method and equipment, or at least not any that are easy to find. Erased. Forgotten. The graphs will be redrawn to represent the new, refined and enhanced predictions and results. Yay! Let's dispense with that kind of bullshit, please. Bring everything out into the sunlight. J
  25. Billy posted a video which he likes to believe defeated the above claim. The video shows that someone decades ago used the term "climactic change" in a paper, and that therefore it has always been called climate change and not just global warming. So, we're supposed to forget what we experienced, and believe this fictional alternate history based on this one use of the term. We're also, apparently, supposed to forget that studies in climactic change at the time included theories that we were doomed to experience a new ice age. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia, see, here's a document from long ago which shows that Oceania was at war with Eastasia back then, therefore it has always been. J