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. Not as kooky as AOC's belief that the world will end in 12 years, but close: Kamala Harris: “In a Relatively Short Time, Portsmouth, NH Will Be Underwater” During a speech at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics on Tuesday, California Senator–and Green New Deal supporter– Kamala Harris had a dire warning for the Granite State: The city of Portsmouth will soon be underwater due to climate change. And then there's Judy the science denier: Judith Curry Retweeted Energy Brief‏ @EnergyBrief Feb 20 More How close is Portsmouth, NH to being “underwater?” “Not very,” says climatologist @curryja. … via @IAMMGraham @InsideSourcesDC
  2. “However, these scientific and national security judgments have not undergone a rigorous independent and adversarial scientific peer review to examine the certainties and uncertainties of climate science, as well as implications for national security.” OMG, they can't be serious! We don't have time for rigorous review and criticism! It's settled science that we can't wait to do actual science. J
  3. More from Judy the denier who hates science and probably deserves to be killed:
  4. Is Limbaugh wrong? What would we need to know to answer that question? When did alarmists begin citing polar vortices as proof of climate change? What, specifically are their predictions about them? When were the predictions first made? J
  5. 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
  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
  7. It's settled science, so shut the fuck up! No coverage for anyone who disagrees. It's right to silence dissenting opinion. Real science is consensus followed by shutting dissenters the fuck up. Science is about not tolerating criticism. It's about refusing to hear it. Plug your ears.
  8. We have to start punishing people now in order to avoid extinction. It's settle science. If you're a Denier, then you are causing our extinction, and we therefore have the right to stop you with any means necessary. We've tried to do it legally, and we've tried to do it only slightly violently. You didn't listen, so the next step is blood. Damn, it's going to be fun and gloriously righteous to punish the Deniers/Nonbelievers/Infidels!
  9. And, by the way, what the fuck? Things are fucking nightmare dictatorship horrible because of Trump, but, at the same time, they're great because of Obama? So how does the "logic" of this work? Obama caused this surging economy, it was just on delay-effect and it took until Trump's presidency, and, what, Trump's policies of repealing Obama's stupid shit didn't have a negative effect on the economy, and Trump's tax reduction doesn't count as either stimulating the economy or as canceling or opposing Obama's policies? Just like the unfalsifiability of leftist climate "science," all outcomes are proof of Obama's brilliance and success, and of Trump's being a failure doofus? Hahahaha! J
  10. To Ocasio-Cortez, climate "science deniers" have been cast in pretty much the same role that her fellow socialist Hilter cast the Jews. Scapegoats who need punishments. The "deniers" are the cause of all of our woes. They're evil, they're an existential threat, and they must be eliminated. Final Solution time. We're the heroes, saving humanity. They're the villains, and our extermination of them will therefore be virtuous. Not to mention fun! We're going to get to do some mass killing that we've morally justified. It's going to be so bloody and exciting. We'll show those fuckers.
  11. So, I've been looking online, and, sure enough, people are citing fire whirls as proof of man-made climate change. Dude, it's like the scientists totally predicted it, bro! They said, like back in the 70s or something, that extreme stuff and scary shit would happen. Well firenadoes are like totally extreme and scary shit, hoss! It's proof! They therefore nailed the prediction! That's settled science! So, we have to surrender our freedoms right now to stop the fire whirls, otherwise they will be everywhere. And worse. Other scary shit that we haven't specifically identified, and didn't know existed throughout history, will happen which we'll then say that we predicted without naming it. J
  12. Hurricanes are scary. The condition of people being scared is more likely to result in their accepting the idea of more government to stop what's scary. People who want to control over other people via climate change legislation will never predict any benefits to tiny changes in global temperature. We are doomed if we don't give up our freedoms.
  13. Al Gore's claim about Hurricane Florence doused by scientists Yeah, when critics point out that these assholes' predictions don't work out in reality, or that they're playing the trick of abandoning falsifiability by predicting several contradictory outcomes and then claiming success when predicting correctly but also incorrectly, the critics are just dealing in "nitpicks" and "straw men." Ha. The issue is so important that the attention that Gore has brought to the cause outweighs the falsehood of his ridiculous claims. Man-made climate change theory is more important than truth. It's settled science that it's more important than scientific truth! J
  14. Oh no! Florence is weakening! Damn! But, well, let's not cancel the wood chippers just yet. There's still hope that heavy rains will do enough damage to support the climate scare stories and convince enough people that it's time for some seriously bloody eco-justice. J
  15. Florence will prove, for once and for all, that catastrophic nightmare man-made climate change is real, and that we need to surrender all of our freedoms right fucking now. It’s going to be SO excitingly horrific! We’ll be able to use the deaths and the destruction of property to emotionally manipulate people! It’s electrifying. It’s even arousing! I feel a thrill going up my leg. Come on, Florence, roll!!!! Kill!!! Destroy!!! Yippy!!!! J
  16. "In fact, a side event at the Assembly of States Parties recently included a panel discussion on the possibility of adding "ecocide", environmental and climate-related crimes, to the list of offenses within the court's jurisdiction." Yay! Let's punish some deniers! That'll shut them the fuck up! Wahoo! Let's find the filth guilty of "ecocide," put a few of them through the wood chipper, and then see how quickly the remaining gore-splattered deniers switch over to the "consensus" side. Skepticism has no place in science, so let's butcher some motherfuckers and call it justice. Fuck yeah!
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. Two trends on lefty fake social media: 1) It's "settled science" which nevertheless immediately excludes potential causes without even looking at them: "OMG, have you heard these people on the right trying to blame the fires on bad forestry management policies?!!! How ridiculous! That's totally not true at all, and everyone knows it. It's not even worth considering. The cause of the fires is global warming/climate change, and nothing else, and we have to increase controls and regulations, reduce production, and punish everyone. All of the smartest people agree." 2) Creating the illusion of a scary giant monster enemy to justify commie solutions: "White supremacism is on the rise like a tsunami, and we have to do something about it right now, or else America will be over with. It's a massive wave, and it's everywhere now. The only way to stop it is with Antifa. Yes, violent Socialism/Communism is the only way to stop the overwhelmingly huge and scary movement of neo-Nazi white nationalism." J
  20. Recent example of climate douchelords lying:
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. "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..."
  24. The lie used to be that "97 percent" of scientists believed in doomsday anthropogenic global warming/climate change/climate stagnation/global cooling/give us power and money. Now Obama isn't satisfied with such a low number, and has changed the lie to "99.5 percent." Perhaps his method of arriving at that number "improved" on the previous method's "science," which was not to actually read and discover the scientists' views, but to program a computer to do a word search of only the abstracts of their papers and to look for a limited selection of words which were assumed to be indicators of disagreement with AGW, and if those words were not found in any give abstract, then it would be taken as proof that the author of the paper was an AGW believer/supporter/advocate. I'd love to hear what Obama's new and improved method was for adjusting the lie to 99.5 percent. J
  25. 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