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. "Activists demand UN ‘revoke’ credentials of ‘climate deniers’ in Paris..." Heh. What a reasonable, rational, pro-science mindset! But why stop there? Why not just cut to the chase and round up all of the "deniers" and ship them off to camps where they can be forcibly reeducated or, if they refuse to change their views in the face of torture, why not just "recycle" and "compost" them? Quit pussyfooting around and get down to the true goal of torturing and killing! J
  2. Discussions on climate change are usually very much like discussions on conspiracy theories. They quickly devolve into mounds and mounds of details and pointless bickering over minutiae because no one began by laying the groundwork of identifying specifically what would constitute either proof or falsifiability. The believers are therefore left with the constant option of skirting the issue of falsifiability, and therefore of practicing pseudoscience and passing it off as science. Everything is accepted as proof of their position, and there is no possible falsification. They will not name or accept any possible outcomes as disproving their theory. I would suggest that instead of skipping the vitally important first step of demanding -- requiring -- that they identify what outcomes in reality would falsify their theory, and instead of falling into the trap of then addressing their billions of irrelevant questions and information dumps, one should insist that they first identify the conditions which would they would accept as disproving their predictions/theories/conclusions. As Rand would advise, identify the essence of the argument, and stick with it rather than falling for inessential distractions. When I've done so, I've never yet received a legitimate answer. I've received lots of bluffing and I'll-get-back-to-you-laters, but no naming of the possible outcomes which would disprove their positions. When I've applied persistence, and kept throwing the issue of falsifiability in their faces, despite their best efforts to squirm and skirt the issue, they tended to eventually just dry up and disappear. Here's one example of the culmination of such persistence on the APS and the Global Warming Scam thread: I received no answers to my questions. And I didn't get tangled up in mounds of bluffing and endless document dumping. J
  3. Ellen The difference between climate-alarmists (and other polluters of the concept of science) and Danto is that Danto was correct about art. Warhol's Brillo boxes are art, regardless of whether most people would see them as such, and they are even art by Rand's and Kamhi's definitions and criteria. So, it's not just Warhol's of Danto's "theory of art" that makes them art, but Rand's and Kamhi's as well. They are selective re-creations of reality according to the artist's metaphysical value-judgments. J
  4. If the observed temperatures in reality don't fall within that range, are you saying that the model which predicted temperatures within that range is therefore falsified, or is it still just a "minor discrepancy"? See, it would be nice if you would actually answer my questions, rather than bluffing and blustering while avoiding them. I have to wonder why you refuse to answer the questions. Is it because you know that once you actually identify precisely what you mean by "minor discrepancies" versus observations which would falsify a given model, then we can begin to apply your own stated standards to the "consensus scientists'" models, at which point you'd have to try to explain why so many of them are outside of your own stated acceptable range? So, once again, the unanswered questions are: What standards are you using to judge a "discrepancy" to be "minor" versus "major," and, more importantly, how large can a "discrepancy" be before it would count as falsifying an AGW model. How far off from reality could AGW models be in their predictions before you would classify the models as falsified? Yes or no, if a model fails to "explain at least 50% of the variation in temperatures with 95% certainty," has that model therefore been falsified? If your answer is "no," then which observations in reality would falsify the model? J Yes, at the 95% level. Thank you for the direct answer! Finally!!! Okay, so, now, which single climate model and its single set of predictions represents the "scientific consensus" view and is considered to be "settled science"? Who created the model, when were its predictions made, and when were they announced publicly? How and when, and by whom, was it decided that the model's predictions had been going on long enough to have "settled" the science? How was the timeline derived for accepting the "settling" of the science? Was that timeline explicitly identified prior to the predictions being made? Please post graphs of the model's predictions. Include visual indicators of when the predictions began, which areas are included in the "95% certainty" range, and a line representing observations recorded in reality. Thanks, J
  5. My favorite part of the rest of the article is this: "But none of the climate simulations carried out for the IPCC produced this particular hiatus at this particular time. That has led sceptics — and some scientists — to the controversial conclusion that the models might be overestimating the effect of greenhouse gases, and that future warming might not be as strong as is feared." I love the author's classification of "sceptics" and "scientist" as two mutually exclusive categories. Heh. If you're a sceptic, you are, by the author's definition, not a scientist! J
  6. You have no real-world knowledge of the scientific method or how "real science" works. As always, you're bluffing and blustering. You're making shit up. Actually, your model IS falsified under those conditions. That's completely illogical. Being that far off in your predictions DOES NOT mean that "you're on the right track." The new model does not predict reality, and is also therefore falsified. "Minor" by what rational standard? How large of a discrepancy would it have to be before you would label it "major"?!!! Would ANY discrepancy, no matter how great, count as falsifying AGW?!!! Indeed they need to be explained! And they need to be explained before people can legitimately claim that the "scientific consensus" is that it's a "settled matter, a fact of reality." No, that's not how science works. You're just making shit up off of the top of your head. One needn't come up with a slightly better theory. The absence of a better theory doesn't make any theory true. If I claim that invisible pixies are the cause of climate change, and then my reporting of the pixies' predictions of what they're going to do to future temperatures turned out to be better than AGW theories' predictions, that wouldn't mean that I was "on the right track," and that the pixie theory could only be "falsified" if another theory made better predictions. No one has to. Scientifically, the absence of better theory doesn't make AGW correct. You're talking out of your ass. You cannot know, control for, or compute all natural factors. You're just making shit up. J
  7. How could someone who is the serious student of climate science that you pose as being not have heard of Ehrlich? Do you mean "no one" other than Stanford University and the leftist media and Ehrlich's leftist "critics" who think that he hasn't gone far enough? Since you've just now heard of Ehrlich for the first time, why are you claiming to know who does or doesn't take him seriously? Do you really believe that you can make us believe that you've had enough time to study the issue to come to a rational and informed conclusion? I'll believe that you believe what you say about AGW when I see evidence that you've voluntarily changed your life accordingly. All the rest is just bluff and bluster. J
  8. Another interesting article: It's okay to lie about climate change. J
  9. 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
  10. 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
  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