Very, very angry person there, especially when it comes to the issue of sexual assault. Accusations equal immediate verdicts of guilt. And how dare that bastard defend himself, and show emotion in doing so. After what he did to me! Er, I mean, to her!

17 hours ago, william.scherk said:

From Diana Brickell's Twitter list...

Hadn't seen the Comrade's Twitter account previously.

Eeesh. Did Greta Van Susteren swallow Alanis Morissette's nana?

Anyway, wow, scrolling, notice the abandonment of Objective notions of judgement and justice, and the sheer rage? Put on you profiler hat. What do you see, Agent Hotchner?

J

Hey Billy, this image that you posted on another thread could be useful here. Thanks.

On 6/17/2019 at 1:28 PM, Jon Letendre said:

When you are called on the above toxicities, whine like a little girl who didn’t get her pony.

And we're still waiting for the answers to my questions. Why is it taking so long? Is it really that hard to find the information? It's such a basic, simple request. Does the information not exist? What's the problem? Hello? Billy? Brad? Meatball? Tee hee hee?

J

I can't wait to witness the unintended consequences, and then the new plan to make things even worse.

Plastic trash gathered during a clean-up in Germany.  Photo by Sean Gallup/Getty Images

22 hours ago, william.scherk said:

How to Have a Useful Conversation About Climate Change in 11 Steps.

22 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Cool.

Here are the 11 steps in the article that are designed to induce one of the conversationalists to "do something different":

 

Quote

1. Know thyself
2. Having a conversation about climate change takes practice
3. Begin by asking for consent
4. Be a good host
5. Begin by asking, “What do you know about climate change?”
6. Ask: “How do you feel about climate change?”
7. Ask: “What do you think we can do about climate change?”
8. Ask: “What do you think you can do about climate change?”
9. Ask: “Would you like to learn more or do more about climate change?”
10. Ask: “Can we talk about this again sometime?”
11. Continue to talk about climate change.

12. Ignore their questions.

13. Do not acknowledge any gaps in your kowledge, or any inability of yours to address their questions or challenges.

14. Serve tasty steamed octopus.

15. Avoid their questions. Act as if they haven't been asked, even if they've been asking them for years.

16. When you don't have answers to their questions, change the subject.

17. Serve more tasty steamed octopus. Smile.

18. Give them information and advice on how to be polite, and how to influence people. Don't follow the advice yourself. Offer hugs.

19. Reward them with tasty steamed octopus, and a handjob if you're comfortable doing that.

20. Bring in meatpuppets who you think are ringers. Display gleeful anticipation.

21. More TSO.

22. Ignore the fact that your meatpuppets didn't do any better than you've done in addressing any substance.

23. Randomly choose one of the steps above and repeat. Then repeat it again.

24. Tee hee hee. Never forget to tee hee hee during any of the above steps!

25. All they can eat TSO, 24/7.

6 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Disputes ... "dishonesty" ... reflection ... discussibles ...

 

Yeah, Judy the science denier whore has become the enemy. She used to be a real scientist, someone whose authority must be trusted without question, but now she's just a stupid denier skank who rejects all of science. She's a threat to the entire planet. Steps should be taken.

J

To sum up this thread:

Side A: "We have science on our side. The facts. Reality. You are deniers."

Side B: "Show us those facts, that science, that reality. Present it, please."

Side A: "Demiers! How can we get through to you when your minds are closed to the scientific facts?"

Side B: "Show us the scientific facts."

Ad infinitum.

15 hours ago, william.scherk said:

This is more related to themes covered by various personalities in this thread (the story is in the context of Australia):  

Not everyone cares about climate change, but reproach won’t change their mind.

• Listen. Build relationships with people who have different life experiences to your own, by asking what is important to them..

What's important to me? Science. Show me the science. Answer the questions that I've asked. Give me the specific details that I've requested about the hypotheses, predictions, the dates and durations, the conditions of falsifiability, etc. No need to try to crawl inside my head and manipulate me based on guessing about my social group influences or my childhood traumas. Just show me the science, tee hee hee.

Quote

Value values. Avoid arguments based on appeals to the authority of science, or the consensus of expert opinion. “Debating the science” is a red herring – people’s responses to claims about climate change are motivated primarily by what they value, and the narratives of their social group, not their acceptance of scientific fact. Focus on values you might have in common, rather than getting caught up in disputes over facts

My value is science. Not opinions of scientists. Not reporters' interpretations of opinions of scientists. Please, present the science. Maybe some day we can "debate the science," but first you'd have to present it. And, as I mentioned above, there's no need to try to figure out what motivates me and what appeals to me other than the "acceptance of scientific fact." I'm asking, demanding, begging you to focus on the scientific facts. You refuse to do so.

20 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

This has very little to do with the topics covered in this thread...

Huh? Doesn't it have everything to do with this thread? As in, if we don't completely get rid of freedom, and if we don't immediately start punishing evil deniers, then, by the end of next week, the entire planet will be on fire just like that, followed shortly by everything being five thousand feet underwater due to all of the ice, everywhere, melting?

J

21 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Pretty pictures and videos.

Let's do a rerun, shall we?

ABC on Good Morning America in 2008.

FLASHBACK: ABC's ’08 Prediction: NYC Under Water From Climate Change By June 2015

Here's the video link (it doesn't embed):

https://www.mrctv.org/videos/flashback-abcs-08-prediction-nyc-under-water-climate-change-june-2015

And here is Rush Limbaugh talking about it:

Flashback 2008: What ABC Predicted Climate Change Would Do by 2015
 

Man, were we screwed in 2015.

I don't know how we survived it. But somehow we did.

It was probably something Obama did that saved us... a law or a tax or sumpin'...

 

Michael

19 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

“Officials at Glacier National Park (GNP) have begun quietly removing and altering signs and government literature which told visitors that the Park’s glaciers were all expected to disappear by either 2020 or 2030.

”In recent years the National Park Service prominently featured brochures, signs and films which boldly proclaimed that all glaciers at GNP were melting away rapidly. But now officials at GNP seem to be scrambling to hide or replace their previous hysterical claims while avoiding any notice to the public that the claims were inaccurate. Teams from Lysander Spooner University visiting the Park each September have noted that GNP’s most famous glaciers such as the Grinnell Glacier and the Jackson Glacier appear to have been growing - not shrinking - since about 2010. (The Jackson Glacier—easily seen from the Going-To-The-Sun Highway—may have grown as much as 25% or more over the past decade.)

”The ‘gone by 2020’ claims were repeated in the New York Times, National Geographic, and other international news sources. But no mainstream news outlet has done any meaningful reporting regarding the apparent stabilization and recovery of the glaciers in GNP over the past decade.Even local Montana news sources such as The Missoulian, Billings Gazette and Bozeman Daily Chronicle have remained utterly silent regarding this story.”

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-10/glacier-national-park-quietly-removes-its-gone-2020-signs

Many others have also made predictions, and then they've made new predictions and adjusted the old ones, and they've done so over and over again. Then they show a timeline of their series of predictions strung together, without anything to indicate that the line represents several failed predictions rather than one which might appear to have not quite failed yet. Such tricks are why I ask to see all of the information that I've requested several times on this thread.

J 

25 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

He doesn’t have the mental capacity to grasp the meaning of your questions.

You are not being fair.

He can’t.

No, he has the capacity to understand. He's just being a stubborn little believer.

J

2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

To add to your list of monstrous fascists and nazis ...

Information on the AMSR2 (Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer 2) satellite data at NASA: https://earthdata.nasa.gov/earth-observation-data/near-real-time/download-nrt-data/amsr2-nrt

To whom was that addressed?

Me? If so, I haven't taken issue with anyone's reporting of any conditions in reality.

If not me, then whom? What do imagine that you're trying to say, Billy?

It seems that you believe that you've delivered a successful characterization of someone's opinions or mindset. You seem to be pretending that someone has denied something in reality. Is that what you're trying to do? If so, I'll remind you that all that I've done is asked you to present scientific evidence to support your position, and I mean actual scientific evidence. That's why I've asked very specific questions about hypotheses and predictions.

See, the way that science works isn't to just post recorded results and images, and to then come to a conclusion based on your feelings, but to demonstrate that the results were predicted, and that they are reliably repeatable over specific durations of time which have also been identified and explained ahead of time. Understand? You've done none of that. Come on, Billy, you're easily bright enough to understand all of this if you want to.

J

10 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Ellen,

This is core story material. I don't think it's simple hatred or schadenfreude or something like that. These lefties (and not only lefties--I prefer to call them all elitists) believe they are immune to reality by virtue of the story that confers superiority to others on them. They believe that their core story is reality and is not to be questioned.

They may cognitively know of dangers like being vulnerable to the bubonic plague if an epidemic breaks out near them, but inside, swimming between their reason and their emotions, they don't believe this situation applies to them. Their core story makes them believe they are above this. The bubonic plague is for others, not them.

This mode of thinking and submitting to a core story may not apply to all elitists, but I know many of them who suffer from it. As is said about all true believers, you may win an argument against them, but you will not convince them.

That's one of the reasons I believe they have no problem with shame when they present blatant double standards to the world that unfairly or even irrationally favor them. To them, this is as normal and right as common sense, just like two plus two equals four. I mean, duh people. Superior Ones should be treated better than others even in matters of logic.  

btw - I generally say "core story," but the more I study this, the more I think it is more accurate to say "core story models." That's a clunky term, though. "Core story" allows for a religious or religious-like scope that I believe belongs to the idea. (All religions are collections of many stories.)

Also, here's a weird fun fact. I've read some scientists and writers on narrative say we "hallucinate our own reality" when they basically mean what I do by core story. I get what they mean (something along the lines of "the map is not the territory" to use a metaphor), but I think they expose parts of their own souls they normally prefer to hide when they insist (some with a huge chip on their shoulder) on using a term borrowed from mental illness to apply to all of human life.

Michael

Bingo. They believe that they will be largely immune from the horrors that they wish to impose.

J

...and scientists too. They are scientist and therefore they never have any sort of political agenda or personal motivation which conflicts with science. Don't question. Just trust. Comply. Obey.

42 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

An interesting article at the Atlantic:

Some Real News About Fake News

I think that we should believe everything that journalists tell us, because they're journalists, and their job is to report the truth, and therefore that's what they do. We should not be cynics who doubt or question them. Cynicism is bad. Trust is good. We should not think too much about such things. We should just accept. Thinking is bad. Be at peace by accepting journalists' truth.

15 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Mann bites dog.

 

Billy, have you found any information on Mann's following the scientific method and his making of successful predictions? Have you found any details on his identifications of the conditions of falsifiability in regard to his hypothesis and predictions? Have his tests been repeated/reproduced?

Please, Billy, show some interest, some curiosity.

J

5 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

I think it would be a rare person, even among leftists, who was quite so insane as to want to risk dying of bubonic plague him/herself so that you (for instance) and other Others would die from it.

And what advantage do you see to leftists anyway in having the homeless population of Los Angeles and San Francisco die off?  Can homeless people not vote?  I'd think, though maybe I'm wrong, that, come voting time, the California homeless, of whom there are a large number, are rounded up and paid to take a trip to polling places where they vote Democrat.

Ellen

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

They aren't engaged in rational calculations. Thus they don't have to deal with the evil consequences subsequent to their advocated policies.

The left is suffused with moral righteousness out of intellectually dissipated Marxism blessed with general cultural inertia and it's not and never has been American for it's America it's at war with from the inside out.

--Brant

They are "predictably irrational." Envy is a primary motivator in their lives. They take opportunities to diminish others' lives even in situations where they themselves will also experience some difficulty or hardship. The value that they experience in hurting others more than they are hurting themselves is, to them, worth the price, worth the risk.

J

11 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Wettest 12 Months in U.S. History—Again

Yet still no answers to my questions.

J

13 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Leftism doesn't confer immunity from bubonic plague.  If there really were a plague epidemic, leftists, along with the Others, might get the "thrill" of dying from it.

Ellen

The same is true of all of their policies. They're willing to take the risk. They hope that they're less likely to be affected. They expect to have at least slightly worse lives in exchange for being allowed to make the Others' lives miserable. They think that they'll be part of the group that largely gets to escape the horrors that they dream of imposing.

The leftists in LA and SanFran have found a quicker route to their goals than AGW fear-mongering:

-----

Damn, just think how thrilling a plague would be for leftists! Misery all around, and unlimited opportunities to control the Others™ and decide who receives benefits versus who receives punishments. Very exciting! They'll get to see, firsthand, the Others™ dying en masse, instead of just reading about it. They'll finally get to be there, and to live it! Their anticipation must be just intolerable.

And still no answers to my questions.

Doing nothing is always better than doing what liberals/progressives/socialists want to do. Having a "plan" doesn't automatically make it better than the lack of a plan, regardless of how much you tee hee hee about the lack of a plan. At least we have a plan! Sure, it will cause mass hardship and austerity while achieving nothing, but it's a plan!

Speaking of lackings, what is your plan, Billy? Hell, you can't even support your argument here or answer simple questions. Your adopted method of dealing with challenges is to ignore them and to serve up more steamed octopus. That's much worse that what you're criticizing, tee hee hee.

J

2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Well, back in the day--early 1980s--the environmentalists couldn't decide between global warming and cooling. So I guess the money gravity made the choice for them.

--Brant

They're not "environmentalists." Their actions betray them. They do not behave as if they believe what they say. None of them do. Including our Billy.

J

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

So far, the best I can make of the scientific methodology for manmade climate change works like this.

1. A scientist (or somebody else) notices something interesting about an impact of weather on a part of nature.

2. The scientist (and others) devise a way to measure aspects of it and go into the field ameasuring.

3. They input the measurements into a computer and devise computer models around the measurements that can give a wide range of outcomes, all of which they call "climate."

4. The politicians and people funding the scientist see which outcomes give insiders the most money and power and choose those, and they make the scientist (if he/she is not an insider) say the other models were flawed.

5. The politicians and insiders tell all other scientists they need more measurements and that their measurements have to conform to the computer models they chose on pain of losing their funding and reputations. They sacrifice a few scientists to show they mean it.

6. They make pretty pictures and graphs to show the public to help engineer consent for their expanded power and money.

How am I doing so far?

 

Michael

Also, lots of emoting and double standards. No consistent rules. Sneering and tee hee hees in the place of substantive argument. Unfounded accusations of conspiracy theory mindsets. Steamed octopus on top of steamed octopus with a side of steamed octopus.

J