Jonathan

I don't think so. I think that she's drifted away from Objectivism, and from wanting to be Ayn Junior. Her thought process has often become quite opposed to "objectivity" and "rationality." She's an interesting study.

Have any of you checked in on Dr. Comrade Sonia lately? She has drifted substantially from objectivity and rationality. If you read enough of her tweets and retweets, certain patterns emerge, and take on psychologically revelatory significance, and I it think lends some perspective to her oddly public behavior over the years. Who hurt you so badly, Dr. Comrade? J

Wow, it's really cool to see Billy expressing curiosity, doubt, and critical thinking. Of course, the same question wouldn't occur to him if MSK had claimed that Global Warming Doom caused the fires, but selective curiosity is better than no curiosity. J

We're moving closer to eco-terrorism, Crichton-style. J

Little brainwashed Greta has turned down an award from leftists because they're not being leftist enough for her. Billy, you ought to enjoy this: She demands that the leftists act in accordance with what "the science" says is needed to combat global warming. Tee hee hee! She actually said "the science." "The science" says that we need socialism, and we need it now, or we're all going to die in 27 days. "The science" said so! Don't be a science denier. Tee hee heeeeeeee!!!! Greta Thunberg Rejects Climate Award, Rips Countries That Gave It To Her By James Barrett DailyWire.com Facebook Twitter Mail Teen climate change activist Greta Thunberg, who dominated headlines last month after her speech to the U.N. declaring that we are “in the beginning of a mass extinction,” was offered an award this week from the Nordic Council for “breathing new life into the debate surrounding the environment and climate at a critical moment in world history.” But on Tuesday, the 16-year-old told the council that they could keep their climate prize and issued an ultimatum: she will not accept an award from them until they move on from “bragging” and using “beautiful words” to acting “in accordance with what the science says is needed” to combat global warming. 00:27 / 01:15 Thunberg issued her official rejection of the award and rebuke of the council via an Instagram post Tuesday. The council has since confirmed that she indeed turned down their prize, which is worth a little over $50,000. “I have received the Nordic Council’s environmental award 2019. I have decided to decline this prize,” wrote Thunberg. Noting that she’s traveling through California and thus unable to deliver her message in person, the celebrity activist wrote out her rejection speech. “I want to thank the Nordic Council for this award. It is a huge honour,” she wrote. “But the climate movement does not need any more awards. What we need is for our politicians and the people in power start to listen to the current, best available science.” Thunberg then specifically called out the Nordic countries for what she characterized as their self-congratulatory hypocrisy. “The Nordic countries have a great reputation around the world when it comes to climate and environmental issues,” she said. “There is no lack of bragging about this. There is no lack of beautiful words. But when it comes to our actual emissions and our ecological footprints per capita — if we include our consumption, our imports as well as aviation and shipping — then it’s a whole other story.” She then got more specific, hitting the Nordic nations for not doing enough to eliminate fossil fuels: “In Sweden we live as if we had about 4 planets according to WWF and Global Footprint Network. And roughly the same goes for the entire Nordic region. In Norway for instance, the government recently gave a record number of permits to look for new oil and gas. The newly opened oil and natural gas-field, ‘Johan Sverdrup’ is expected to produce oil and natural gas for 50 years; oil and gas that would generate global CO2 emissions of 1,3 tonnes.” “The gap between what the science says is needed to limit the increase of global temperature rise to below 1,5 or even 2 degrees — and politics that run the Nordic countries is gigantic. And there are still no signs whatsoever of the changes required,” she continued. “The Paris Agreement, which all of the Nordic countries have signed, is based on the aspect of equity, which means that richer countries must lead the way. We belong to the countries that have the possibility to do the most. And yet our countries still basically do nothing.” She closed with one of her trademark ultimatums. “So until you start to act in accordance with what the science says is needed to limit the global temperature rise below 1,5 degrees or even 2 degrees celsius, I — and Fridays For Future in Sweden — choose not to accept the Nordic Councils environmental award nor the prize money of 500 000 Swedish kronor,” she concluded. As reported by CNN, the Nordic Council confirmed in a news release Tuesday that Thunberg did indeed reject their award. Dressing down world leaders has become Thunberg’s modus operandi. In late September, the climate alarmist issued a similar statement to the United Nations which painted an apocalyptic picture of the world and included digs about the leaders being “not mature enough” to be honest about the dire situation. “My message is that we’ll be watching you,” she said in a speech that went viral, in part due to critics pointing to its hyperbolic claims. “This is all wrong, I shouldn’t be up here, I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean. Yet, you all come to us young people for hope, how dare you. You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words, and yet I’m one of the lucky ones. People are suffering, people are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairytales of eternal economic growth.”

I don't remember ever hearing of Rand expressing such annoyance, but I'd be interesting in learning of any evidence that she did so.

Yup. Bluff and bluster. J

Exactly. It's documented, citable, quotable. Where is Mark's documentation about the claim that Rand called the work of her artistic acolytes "trash"? J

Um, WTF? I'm not an "Objectivist." Then provide a source, douchebag. J

Neither. What carries weight would be you citing reality rather than reporting a rumor, inferring something that didn't happen, or making shit up. The above is what is called "appeal to authority." It's a fallacious tactic. Your having listened to more Rand Q&As than I have, if that's even true, doesn't make your claim about Rand's "trash" comment and artistic leeches true. Cite. Quote. Provide evidence to support your assertion. There's no valid substitute to evidence. J

The fun thing about Rand's theory of art is that it doesn't end there. The next step is for someone to delve into what is wrong with us and our senses of life for not adoring Minns' work. Probably Torres. If I recall, he's the one who has most enjoyed that weapon. J

I don't recall ever hearing of Rand being asked about contemporary artists/followers trying to cash in on her popularity. There were artists in her outer circle who seem to have conformed themselves to Rand's theories, but she liked them, bought some of their work, and I think she wanted to sort of groom them to be the leaders of the coming Objective arts renaissance. Cordair gallery didn't yet exist, and Newberry hadn't yet latched onto the "movement," so I don't know which artist would actually qualify as fitting the right time frame and of having at least some recognition in O-land. So, it all sounds like a mistake -- that someone misunderstood something, and now it's being reported as having happened, or possibly having happened, when it's probably just an unintentional game of telephone/grapevine/Chinese whispers. J

Um, who came up with the bullshit that the question about Parrish was about an artist trying to cash in on Rand's popularity? Was it Mark, or was he linking to someone else's site? Heh. Anyway, WTF? Slop. Never heard of Parrish? Um, okay, but even then, how hard is it to look up? And, seriously, how in the hell did the story get twisted so that Parrish, who preceded Rand, and enjoyed much more fame than she had, and still does, followed after her and was cashing in on her lesser fame? Is the rest of the article as sloppy? As for Minn's art -- eeesh. J

And let's not forget Newbsie either. He doesn't think for himself. He's Ayn's little bitch. But he doesn't post here regularly anymore. He has flounced, and then come back, only to flounce again. Perhaps he's permanently gone? J

True, that. Billy does love following the herd on a few issues. Toeing the line. And his own recommended tactics of dealing with those who harbor silly beliefs don't work with him. He no like.

Don't worry. Billy is going to save us. He has enlisted, and is right now packing up his shit, and heading over there to straighten it all out. He's taking printouts of his posts with him, and a PLS container full of tracers. Fuck yeah! J

Except for Tony. J

https://images.app.goo.gl/FbKAQHBqKrUGDp3D7

Holy shit, did you see that Turkish forces are attacking Kurdish civilians at a gun range in Kentucky?!!! WTF? Where's President Trump? Where's our military? This cannot stand! J I wonder if anyone at ABC knows what tracers are, and how many are commonly used in a real-life operation. Nah, actually, I don't wonder.

When all of your past predictions have failed, make new predictions which are even scarier, and do so with greater confidence and authority. J

I think that Minneapolis manchild mayor Frey played a part in generating the large turnout. I hope that he and the rest of the left continue to not learn anything, and keep on trying the same stupid tactics. J

Unfortunately, Billy doesn't have any answers, and, as Ellen has successfully argued, he doesn't understand the questions and their relevance to science. He doesn't grasp any of it. J

Ya gotta love the fact that they still think that their Narratives™ are working. J

For the sake of tidiness, I'm reposting this post here: In an attempt at conversation and graciousness, I’ll give it another shot, and ask my questions in yet another way: What was the hypothesis that has been “settled"? Wasn't it that mankind’s activities are the primary cause of global warming — that global warming is happening due to mankind’s activities, and it would not be happening without those activities? That’s what it seems to have been? Was it that if mankind produces X amount of CO2 over time period Y, then the result must be temperature Z, and temperature Z will mean changes in climate, and catastrophic consequences? Here are the questions: How many years’ of data of CO2 emissions and temperatures were determined — prior to gathering that data — to be needed to be recorded in order to confirm the hypothesis, and why that amount of time? What duration of time was established as a falsification limit, after which the hypothesis would be considered to have failed if the predictions did not come true in reality, and why that amount of time? What other criteria were identified, ahead of testing, as falsifying the hypothesis? Why those criteria and not others? Or were none identified? Which one of the many climate computer models has succeeded in predicting future temperatures reliably and repeatedly? When — what date — was that single model proposed as one whose predictions were expected to succeed in reality? When did it become active, and its predictions began to be put to the test and compared to data collected in reality? Was the model unaltered, or, during testing, did it receive any revisions or updates? If so, on what grounds were those modifications deemed to be acceptable rather than as invalidating the original model? On what date was the conclusion determined that the model had met all of the criteria that had been established before testing, and that it had succeeded, had avoided falsification, and had been independently repeated and confirmed? Prior to all of that, how was it determined what the global temperature should be were it not for mankind’s activities? By what means and reasoning have natural drivers of temperature been accounted for and eliminated as affecting outcomes? More to come. But, please, start with the above. J