You is all a bunch of poofs!

screwtape
.
.
Posts: 2317
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 7:15 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6901

Post by screwtape » Sun Sep 01, 2019 4:03 am

Hunt wrote:
screwtape wrote: I should surely like to see Atanu's face if he were to find himself standing amongst one trillion other humans on this planet. A photograph would do, as I wouldn't want to be there in person.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/imag ... ocLnLYhtSg
Omygod Man!

InfraRedBucket
.
.
Posts: 1433
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 4:30 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6902

Post by InfraRedBucket » Sun Sep 01, 2019 6:16 am

CommanderTuvok wrote: Some drama breaking in "Gamergate" world. Again!

Apparently, Zoe Quinn accused some developer of some sort of sexual shenanigans a few days ago. Today, that developer died (appears to be suicide), and ZQ has just deleted her Twitter account.
Also not a gamer. I still get confused about all this. If you are described in the general media as a "gamergater", or part of the "gamergater" controversy are you a baddie or a goodie?

Pitchguest
.
.
Posts: 3801
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 3:44 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6903

Post by Pitchguest » Sun Sep 01, 2019 6:57 am

InfraRedBucket wrote:
CommanderTuvok wrote: Some drama breaking in "Gamergate" world. Again!

Apparently, Zoe Quinn accused some developer of some sort of sexual shenanigans a few days ago. Today, that developer died (appears to be suicide), and ZQ has just deleted her Twitter account.
Also not a gamer. I still get confused about all this. If you are described in the general media as a "gamergater", or part of the "gamergater" controversy are you a baddie or a goodie?
Basically, if you described yourself as a "gamergater", you were part of a group that highlighted the scandal, whereas "anti-gamergate" were the group who tried everything to cover it up. However, because the focus of the Gamergate scandal largely surrounded a woman, if you're called a "gamergater" by the media it's usually nothing good.

Tigzy
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 6782
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 6:53 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6904

Post by Tigzy » Sun Sep 01, 2019 7:34 am

CommanderTuvok wrote: Some drama breaking in "Gamergate" world. Again!

Apparently, Zoe Quinn accused some developer of some sort of sexual shenanigans a few days ago. Today, that developer died (appears to be suicide), and ZQ has just deleted her Twitter account.
Yeah, I noticed Zoe Quim was getting mentioned again recently. Clearly, she missed her fifteen seconds of fame and wanted back in by way of her usual tactic. I'd hope that (apparently) being implicated in a suicide would be enough to drive that fat-thighed, hideous slattern back into obscurity, but I have a nasty feeling she'll try to capitalise on this somehow - maybe by claiming she's the real victim in all this, or something - and that po-faced ho will be all over social media and Huffpo and shit again.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 12311
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6905

Post by Matt Cavanaugh » Sun Sep 01, 2019 10:17 am

My old GF on US immigration policy vs. other countries':

https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration ... mmigration

Pitchguest
.
.
Posts: 3801
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 3:44 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6906

Post by Pitchguest » Sun Sep 01, 2019 10:39 am

Tigzy wrote:
CommanderTuvok wrote: Some drama breaking in "Gamergate" world. Again!

Apparently, Zoe Quinn accused some developer of some sort of sexual shenanigans a few days ago. Today, that developer died (appears to be suicide), and ZQ has just deleted her Twitter account.
Yeah, I noticed Zoe Quim was getting mentioned again recently. Clearly, she missed her fifteen seconds of fame and wanted back in by way of her usual tactic. I'd hope that (apparently) being implicated in a suicide would be enough to drive that fat-thighed, hideous slattern back into obscurity, but I have a nasty feeling she'll try to capitalise on this somehow - maybe by claiming she's the real victim in all this, or something - and that po-faced ho will be all over social media and Huffpo and shit again.
That's exactly what it looks like, she's already had several of her devoted followers imply she's the real victim in all of this - despite the fact that she suddenly decided to air the dirty laundry of someone she'd already "forgiven" years ago, when she knew his history of mental illness and depression. Ironic for someone whose claim to fame is a game (if you want to call it that) called Depression Quest. Then again, not unsurprising when she also launched a campaign of harassment (based on lies) against a forum of self-proclaimed suicidally depressed virgins to advertise said "game."

What's worse to me, though, is that after the dude killed himself, his sister made the announcement on Twitter. She states that the guy had been a victim of abuse, had spent a lifetime "battling mood and personality disorders" and that she "believes survivors" - but it wasn't to defend her brother, it was to defend Zoe. Can you imagine the despair the man must have been in? Not only had his career just been ruined by someone who's known for being a pathological liar, but based on accusations alone his coworkers had distanced themselves from him, his so-called "friends" had thrown him under the bus, and apparently even his own sister had not supported him. Everyone he knew abandoned him. Then, after Zoe deleted her Twitter account, and people pointed to Zoe and cancel culture playing a role in his suicide, his sister had the audacity to bring a message from her brother beyond the grave, imploring people not to "harasss Zoe." What a bitch.

screwtape
.
.
Posts: 2317
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 7:15 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6907

Post by screwtape » Sun Sep 01, 2019 10:49 am

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: My old GF on US immigration policy vs. other countries':

https://thehill.com/opinion/immigration ... mmigration
Such a roundworm load on her I'm surprised she hasn't had the strangles. You sold her on just in time.

Meanwhile, Canada continues to sink into lunacy:

I don’t want to do my PhD – I want a Universal Basic Income (by a self-described poet).

Is ‘modesty’ no longer the best policy? On dress codes, Canadian schools begin to change their approach 'Student voice' is now the criterion. Since we have decided that schools are for teachers and not for pupils, we might as well fail to teach kids anything about what might happen when you walk around half dressed as well as failing on the three R's. Consistency is great, eh?

And it seems that Jonathan Yaniv is no longer an outlier in finding a niche stream of income from Human Rights Tribunal claims. We have a man in Alberta filing serial HRT cases for not getting babysitting jobs. Those evil mothers and fathers ask him questions like how old he is and whether he has children. He's winning. As is a couple from La Belle Province, who file serial complaints against Air Canada for not respecting their French language rights. It seems that the French print was a bit smaller than the English in some cases (I will note it takes an awful lot more words in French to say that which might be said more succinctly in English), and that Airbus had failed to engrave a seatbelt release with "Lift" in both official languages. They have just won $21,000CDN for the latest batch of complaints. I seems they have been filing such complaints since 2005, and they are way ahead of the lottery in terms of return on investment. They have no intention of stopping flying with Air Canada, which one might understand not as an act of bravery in persisting with their language rights, but simple economics. They make money every time they fly.

Driftless
.
.
Posts: 252
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2018 8:13 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6908

Post by Driftless » Sun Sep 01, 2019 12:47 pm

screwtape wrote:
Meanwhile, Canada continues to sink into lunacy:

I don’t want to do my PhD – I want a Universal Basic Income (by a self-described poet).
I don't know whether he is a poet or not, but he is not succinct.

ThreeFlangedJavis
.
.
Posts: 1312
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:13 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6909

Post by ThreeFlangedJavis » Sun Sep 01, 2019 3:43 pm

Yet another not very young white white dude sends in selfie to WEIT. A 100% record. One of our very own this time?

BoxNDox
.
.
Posts: 568
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 2:24 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6910

Post by BoxNDox » Sun Sep 01, 2019 4:29 pm

MarcusAu wrote:
BoxNDox wrote: Short answer: No

Long answer: The people comprising the IDW have political views all over the map, ranging from Sam Harris and Brett Weinstein, who are pretty far left, to Jonathan Haidt, who is center left, to libertarian Michael Shermer, to conservatives Douglas Murray and Ben Shapiro, to whatever the fuck Jordan Peterson is. And this is the whole point of the IDW: To have a diversity of views.

Now, if you were to try and compute some sort of average, maybe you'd come up with a value that's to the right of center. (Or not.) But when you use that value - and like it or not, this is how it's used, to say stuff along the lines of "Sam Harris is IDW, therefore right scum, therefore ignorable".

To put this another way: It's not the result that's in error, it's the puerile insistence that this sort of scoring has any value.
Seems a bit unfair - I would have saved the 'whatever the fuck x is' for Dave Rubin or perhaps Joe Rogan.
Rubin and Rogan are both talk show hosts. That requires a certain flexibility in terms of POV. Peterson, OTOH, is very difficult to place politically, especially on the libertarian/authoritarian axis.
As a group it's hard to find any principles in common for the IDW except that they are prepared to talk to each other, or less charitably to make money off of their commentation.
Oh, I think they have quite a few principles in common - support for free speech is the obvious one. It's specific political positions where they differ markedly.
But as the left has moved...umm...leftward like a herd of skittish antelope - their defining principle now appears to be viewing anyone to the right of them with suspicion at the very least. Any stragglers left behind become de facto right wing.

As usual 'average' appears to be a fairly useless concept - if an objective L-R measure was available the median value would be a better indication of where the IDW is centred.

(Assuming of course that the IDW is still a going concern as a concept, if not group...Things change).
The left certainly thinks it still exists. Of course the left also sees it as a fascist conspiracy or something, so that doesn't mean much.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 12311
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6911

Post by Matt Cavanaugh » Sun Sep 01, 2019 4:54 pm

Ha. Just noticed that Quillette now restricts commenting to members of something called "Quillette Circle." An existing member must invite you to join. No idea how the existing members became members.

That's fucked. Think I'll stop reading.

BoxNDox
.
.
Posts: 568
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 2:24 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6912

Post by BoxNDox » Sun Sep 01, 2019 5:12 pm

jugheadnaut wrote:
BoxNDox wrote:
The Koch brothers have funded all sorts of climate change denialism, and as such bear significant responsibility for the US public's widespread refusal to accept that climate change is real.

It's one thing to say that all of the proposals the progressives have made to combat climate change are pointless at best, unworkable at worst. It's quite another to outright deny that climate change is happening. The former should lead to discussion of alternatives (at least it would if the progressives weren't also absolutists in their own right), the latter... not so much.
That's part of the standard vilification of the Koch brothers, but like everything else, it doesn't withstand scrutiny. What evidence do you have that they funded the 'it's a hoax' brand denialism vs. the type of criticism that you say is understandable and salutary?
Why, none, of course. I never said they engaged in "'it's a hoax' brand denialism", and as far as I know they never did. What they did do was fund lots of groups who in turn funded folks like screwball Fred Singer, who in turn promulgate views ranging from "it's not happening" to "it's not happening but the effects will be minimal".

You might want to take a gander at Kochland - all 700-odd pages of it. Maybe you can refute every piece of evidence laid out there, but I have to say I'm skeptical.
Of course, they helped fund a broad range of libertarian and conservative think tanks and publications, nearly all of which had a climate change position that could minimally be labelled anti-alarmist.

I wouldn't label Richard S. Lindzen as "anti-alarmist". "Effects will be minimal" pretty much sums up his position.
Let's take 3 of the largest: Cato, Heritage Foundation, and Heartland Institute. It's in the standard climate alarmist playbook to denigrate any organization that opposes the alarmist narrative as an anti-science denier, but I take it that's not what you're doing.

Cato, in fact, takes no issue with anthropogenic warming, and the first line in their position abstract is:"Global warming is indeed real, and human activity has been a contributor since 1975. " Nearly all their published work on the subject is analysis and critiques of proposed solutions, especially from a cost/benefit standpoint.

Heritage and Heartland are more aggressive on the PR side, but focus on anti-alarmism rather than denial. Personally, while I would characterize myself primarily as an anti-alarmist, I think their high confidence that the consequences of global warming will be small and manageable isn't justified by the current state of the evidence. But neither organization is objectively denialist (both assert anthropogenic CO2 has a warming signal), and their output is completely legitimate discourse on the issue.

It's understandable not to like someone who funds promoters of ideas you don't like, but quite another to celebrate their death and claim they were attempting to usurp American democracy, which many on the left have done.
I agree that celebrating his death is despicable.
BoxNDox wrote: Like it or not, this is going to be their legacy, especially some years down the road when the shit really hits the fan. All of the money given to the arts, all of the legitimate science they supported, the support for cancer research, etc. will be forgotten.
On the other hand, if the shit doesn't hit the fan, and in 2050 we have another 0.2 deg C of warming with no increase in extreme weather events and minimal sea level change, should they then be celebrated as having saved the world economy an enormous amount of money? Not likely, in that even if that happened, the alarmist case, which is rapidly becoming unfalsifiable, will be patched to have reasons why catastrophic consequences are still in the pipeline.
First, for that to (not) happen there would either have to be a major error in the models. I have yet to see a credible case for that. Of course it's possible there are systemic behaviors we don't know about that will save us. But most of the new considerations that have come up seems to be on the side of making things worse, not better.

As for saving money, it's not like the generation of economic activity is bereft of benefit, even if it's to do something that turns out to be useless. What we must be wary of is politics with unintended consequences that actually curb economic activity, because one thing's for sure: We can't conserve our way out of this.

I also think we'll have a pretty good idea where things are headed by 2030.

Finally, if I were Charles Koch, right now the verdict in the Johnson and Johnson case in Oklahoma would have me a lot more worried than the nasty things people are saying. Because if the use of "public nuisance" law in that case holds up - and I strongly suspect it will - any amount of adverse effect from global warming will likely result in a really spectacular lawsuit.

BoxNDox
.
.
Posts: 568
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 2:24 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6913

Post by BoxNDox » Sun Sep 01, 2019 5:14 pm

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: Ha. Just noticed that Quillette now restricts commenting to members of something called "Quillette Circle." An existing member must invite you to join. No idea how the existing members became members.

That's fucked. Think I'll stop reading.
Quillette is worth reading just for the articles. (You know, like Playboy.) Even before the circle-jerk thing I rarely bothered with the comments.

Driftless
.
.
Posts: 252
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2018 8:13 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6914

Post by Driftless » Sun Sep 01, 2019 5:30 pm

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: Ha. Just noticed that Quillette now restricts commenting to members of something called "Quillette Circle." An existing member must invite you to join. No idea how the existing members became members.

That's fucked. Think I'll stop reading.
I saw that too. It took me a bit to notice the requirement for an invite. I thought you could just create an account. It makes no sense to me. I actually found the comments to be interesting to read. Sometimes more interesting to read than the article.

Guest_5e6bf2d8

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6915

Post by Guest_5e6bf2d8 » Sun Sep 01, 2019 11:55 pm

A really interesting Joe Rogan podcast with Penn Jillette as they talk about all sorts of shit, drugs, the cost of college, and Phil Plait losing to Joe Rogan in a debate about whether we landed on the moon because Phil Plait arrogantly thought, Rogan's a comic, I've got this in the bag!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OnBVqeW5JA&t=3318s

MarcusAu
.
.
Posts: 7060
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:49 am
Location: Llareggub
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6916

Post by MarcusAu » Mon Sep 02, 2019 12:59 am

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
Sun Sep 01, 2019 4:54 pm
Ha. Just noticed that Quillette now restricts commenting to members of something called "Quillette Circle." An existing member must invite you to join. No idea how the existing members became members.

That's fucked. Think I'll stop reading.
Sounds like the Freemasons.

Best of luck figuring out what is really going on in the world if you are not already a member.

Keating
.
.
Posts: 1911
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 3:18 pm
Location: South of anteater guy
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6917

Post by Keating » Mon Sep 02, 2019 4:35 am

I don't want to be a member of any club that would accept me.

ThreeFlangedJavis
.
.
Posts: 1312
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:13 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6918

Post by ThreeFlangedJavis » Mon Sep 02, 2019 5:21 am

jugheadnaut wrote: Let's take 3 of the largest: Cato, Heritage Foundation, and Heartland Institute. It's in the standard climate alarmist playbook to denigrate any organization that opposes the alarmist narrative as an anti-science denier, but I take it that's not what you're doing.

Cato, in fact, takes no issue with anthropogenic warming, and the first line in their position abstract is:"Global warming is indeed real, and human activity has been a contributor since 1975. " Nearly all their published work on the subject is analysis and critiques of proposed solutions, especially from a cost/benefit standpoint.

Heritage and Heartland are more aggressive on the PR side, but focus on anti-alarmism rather than denial. Personally, while I would characterize myself primarily as an anti-alarmist, I think their high confidence that the consequences of global warming will be small and manageable isn't justified by the current state of the evidence. But neither organization is objectively denialist (both assert anthropogenic CO2 has a warming signal), and their output is completely legitimate discourse on the issue.

It's understandable not to like someone who funds promoters of ideas you don't like, but quite another to celebrate their death and claim they were attempting to usurp American democracy, which many on the left have done.
Cato's Patrick Michaels is usually held up as one of those anti-alarmists just looking for truth, but it's obvious that his game is to discredit climate research and he doesn't care if he has to misrepresent research papers and scrub inconvenient data. One of his most notable examples is where he took Hansen's paper which presented curves based on different emissions scenarios, removed the lower emissions curves and presented this as proof of how flawed the models were when in fact the middle curve, which Hansen had favoured, was quite accurate. These self-described "anti-alarmist" think-tanks host fast-talking carney acts like Willie Soon. Heartland hold events with science denying liars like Monckton. The "anti-alarmist" claim is a fig-leaf. Their obvious objective is to discredit the scientific consensus and they aren't doing it because of any genuine scientific skepticism.

Hunt
.
.
Posts: 3006
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 5:04 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6919

Post by Hunt » Mon Sep 02, 2019 6:08 am

Haven't heard much from Anita Sarkeesian for quite a while. Is the old gal still with us?

free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 10294
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6920

Post by free thoughtpolice » Mon Sep 02, 2019 8:06 am

Hunt wrote: Haven't heard much from Anita Sarkeesian for quite a while. Is the old gal still with us?
In less than 16 minutes:

ConcentratedH2O, OM
.
.
Posts: 6431
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 8:51 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6921

Post by ConcentratedH2O, OM » Mon Sep 02, 2019 9:11 am

Not prompted by the Sarkeesian update, but I just heard an interview with Hannah Gadsby. Turns out that having wrung dry her lesbianity for media attention, she has now decided to be an autist. It's tricky trying to appeal to a woke audience, they get jaded very quickly and you end up running just to stay in place.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/01/arts ... ralia.html

InfraRedBucket
.
.
Posts: 1433
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 4:30 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6922

Post by InfraRedBucket » Mon Sep 02, 2019 9:43 am

free thoughtpolice wrote:
Hunt wrote: Haven't heard much from Anita Sarkeesian for quite a while. Is the old gal still with us?
In less than 16 minutes:
Haven't heard much from ThunderFoot for quite a while. Is the old guy still with us?

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 12311
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6923

Post by Matt Cavanaugh » Mon Sep 02, 2019 10:00 am

Coyne and the PharynguWEITs again call for a total ban on gun ownership in the US:

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.co ... nt-1766312

free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 10294
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6924

Post by free thoughtpolice » Mon Sep 02, 2019 10:06 am

InfraRedBucket wrote:
Haven't heard much from ThunderFoot for quite a while. Is the old guy still with us?
He started a second channel, Voice of Thunder, and primarily is doing debunking and nerdy mad scientist videos
Still worth checking out from time to time.

mordacious1
.
.
Posts: 906
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:33 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6925

Post by mordacious1 » Mon Sep 02, 2019 10:58 am

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: Coyne and the PharynguWEITs again call for a total ban on gun ownership in the US:

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.co ... nt-1766312
I’m watching hurricane coverage and one of the government reps just stated that during and after the storm, if you dial 911, first responders may not be able to respond. This is quite common during a disaster or civil unrest. You’re on your own. Seems like an argument for having the ability to protect yourself if necessary.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 12311
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6926

Post by Matt Cavanaugh » Mon Sep 02, 2019 11:49 am

mordacious1 wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote: Coyne and the PharynguWEITs again call for a total ban on gun ownership in the US:

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.co ... nt-1766312
I’m watching hurricane coverage and one of the government reps just stated that during and after the storm, if you dial 911, first responders may not be able to respond. This is quite common during a disaster or civil unrest. You’re on your own. Seems like an argument for having the ability to protect yourself if necessary.
Sheriff is 20-40 minutes out. That's if you can call 911, given the many dead cell phone zones. We've got tweakers and drug cartel guys driving the backroads in cars with no license plates. Certainly no use calling the cops about a bear or a lion I stumble upon in my woods.

I've just about had it with a bunch of metrosexuals who live in London or SF telling me the only reason I own a gun is to compensate for my fragile sense of masculinity.

Driftless
.
.
Posts: 252
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2018 8:13 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6927

Post by Driftless » Mon Sep 02, 2019 11:54 am

free thoughtpolice wrote:
Hunt wrote: Haven't heard much from Anita Sarkeesian for quite a while. Is the old gal still with us?
In less than 16 minutes:
She and her partners were using Feminist Frequency as her sole source of income and I think she lives in San Francisco. So it had to support multiple people's rent, etc.

I think that she tried to live one version of the American Dream, which is to create a foundation and get enough donations to pay your entire living expenses. It worked for a while, but did not have staying power apparently.

screwtape
.
.
Posts: 2317
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 7:15 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6928

Post by screwtape » Mon Sep 02, 2019 1:37 pm

ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: Yet another not very young white white dude sends in selfie to WEIT. A 100% record. One of our very own this time?
Perhaps you mean blackface would be better next time?

So, being somewhat doxxed, and with no medical license to lose anymore, I will confess to being the straight-razor shaving, analogue film developing, black powder muzzle loading, vinyl record via vacuum tube amplification dude described in various posts on WEIT. My name is Chris, and I am a Slymepitter.

CommanderTuvok
.
.
Posts: 3730
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 1:18 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6929

Post by CommanderTuvok » Mon Sep 02, 2019 2:03 pm

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: Ha. Just noticed that Quillette now restricts commenting to members of something called "Quillette Circle." An existing member must invite you to join. No idea how the existing members became members.

That's fucked. Think I'll stop reading.
I imagine that given Quillette is such a bogeyman for the fringe left and obsessive SJWs, it gets targeted for trolling and shit-posting.

However, I would have thought Q and its readers would easily ignore that shit.

Hunt
.
.
Posts: 3006
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 5:04 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6930

Post by Hunt » Mon Sep 02, 2019 2:56 pm

mordacious1 wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote: Coyne and the PharynguWEITs again call for a total ban on gun ownership in the US:

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.co ... nt-1766312
screwtape wrote:
ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: Yet another not very young white white dude sends in selfie to WEIT. A 100% record. One of our very own this time?
Perhaps you mean blackface would be better next time?

So, being somewhat doxxed, and with no medical license to lose anymore, I will confess to being the straight-razor shaving, analogue film developing, black powder muzzle loading, vinyl record via vacuum tube amplification dude described in various posts on WEIT. My name is Chris, and I am a Slymepitter.
I’m watching hurricane coverage and one of the government reps just stated that during and after the storm, if you dial 911, first responders may not be able to respond. This is quite common during a disaster or civil unrest. You’re on your own. Seems like an argument for having the ability to protect yourself if necessary.
No electric toothbrush collection? Once you've gone Braun, you'll never go back.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 12311
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6931

Post by Matt Cavanaugh » Mon Sep 02, 2019 3:18 pm

screwtape wrote:
ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: Yet another not very young white white dude sends in selfie to WEIT. A 100% record. One of our very own this time?
Perhaps you mean blackface would be better next time?

So, being somewhat doxxed, and with no medical license to lose anymore, I will confess to being the straight-razor shaving, analogue film developing, black powder muzzle loading, vinyl record via vacuum tube amplification dude described in various posts on WEIT. My name is Chris, and I am a Slymepitter.
I have a 30+ year old roll of East German B&W film 200 ISO. You think it still might work?

KiwiInOz
.
.
Posts: 4857
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:28 pm
Location: Brisbane
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6932

Post by KiwiInOz » Mon Sep 02, 2019 3:34 pm

Keating wrote: I don't want to be a member of any club that would accept me.
Top marx for that quip.

KiwiInOz
.
.
Posts: 4857
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:28 pm
Location: Brisbane
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6933

Post by KiwiInOz » Mon Sep 02, 2019 3:37 pm

mordacious1 wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote: Coyne and the PharynguWEITs again call for a total ban on gun ownership in the US:

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.co ... nt-1766312
I’m watching hurricane coverage and one of the government reps just stated that during and after the storm, if you dial 911, first responders may not be able to respond. This is quite common during a disaster or civil unrest. You’re on your own. Seems like an argument for having the ability to protect yourself if necessary.
How do assault rifles go against a hurricane? Perhaps the nuclear option is warranted.

KiwiInOz
.
.
Posts: 4857
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:28 pm
Location: Brisbane
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6934

Post by KiwiInOz » Mon Sep 02, 2019 3:38 pm

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
mordacious1 wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote: Coyne and the PharynguWEITs again call for a total ban on gun ownership in the US:

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.co ... nt-1766312
I’m watching hurricane coverage and one of the government reps just stated that during and after the storm, if you dial 911, first responders may not be able to respond. This is quite common during a disaster or civil unrest. You’re on your own. Seems like an argument for having the ability to protect yourself if necessary.
Sheriff is 20-40 minutes out. That's if you can call 911, given the many dead cell phone zones. We've got tweakers and drug cartel guys driving the backroads in cars with no license plates. Certainly no use calling the cops about a bear or a lion I stumble upon in my woods.

I've just about had it with a bunch of metrosexuals who live in London or SF telling me the only reason I own a gun is to compensate for my fragile sense of masculinity.
So what do you have then to compensate for your fragile sense of masculinity?

KiwiInOz
.
.
Posts: 4857
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:28 pm
Location: Brisbane
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6935

Post by KiwiInOz » Mon Sep 02, 2019 3:39 pm

screwtape wrote:
ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: Yet another not very young white white dude sends in selfie to WEIT. A 100% record. One of our very own this time?
Perhaps you mean blackface would be better next time?

So, being somewhat doxxed, and with no medical license to lose anymore, I will confess to being the straight-razor shaving, analogue film developing, black powder muzzle loading, vinyl record via vacuum tube amplification dude described in various posts on WEIT. My name is Chris, and I am a Slymepitter.
Hello Chris ....

ThreeFlangedJavis
.
.
Posts: 1312
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:13 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6936

Post by ThreeFlangedJavis » Mon Sep 02, 2019 3:58 pm

screwtape wrote:
Mon Sep 02, 2019 1:37 pm
ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: Yet another not very young white white dude sends in selfie to WEIT. A 100% record. One of our very own this time?
Perhaps you mean blackface would be better next time?

So, being somewhat doxxed, and with no medical license to lose anymore, I will confess to being the straight-razor shaving, analogue film developing, black powder muzzle loading, vinyl record via vacuum tube amplification dude described in various posts on WEIT. My name is Chris, and I am a Slymepitter.
I was thinking more fake tits than blackface. I just find it amusing how prevalent us old white dudes are on sciencey blogs featuring lamention over white male domination of the sciences.

Driftless
.
.
Posts: 252
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2018 8:13 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6937

Post by Driftless » Mon Sep 02, 2019 4:43 pm

ThreeFlangedJavis wrote:
screwtape wrote:
Mon Sep 02, 2019 1:37 pm
ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: Yet another not very young white white dude sends in selfie to WEIT. A 100% record. One of our very own this time?
Perhaps you mean blackface would be better next time?

So, being somewhat doxxed, and with no medical license to lose anymore, I will confess to being the straight-razor shaving, analogue film developing, black powder muzzle loading, vinyl record via vacuum tube amplification dude described in various posts on WEIT. My name is Chris, and I am a Slymepitter.
I was thinking more fake tits than blackface. I just find it amusing how prevalent us old white dudes are on sciencey blogs featuring lamention over white male domination of the sciences.
When Jerry announced the photos of readers series I suspected it would show a "lack of diversity", and so far it has been 100% white and mostly male. I am surprised no one has taken them to task.

katamari Damassi
.
.
Posts: 5372
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 10:32 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6938

Post by katamari Damassi » Mon Sep 02, 2019 4:50 pm

CommanderTuvok wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote: Ha. Just noticed that Quillette now restricts commenting to members of something called "Quillette Circle." An existing member must invite you to join. No idea how the existing members became members.

That's fucked. Think I'll stop reading.
I imagine that given Quillette is such a bogeyman for the fringe left and obsessive SJWs, it gets targeted for trolling and shit-posting.

However, I would have thought Q and its readers would easily ignore that shit.
I'm okay with the change. A lot of their comments were of the"herp derp libtards" variety.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 12311
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6939

Post by Matt Cavanaugh » Mon Sep 02, 2019 4:53 pm

I'm okay with the change. A lot of their comments were of the"herp derp libtards" variety.
[/quote]
I'd have been cool with them killing comments entirely. But not this secret handshake Illuminati shit.

Hunt
.
.
Posts: 3006
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 5:04 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6940

Post by Hunt » Mon Sep 02, 2019 5:45 pm

Franco Columbu logs into the Great Gold's Gym in The Sky.

Driftless
.
.
Posts: 252
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2018 8:13 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6941

Post by Driftless » Mon Sep 02, 2019 5:50 pm

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
I'm okay with the change. A lot of their comments were of the"herp derp libtards" variety.
I'd have been cool with them killing comments entirely. But not this secret handshake Illuminati shit.
[/quote]

Surprisingly donations do not require that you know someone who has already donated. The donation page does not say whether donating will get you into the "circle" or not.

ThreeFlangedJavis
.
.
Posts: 1312
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:13 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6942

Post by ThreeFlangedJavis » Mon Sep 02, 2019 6:22 pm

Hunt wrote:
Mon Sep 02, 2019 5:45 pm
Franco Columbu logs into the Great Gold's Gym in The Sky.
Now that does make me feel my age. I was heavily into the weights with 2 buddies at boarding school,one of whom went for a walk out of an ashram in the Himalayan foothills and was never seen again, in the era of Franco, Arnie, Frank Zane, Mike Mentzer and co. Before the bubble gut era which I find grotesque. Modern bodybuilding seems to value mass above symmetry or any other aesthetic concern. Some of the recent guys are almost square! as for the women, paper thin stretchmarked skin, jutting jaws and thinning hair are not cool. I don't know which is worse, the huge beachball plastic tits or the tennis balls perched on top of slabs of muscle.

free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 10294
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6943

Post by free thoughtpolice » Mon Sep 02, 2019 7:00 pm

ThreeFlangedJavis wrote:
Hunt wrote:
Mon Sep 02, 2019 5:45 pm
Franco Columbu logs into the Great Gold's Gym in The Sky.
Now that does make me feel my age. I was heavily into the weights with 2 buddies at boarding school,one of whom went for a walk out of an ashram in the Himalayan foothills and was never seen again, in the era of Franco, Arnie, Frank Zane, Mike Mentzer and co. Before the bubble gut era which I find grotesque. Modern bodybuilding seems to value mass above symmetry or any other aesthetic concern. Some of the recent guys are almost square! as for the women, paper thin stretchmarked skin, jutting jaws and thinning hair are not cool. I don't know which is worse, the huge beachball plastic tits or the tennis balls perched on top of slabs of muscle.
Grotesque it is. People have a craving to take shit like this to extremes.

jugheadnaut
.
.
Posts: 1283
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 9:09 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6944

Post by jugheadnaut » Mon Sep 02, 2019 10:02 pm

BoxNDox wrote:
jugheadnaut wrote:
BoxNDox wrote:
The Koch brothers have funded all sorts of climate change denialism, and as such bear significant responsibility for the US public's widespread refusal to accept that climate change is real.

It's one thing to say that all of the proposals the progressives have made to combat climate change are pointless at best, unworkable at worst. It's quite another to outright deny that climate change is happening. The former should lead to discussion of alternatives (at least it would if the progressives weren't also absolutists in their own right), the latter... not so much.
jugheadnaut wrote: That's part of the standard vilification of the Koch brothers, but like everything else, it doesn't withstand scrutiny. What evidence do you have that they funded the 'it's a hoax' brand denialism vs. the type of criticism that you say is understandable and salutary?
Why, none, of course. I never said they engaged in "'it's a hoax' brand denialism", and as far as I know they never did. What they did do was fund lots of groups who in turn funded folks like screwball Fred Singer, who in turn promulgate views ranging from "it's not happening" to "it's not happening but the effects will be minimal".
You did state, quite literally, that they were funding sources that outright deny that climate change is happening. This is exactly what hoax brand denialism is. Just like it's impossible to say man didn't go to the moon without a hoax being necessarily implied, it's also impossible to assert there's been no climate change without implying a hoax. Koch-funded groups that had a climate change position were generally anti-alarmist, meaning they believed the consequences of climate change will be at the low end of the range forecast by the IPCC and will be quite manageable and almost certainly cheaper and less economically disruptive than almost all of the CO2 reducing solutions that are commonly advocated. That said, I'm not going to vouch for everyone Koch affiliated groups invited to speak to a conference or published. There are some in this group that have become pure contrarians, like Singer and the odious Christopher Moncton, and only seek arguments against CO2 being harmful and no longer care what the actual truth is. But the denier brush is then used to tar genuine scientists like Roy Spencer, John Christie, Judith Curry, Nir Shaviv, Henrik Svensmark, Ryan Maue, Roger Pielke (both Sr. and Jr.) and educated analysts like Steve McIntyre, Bjorn Lomborg, and Nic Lewis. These are the type of people that are the mainstays which groups like Cato, Heritage, and Heartland invite to conferences and publish.

BoxNDox wrote: You might want to take a gander at Kochland - all 700-odd pages of it. Maybe you can refute every piece of evidence laid out there, but I have to say I'm skeptical.
No thanks, I'd rather listen to a 3 hour lecture from Zoe Quinn on Patriarchy in Video Game Development. Every accusation I've heard to date falls under the category of "they fund something I disagree with it. Therefore, they are bad and you should think they're bad, too". I have no intention of dumpster diving for accusations that stick, but feel free to point out the one in this 700 page tome that you believe is most damaging. Or was it this climate change denialism funding claim?
BoxNDox wrote:
I wouldn't label Richard S. Lindzen as "anti-alarmist". "Effects will be minimal" pretty much sums up his position.
He does believe the effects will be minimal, but it's not fair to say that sums up his position. Lindzen is entirely on board that the earth has warmed about 1 deg C in the last 100 years, and man-made carbon emissions are largely responsible for it, and if [CO2] continues to rise, it will cause future warming. You can see this in this presentation that he gave at a House of Commons seminar in London in 2012. He believes climate sensitivity is low, around 1 deg C per doubling. This overall position is the very definition of anti-alarmism, although his sensitivity estimate is lower than most in this camp, as it implies no net positive feedback. I do have issues with Linzen. I think he shows unwarranted, blasé confidence in this position when there is a lot of evidence that there is at least some positive feedback and this is at least a risk that should be seriously considered. I think he's become so disgusted with what he perceives as bias and groupthink among climate scientists that he decided to fight fire with fire.
jugheadnaut wrote: On the other hand, if the shit doesn't hit the fan, and in 2050 we have another 0.2 deg C of warming with no increase in extreme weather events and minimal sea level change, should they then be celebrated as having saved the world economy an enormous amount of money? Not likely, in that even if that happened, the alarmist case, which is rapidly becoming unfalsifiable, will be patched to have reasons why catastrophic consequences are still in the pipeline.
BoxNDox wrote:
First, for that to (not) happen there would either have to be a major error in the models. I have yet to see a credible case for that. Of course it's possible there are systemic behaviors we don't know about that will save us. But most of the new considerations that have come up seems to be on the side of making things worse, not better.
Not really, it's pretty consistent with the low end of model predictions. Currently the rate of increase of atmospheric [CO2] is about 2ppm/year, and the current [CO2] level is about 407 ppm. That gives a 2050 [CO2] of about 470 ppm, or about 15% more than the current level. The IPCC 5th assessment estimates equilibrium CO2 sensitivity at 1.5 - 4.5 deg C , and transient CO2 sensitivity at 1.0-2.5 deg C. Since we're estimating the temperature immediately after the CO2 level reaches a certain point we should use the transient CO2 sensitivity, with the understanding that some further warming is baked in. The 15% [CO2] increase would imply a 20% bite into the climate sensitivity, or .2 deg C as a transient response by 2050 at the low end of the range. While there would still be some more warming to be realized, if indeed the temperature was only .2 deg C higher in 2050, this would be very strong empirical evidence that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is indeed on the low side of the range, and any damages will be manageable and certainly not catastrophic. As things stand, the anti-alarmist case that climate CO2 sensitivity is on the low side, or slightly lower than the range forecast by the IPCC rests in part, contra what you said about no credible case for a major error in the models, on the models being consistently biased to more warming than is actually observed:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/ ... 24x921.png
This graph was produced by Roy Spencer and John Christie, and lest you want to call them deniers and ignore it, here's the abstract from a 2017 paper by Ben Santer, a member in good standing of the 'it's really, really cereal' climate science team stating "In the early twenty-first century, satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble".

MarcusAu
.
.
Posts: 7060
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:49 am
Location: Llareggub
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6945

Post by MarcusAu » Tue Sep 03, 2019 12:08 am

screwtape wrote: I will confess to being the straight-razor shaving, analogue film developing, black powder muzzle loading, vinyl record via vacuum tube amplification dude...
Ah, but this is hardly the full picture...


...and on a somewhat tangential note - when you were growing up in the South West of England did you hear tell of stories concerning strange nocturnal rituals being performed in the New Forrest? With many involved being in a state of less than modest dress.

I'm thinking of Gerald Gardner, amoungst others. (Which I suppose he would have been at the time).

KiwiInOz
.
.
Posts: 4857
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:28 pm
Location: Brisbane
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6946

Post by KiwiInOz » Tue Sep 03, 2019 12:34 am

Let's just step back a bit shall we.

https://i1.wp.com/thinkprogress.org/wp- ... 1920&ssl=1

screwtape
.
.
Posts: 2317
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 7:15 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6947

Post by screwtape » Tue Sep 03, 2019 2:20 am

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: I have a 30+ year old roll of East German B&W film 200 ISO. You think it still might work?
If kept in a freezer, it will be as good as new. If at room temperature it will probably be around ISO 50 by now, and very grainy. I have a freezer dedicated to film, and there's no way I'll ever manage to use all of it. All sorts of emulsions that are no longer made.

screwtape
.
.
Posts: 2317
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 7:15 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6948

Post by screwtape » Tue Sep 03, 2019 2:30 am

MarcusAu wrote: ...and on a somewhat tangential note - when you were growing up in the South West of England did you hear tell of stories concerning strange nocturnal rituals being performed in the New Forrest? With many involved being in a state of less than modest dress.

I'm thinking of Gerald Gardner, amoungst others. (Which I suppose he would have been at the time).
No, but we did have a coven in the village where I grew up. Mostly middle-aged lesbians, as usual. Viewing them 'sky-clad' would not necessarily be a treat.

MarcusAu
.
.
Posts: 7060
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:49 am
Location: Llareggub
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6949

Post by MarcusAu » Tue Sep 03, 2019 4:00 am

Ah, l'anglais toujours les excentriques.

Tigzy
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 6782
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 6:53 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6950

Post by Tigzy » Tue Sep 03, 2019 4:02 am

MarcusAu wrote: ...and on a somewhat tangential note - when you were growing up in the South West of England did you hear tell of stories concerning strange nocturnal rituals being performed in the New Forrest? With many involved being in a state of less than modest dress.

I'm thinking of Gerald Gardner, amoungst others. (Which I suppose he would have been at the time).
Gerald Gardner was the original PUA god. That dirty old devil was utterly determined to get a good look at some naked ladies, and by god, he cracked it.

BoxNDox
.
.
Posts: 568
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 2:24 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6951

Post by BoxNDox » Tue Sep 03, 2019 5:04 am

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
mordacious1 wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote: Coyne and the PharynguWEITs again call for a total ban on gun ownership in the US:

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.co ... nt-1766312
I’m watching hurricane coverage and one of the government reps just stated that during and after the storm, if you dial 911, first responders may not be able to respond. This is quite common during a disaster or civil unrest. You’re on your own. Seems like an argument for having the ability to protect yourself if necessary.
Sheriff is 20-40 minutes out. That's if you can call 911, given the many dead cell phone zones. We've got tweakers and drug cartel guys driving the backroads in cars with no license plates. Certainly no use calling the cops about a bear or a lion I stumble upon in my woods.

I've just about had it with a bunch of metrosexuals who live in London or SF telling me the only reason I own a gun is to compensate for my fragile sense of masculinity.
Yeah, me too. I grew up in rural Oklahoma, right on the "edge of town".When these morons start spouting about how there's no need for a gun, I ask them how we were supposed to deal with, say, coyotes killing pets, chickens, livestock, etc. If I'm in a particularly bad mood I add that one alternative is to call the greyhound guy and have him bring his dogs out, and everyone makes a day of it watching as they hunt the coyotes down and tear them to pieces. They really have a problem with that; can't imagine why.

Of course here in LA when the coyotes come down out of the hills and start killing things the response is - wait for it - to feed them. People in the retirement home down the street leave food out for them all the time. And then wonder where theirs cats and poodles have gotten to.

Hunt
.
.
Posts: 3006
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 5:04 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6952

Post by Hunt » Tue Sep 03, 2019 5:18 am


MarcusAu
.
.
Posts: 7060
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:49 am
Location: Llareggub
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6953

Post by MarcusAu » Tue Sep 03, 2019 5:22 am

Tigzy wrote: Gerald Gardner was the original PUA god. That dirty old devil was utterly determined to get a good look at some naked ladies, and by god, he cracked it.
Not particularly surprising - as he was familiar with the writings of dear old Aleister

BoxNDox
.
.
Posts: 568
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 2:24 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6954

Post by BoxNDox » Tue Sep 03, 2019 5:46 am

jugheadnaut wrote:
BoxNDox wrote:
jugheadnaut wrote:
BoxNDox wrote:
The Koch brothers have funded all sorts of climate change denialism, and as such bear significant responsibility for the US public's widespread refusal to accept that climate change is real.

It's one thing to say that all of the proposals the progressives have made to combat climate change are pointless at best, unworkable at worst. It's quite another to outright deny that climate change is happening. The former should lead to discussion of alternatives (at least it would if the progressives weren't also absolutists in their own right), the latter... not so much.
jugheadnaut wrote: That's part of the standard vilification of the Koch brothers, but like everything else, it doesn't withstand scrutiny. What evidence do you have that they funded the 'it's a hoax' brand denialism vs. the type of criticism that you say is understandable and salutary?
Why, none, of course. I never said they engaged in "'it's a hoax' brand denialism", and as far as I know they never did. What they did do was fund lots of groups who in turn funded folks like screwball Fred Singer, who in turn promulgate views ranging from "it's not happening" to "it's not happening but the effects will be minimal".
You did state, quite literally, that they were funding sources that outright deny that climate change is happening. This is exactly what hoax brand denialism is.
No it is not. It's question of intent.
Just like it's impossible to say man didn't go to the moon without a hoax being necessarily implied, it's also impossible to assert there's been no climate change without implying a hoax.
Wow, talk about a ridiculous comparison. When you say the moon landing didn't actually happen despite all the recordings, pictures, samples, etc. a hoax has to be involved. But it's entirely possible to claim that the scientific consensus on climate change is incorrect without also claiming there's malfeasance involved.
Koch-funded groups that had a climate change position were generally anti-alarmist, meaning they believed the consequences of climate change will be at the low end of the range forecast by the IPCC and will be quite manageable and almost certainly cheaper and less economically disruptive than almost all of the CO2 reducing solutions that are commonly advocated. That said, I'm not going to vouch for everyone Koch affiliated groups invited to speak to a conference or published. There are some in this group that have become pure contrarians, like Singer and the odious Christopher Moncton, and only seek arguments against CO2 being harmful and no longer care what the actual truth is. But the denier brush is then used to tar genuine scientists like Roy Spencer, John Christie, Judith Curry, Nir Shaviv, Henrik Svensmark, Ryan Maue, Roger Pielke (both Sr. and Jr.) and educated analysts like Steve McIntyre, Bjorn Lomborg, and Nic Lewis. These are the type of people that are the mainstays which groups like Cato, Heritage, and Heartland invite to conferences and publish.
Tenses, tenses. When Cato backed Singer it was already pretty damned obvious where he stood.
jugheadnaut wrote: On the other hand, if the shit doesn't hit the fan, and in 2050 we have another 0.2 deg C of warming with no increase in extreme weather events and minimal sea level change, should they then be celebrated as having saved the world economy an enormous amount of money? Not likely, in that even if that happened, the alarmist case, which is rapidly becoming unfalsifiable, will be patched to have reasons why catastrophic consequences are still in the pipeline.
BoxNDox wrote:
First, for that to (not) happen there would either have to be a major error in the models. I have yet to see a credible case for that. Of course it's possible there are systemic behaviors we don't know about that will save us. But most of the new considerations that have come up seems to be on the side of making things worse, not better.
Not really, it's pretty consistent with the low end of model predictions. Currently the rate of increase of atmospheric [CO2] is about 2ppm/year, and the current [CO2] level is about 407 ppm. That gives a 2050 [CO2] of about 470 ppm, or about 15% more than the current level. The IPCC 5th assessment estimates equilibrium CO2 sensitivity at 1.5 - 4.5 deg C , and transient CO2 sensitivity at 1.0-2.5 deg C. Since we're estimating the temperature immediately after the CO2 level reaches a certain point we should use the transient CO2 sensitivity, with the understanding that some further warming is baked in. The 15% [CO2] increase would imply a 20% bite into the climate sensitivity, or .2 deg C as a transient response by 2050 at the low end of the range. While there would still be some more warming to be realized, if indeed the temperature was only .2 deg C higher in 2050, this would be very strong empirical evidence that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is indeed on the low side of the range, and any damages will be manageable and certainly not catastrophic. As things stand, the anti-alarmist case that climate CO2 sensitivity is on the low side, or slightly lower than the range forecast by the IPCC rests in part, contra what you said about no credible case for a major error in the models, on the models being consistently biased to more warming than is actually observed:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/ ... 24x921.png
This graph was produced by Roy Spencer and John Christie, and lest you want to call them deniers and ignore it, here's the abstract from a 2017 paper by Ben Santer, a member in good standing of the 'it's really, really cereal' climate science team stating "In the early twenty-first century, satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble".
Actually, it' pretty darned easy to discount once you look at the time scale and note it only goes back to 1983. Now, as for why tropospheric data specifically has diverged somewhat from predictions starting in 2005 or so, there are lots of possible explanations given the shortness of the time scale. And the fact that Santer and others are concerned enough about the discrepancies to be looking at it says something in and of itself. Maybe it will result in adjustment of the models, maybe not. (And maybe it already has - I don't follow this stuff all that closely, and even if I did I'm not plugged into the preprint system to know where current thinking is on this.)

But this is nowhere near sufficient to support a conclusion that the climate system is much less sensitive to CO2 than previously thought.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 12311
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6955

Post by Matt Cavanaugh » Tue Sep 03, 2019 6:24 am

And now it appears I've been shadow-banned at WEIT. The gun control thread was, unsurprisingly, drowned in the ranting and insults of the local baboons, with only a few commenters interested in debating concrete policy points.

Driftless
.
.
Posts: 252
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2018 8:13 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6956

Post by Driftless » Tue Sep 03, 2019 7:23 am

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: And now it appears I've been shadow-banned at WEIT. The gun control thread was, unsurprisingly, drowned in the ranting and insults of the local baboons, with only a few commenters interested in debating concrete policy points.
Wow. No gun owners there apparently and nice assumptions about why people own guns. Send Jerry a picture of yourself with a gun for his reader's pictures series. :D

ThreeFlangedJavis
.
.
Posts: 1312
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:13 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6957

Post by ThreeFlangedJavis » Tue Sep 03, 2019 8:37 am

BoxNDox wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 5:46 am
Actually, it' pretty darned easy to discount once you look at the time scale and note it only goes back to 1983. Now, as for why tropospheric data specifically has diverged somewhat from predictions starting in 2005 or so, there are lots of possible explanations given the shortness of the time scale. And the fact that Santer and others are concerned enough about the discrepancies to be looking at it says something in and of itself. Maybe it will result in adjustment of the models, maybe not. (And maybe it already has - I don't follow this stuff all that closely, and even if I did I'm not plugged into the preprint system to know where current thinking is on this.)

But this is nowhere near sufficient to support a conclusion that the climate system is much less sensitive to CO2 than previously thought.
Here's a discussion of the Nature paper https://www.carbonbrief.org/study-why-troposphere-warming-differs-between-models-and-satellite-data.

Of particular note:
Second, they looked to see if the difference might be caused by models being too sensitive to CO2. They found no discernable relationship between model sensitivity and their ability to accurately predict tropospheric temperatures over this period.
Ultimately, the paper finds that while there is a mismatch between climate models and observations in the troposphere since the year 2000, there is little evidence to-date that the model/observation differences imply that the climate is less sensitive to greenhouse gases. The results suggest that while these short-term differences between models and observations are a subject of great scientific interest, it does not diminish the reality of long-term human-driven warming.
And for the IPCC conspiracy theorists:
These forcings will be updated in current modeling effort, called CMIP6, being done in preparation for the next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. This new generation of models, featuring forcings closer to observations in recent years, will likely show better correspondence with tropospheric temperature observations, but may not be any more or less sensitive to CO2 than the prior generation of models
It should also be noted from the article that the atmospheric strata are not that sharply defined and there is bleed between them. The upper atmosphere is in fact cooling. There are also far fewer measurements being taken and the decay of satellite orbits means that the time of day at which measurements are taken changes over time. In short, due to measurement issues and various other interactions the tropospheric temperature is not regarded as being as accurate as the surface temperature record. Obviously the accuracy is being improved with time and this paper may help with that.

ThreeFlangedJavis
.
.
Posts: 1312
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:13 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6958

Post by ThreeFlangedJavis » Tue Sep 03, 2019 8:44 am

Driftless wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 7:23 am
Matt Cavanaugh wrote: And now it appears I've been shadow-banned at WEIT. The gun control thread was, unsurprisingly, drowned in the ranting and insults of the local baboons, with only a few commenters interested in debating concrete policy points.
Wow. No gun owners there apparently and nice assumptions about why people own guns. Send Jerry a picture of yourself with a gun for his reader's pictures series. :D
They're very consistent. They also know why people voted for Brexit, the evil intentions behind everything Trump says, how nasty Xtians are and how dumb everyone outside of their intellectual bubble is.

ThreeFlangedJavis
.
.
Posts: 1312
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:13 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6959

Post by ThreeFlangedJavis » Tue Sep 03, 2019 10:38 am

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 6:24 am
And now it appears I've been shadow-banned at WEIT. The gun control thread was, unsurprisingly, drowned in the ranting and insults of the local baboons, with only a few commenters interested in debating concrete policy points.
It is an article of faith with these guys that gun owners are idiots incapable of taking down a shooter without killing everyone else or getting in the way of the (absent) police. There is no room in their imaginations for an armed member of the public capable of resisting the shooter without wildly spraying ammo. I know I'd want a guy with a gun around, or a gun, if I was hiding under a table with the sound of gunshots getting nearer, but these antis can only ever imagine dumbass hicks being irresponsible. I'm sure there have been many instances of shooting victims who have had to wait in terror knowing they are going to die and wishing they'd been armed.

Driftless
.
.
Posts: 252
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2018 8:13 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#6960

Post by Driftless » Tue Sep 03, 2019 11:50 am

ThreeFlangedJavis wrote:
Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 6:24 am
And now it appears I've been shadow-banned at WEIT. The gun control thread was, unsurprisingly, drowned in the ranting and insults of the local baboons, with only a few commenters interested in debating concrete policy points.
It is an article of faith with these guys that gun owners are idiots incapable of taking down a shooter without killing everyone else or getting in the way of the (absent) police. There is no room in their imaginations for an armed member of the public capable of resisting the shooter without wildly spraying ammo. I know I'd want a guy with a gun around, or a gun, if I was hiding under a table with the sound of gunshots getting nearer, but these antis can only ever imagine dumbass hicks being irresponsible. I'm sure there have been many instances of shooting victims who have had to wait in terror knowing they are going to die and wishing they'd been armed.
One of the comments at WEIT was something like slowly reduce the number of guns in circulation and by the time they are all gone no one will feel they need one and then you are done. It is on the level of "war is bad so let's stop having wars". Nice sentiment but wrong species.

Post Reply