Malcolm's comments

« First    « Previous     Comments 3103 - 3142 of 3,142     Last »

  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 May 20, 10:04am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

marcus says
I see almost the complete opposite. There are different models that all the science people and most of the intelligent folks understand are only models based on educated guesses (not predictions). It was always about hypotheses, trends, scientific facts, evidence and RISK ..

IT was never about anyone claiming to have absolute certainty about what's happening. But it's the denier right wingers, that use the argument that without absolute certainty 9 different ways from Sunday, it's foolhardy to avoid risk simply by expediting the use of alternative and more environmentally friendly energy sources. Which is something that probably would have other long term geopolitical benefits anyway.

It's only those that massively profit from maximizing the use of fossil fuels that stand in the way of good common sense energy policy and investment.


This is called backpedaling. The skeptic's side has predicted this, and that prediction did come true. This is such an about face, that I consider it an admission that the science is not settled and welcome you to the skeptic side, since you are no longer asserting that there is any foreseeable danger from global warming, I mean climate change.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 May 20, 10:35am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

marcus says
I still see a danger and a risk. I don't have to have absolute certainty about the exact magnitude of the danger in order to believe policies are justified.


No, but you reexamine the model when its predictive theory fails.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 May 20, 11:12am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

marcus says
Here are graphs of a bunch of models. We know that so far is that several of these models are relatively accurate.. But they are just models. Nobody ever said with absolute certainty they were able to predict exactly how it will unfold


How can there possibly be consensus and settled science then?
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 May 20, 11:50am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

marcus says
Because all of the graphs are of exponential increase in land and ocean temperatures. Thats the part that there is nearly total agreement on.


Except, that it didn't happen. That is the part that there is skepticism on.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 May 20, 12:14pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

CBOEtrader says
No-one said this. I would like to see intellectually honest discussion rather than weak attempts to slander skepticism, which is the backbone of scientific process. Anyone who used the phrase "science denier" has no business discussing this topic.


Amen.

CBOEtrader says
The climate change debate has been conducted in a terribly unscientific manner.


I have tried explaining to the alarmists that I am agnostic. For about a year, on more than one site, I have posed a very simple challenge to convince me. It seems very logical that if there is sea level rise then it should be observable. So I have put a challenge out there to show me in an old picture and a new picture a rise in the high water line on a fixed point. I have also asked if anyone can demonstrate a predicted bad scenario that actually came true. No one has been able to demonstrate either of these two scientific hurdles.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 May 21, 7:38am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

CBOEtrader says
marcus says
can't be proven by a method you are referring to in a time frame that would save us from ruin


The same can be said for giving yourself to Jesus Christ and thus not going to Hell. It cant be empirically proven until its too late.

Climate change = religion.


That was a beauty.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 May 21, 6:18pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Onvacation says
Co2 is essential for life. More co2 helps plant growth. Greenhouse farmers double the ambient co2 with no adverse effect to the growers and great effect to the plants.


Not to mention, while CO2 does have insulating properties, there are other "greenhouse" gases that theoretically are 10x times as green housy as CO2. Other than wanting to attack modern civilization, I don't really understand why the alarmists made CO2 public enemy number 1.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 May 22, 7:43am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Onvacation says
These are qiestions the alarmists have no answer for. Instead they revert to calling the sceptics stupid as they have no answers themselves.


I'm still waiting for a picture actually showing even the slightest change in sea level somewhere. None of these arm chair scientists have ever been able to produce one.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 May 25, 8:46am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Here is a very drastic example of discounting. Large homes are a bargain in my area. Homes like these are keeping median prices up, but the market is continuing to weaken in San Diego County. This house sold for $139 a foot.

  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 May 25, 2:58pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

I can show plenty of closed listings in the 200-300 per sf. It is only the gems that are selling and many are discounted. The wages don’t support the prices. I’m even going to start looking for a nice urban/rural property. These larger homes could easily house a studio rental no need to offer me a finder’s fee, I’m most likely the competition for the right property.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 May 26, 9:00pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

People glamorize being doctors and lawyers. Those people spend their whole lives as slaves. Terrible, because it makes them act unethically just to get by.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 May 29, 9:49am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

LeonDurham says
So, you are the expert and can state categorically that a reduction in CO2 would have no effect on climate?


I would categorically state that the supposed increases in CO2 have had no noticeable impact on climate, so I would infer that reducing CO2 would have no noticeable effect.

Please stop trying to put the skeptics on the defensive because the models aren’t panning out in the alarmist favor.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 1, 8:24am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

People like to debate me, but the math is as simple as that.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 1, 10:14pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

It is only fair to start giving Donald Trump credit for global cooling.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 3, 1:40pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

I’m actually at the Les Miserables performance. Time to ban airsofts.

  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 3, 3:25pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

The courtyard outside the theater is still cordoned off.

  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 4, 8:32am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Hi Patrick, I enjoyed your book. Putting more pieces together, I completely understand how the system enslaves the majority of people in this country. I am referring to high student loans and high housing prices. I am starting to side more with your point of view that the elder generations are enslaving the younger ones with student loans that will never be paid off and houses that will never be paid off.

Specifically, I think of the orthodontist with $1 million in student loans. I was also imagining he of course has to have an expensive house to fit in. No matter how successful his practice is, there is no way that he will not be in a negative amortization for his entire life, and that assumes everything else goes well. He can certainly count on not affording a family, though he will have a wife in the beginning, until she realizes that there is no upside. They will never go on vacations, they won't be able to eat out with friends, or belong to the country club.

I am seeing more and more that young people are leveraging their entire expected life earnings to pay for ridiculous degrees and these blue state homes that will be living hell holes.

Just my thought of the day. Good work.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 4, 12:56pm   ↑ like (4)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Compelling an artist to make a work that is contrary to his beliefs is unconstitutional, immoral and unamerican. It is basically involuntary conscription.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 5, 9:32am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Does this mean there is even an event worth watching?

Think about it, a full hour of women sharing their opinions of the world. It is pretty much just going to be watched by women now.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 5, 8:16pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

curious2 says
Just preserving this...


It's a keeper.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 7, 8:37am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

LeonDurham says
No, if the models are correct, then the consequences WILL BE dire. I said they are potentially dire because we don't know if the models are correct


I thought the science was settled.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 8, 12:17am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

curious2 says
LeonDurham says
Models aren't proof. Presenting a model is providing a tool that incorporates many variables into simulations to produce probabilities of results when differing scenarios are inputted. Definitely not proof.


Just preserving this, too...


Yes, this one is a real beaut.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 8, 9:04am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

LeonDurham says
Malcolm says
Yes, this one is a real beaut.


Troll #2 makes an appearance as well.

It's funny. If one simply quotes and responds to a post, it is duly saved. To quote and not respond is really the height of trollishness.


There's not much I can add to some of your insights, so I just read with my mouth agape, as I am sure many others are, including some who are on your side of the topic. In over ten years of my participation on this site, yours are by far the most surreal strings of logic that I have ever read. It is literally like watching someone being told that there is no Easter bunny despite the compelling physical evidence of chocolate eggs that can only be explained by the existence of the Easter bunny.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 8, 9:21am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

LeonDurham says
lol--with no examples, of course. No thoughtful response pointing out the error in my logic or even where you disagree with my opinions.


I have an open challenge to anyone who can show an actual doom and gloom climate change prediction that came true or even just a photograph showing a rise in sea level. For all of the people who believe the way you do, not one has been able to, with a simple old and recent photograph, show any rise in the high water line, yet on my thread relating to this very topic, I have my own and other pictures showing no change on a fixed object.

Your logic is flawed because you concur that the science is settled, yet the models that the science theory you assert as true continue to be wrong with the predictive theory. Your science can't be settled with predictive theory that doesn't correctly predict. Rather than objectively reevaluating and actually learning something, the religious mindset takes over and the desired result becomes a goal to prove instead of a theory to test.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 8, 9:30am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

LeonDurham says
You are basically saying that gravity doesn't exist because one cannot precisely predict where a feather will land when dropped outside.


A bit of a stretch, but yes, even in this example, if you can't correctly predict the outcome, you don't have a full understanding of the subject.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 8, 9:30am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

That's what makes it a religion, because it becomes a belief.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 8, 9:36am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

LeonDurham says
You obviously haven't read anything I've written. That is the exact OPPOSITE of what I've been saying


This is called equivocating. This allows a safe space for plausible deniability. If you don't actually believe the science is settled relating to human caused climate change, then it is you who are trolling by asserting that we are all ignorant and wrong about something that you are apparently open to because you say the science for part of it is settled but you aren't so sure about the rest of it. The problem there is that the rest of it is the point of the discussion. The atmosphere obviously holds in heat like a blanket. The effect of CO2 is not understood, ergo bad model result, and more likely it is the amount of water vapor and clouds that determines how much heat is trapped.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 8, 9:48am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

LeonDurham says
Nope. I don't think you read very carefully. The science of the greenhouse effect is settled. It was discovered in the early 1800s and proven in mid 1800s, completely unrelated to and prior to any discussion of the Earth warming. That is not a model.


Sorry, but you have just precisely rephrased my point. You are just wanting to alarm for no actual reason. That is precisely what an alarmist is.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 8, 10:05am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Since you are not digesting what I am telling you let me be clear, with your own words.

CBOEtrader says
I think you're confusing things. Science is settled on CO2's effect in the atmosphere. The models are obviously just that--models.


LeonDurham says
Nope. I don't think you read very carefully. The science of the greenhouse effect is settled. It was discovered in the early 1800s and proven in mid 1800s, completely unrelated to and prior to any discussion of the Earth warming. That is not a model.


Now with my words:

Malcolm says
asserting that we are all ignorant and wrong about something that you are apparently open to because you say the science for part of it is settled but you aren't so sure about the rest of it. The problem there is that the rest of it is the point of the discussion. The atmosphere obviously holds in heat like a blanket. The effect of CO2 is not understood, ergo bad model result, and more likely it is the amount of water vapor and clouds that determines how much heat is trapped.


The reason you think I missed something is because you don't understand the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere because the predictive theory on its relationship to temperature didn't pan out. Therefore I simply go to the main point, the effect of human activity. The reason some of your comments are keepers is because of the bizare logic of admitting that the predictive theories might be flawed, even due to circumstances yet unknown (some consider it settled science), yet you still believe there is an actionable crisis.

That is why some of us are taken aback.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 8, 10:08am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

LeonDurham says
Could you please point out where I'm alarming? Pointing out the existence of the greenhouse effect discovered in the 1820s is alarming?


curious2 says
LeonDurham says
The only thing that can argued is how self correcting the Earth's ecosystem is. Maybe it will self correct and stop the temperature rise. But, the consequences are so dire if not, is it really something we want to leave up to chance?


Just preserving this...


Also preserving this.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 8, 3:15pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Onvacation says
Is it a coincidence that many alarmists are atheists that badly need to believe in something?


Similar behavior by followers and similar behavior by those controlling the followers. It’s almost like they follow this model like the Bible. Don’t you dare question the contradictions, that is heracy.

Yes, people need a belief or a cause to feel complete.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jun 22, 10:03am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

More alarmism from insignificant natural variations with no impact on anything. Note the "radically" for more punch.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 3, 8:12am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Again, if someone could show me with photographic proof that oceans are rising, I would be open minded. Here is another bit of photographic proof of basically no change, certainly no rise.

http://extra.heraldtribune.com/2016/06/09/throwback-thursday-photos-venice-avenue-then-and-now/
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 3, 8:45am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Here’s another one. Please take note, absolutely no change in the high water line, almost perfect match where the grass grows.

  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 10, 8:17am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

I’ve been waiting for four months for my license plates. I looked it up and that is normal now.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 10, 8:21am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

At least the interest should be. If it is too easy, banks will end up requiring the loans be secured with an asset or a co-signer, who will end up being on the hook. There is no free lunch, don’t borrow money if you aren’t sure that you can repay it.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 10, 9:17am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Aphroman says
You can’t have Capitalism without the ability to discharge debt via bankruptcy


Cool, as long as you aren't using taxpayer money, knock yourself out.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 10, 10:06am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

theoakman says
This is a very easy fix via middle ground. You can disallow bankruptcy for a period of time (10 years maybe). Most people want to buy a home at that point.


Really? You don’t believe that even the home lenders would then encourage people to file for bankruptcy, which would make them eligible for even more of a loan for a house because they won’t have a student loan payment and they would also be prevented from filing bankruptcy for another 7 to 10 years allowing them to be an even safer loan as they would have more equity in the house after that time?

I see a major moral hazard with what you’re proposing here.
  Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jul 15, 5:41pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Even I am astounded that it is 60% higher than the last time around.



The Housing Trap
You're being set up to spend your life paying off a debt you don't need to take on, for a house that costs far more than it should. The conspirators are all around you, smiling to lure you in, carefully choosing their words and watching your reactions as they push your buttons, anxiously waiting for the moment when you sign the papers that will trap you and guarantee their payoff. Don't be just another victim of the housing market. Use this book to defend your freedom and defeat their schemes. You can win the game, but first you have to learn how to play it.
115 pages, $12.50

Kindle version available


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions