william.scherk

Bring an example of what you claim and I can react specifically. "Certain proponents" suggests you have some particulars in mind. Offhand, I am opposed to ostracizing and intimidating 'dissenters.' This is probably worth its own sub-thread, IMO.** You ask "why is it that only supporters of AGW ..." Shouldn't we first have evidence that supporters of AGW (in science) try to silence/punish 'dissenters'? Then evidence that AGW supporters (in academe) do the same. Then evidence that AGW supporters (in politics) do the same. You will also have to demonstrate that no one from the other 'side' (dissenters from AGW in science or academe or politics) has attempted to "silence critics and punish [them]." We can dig up instances of shaming, attempts at silencing, FOIA-ing, attempts to rain 'punishment,' and examine them, then speculate to the particular motives-to-believe ... I can interpret these two questions by disentangling them from implicit assumptions: -- let's look at what might motivate research into 'global warming' -- let's look for signals from the research into global warming -- let's assume several signals: some research finds AGW to be real, some research is equivocal, some research is contra-AGW, some research accepts AGW, but focuses on applications, mitigation, effects, ramifications, policy prescriptions, etc -- are there financial incentives at play in all these AGW research areas? -- are the financial incentives greater than in sister disciplines (eg, is money pumping into the broad category of climatology out of proportion to other scientific disciplines? -- are there large public outlays of funds for AGW research per se? -- would this funding of climate research tend to bias results? While considering the questions of putting their fellow men in cages and other abuses committed by the as-yet-unnamed miscreants, I am eyeing my afternoon reading. Back to Weart's history, "the discovery" ... I am looking at the motives of the guys who did the early work, whom I named above already. I don't see at the outset that any of them were motivated by money or that money caused them to be abusive to putative dissenters. If bad-seed money entered the scientific equation, it was likely much later than even Keeling. Another thought on money/corruption of science -- should we also estimate money motivation among the dissenters? Do we examine non-pro-AGW researchers for the stain of lucre? Do we assume that methods of funding are probably agents of taint? If so, we need to qualify what is meant by methods of funding, and identify the machinery of corruption. Do I think granting agencies implicitly or explicitly ask for a 'return on investment' by way of a particular result -- that all/most/some/government funding puts a thumb on the scale in terms of scientific results? No, I don't see a fundamental corruption of the process. What I want to see is an illustration. Like, "NASA funding corrupts climatology 3 ways" ... Do I think that the corrective nature of science tends to flush out frauds, hoaxers, papers tainted by bias? Yes, though not invincibly. This suggests examples may abound of aggressive criticism funded/encouraged by governments. You should be able to share an instance of what you suggest is factual, common. Mind you, an example of "aggressive criticism" in itself is not 'ignoring, ostracizing or punishing." Tony, are you more-or-less agnostic on 'mankind is a/the cause'? What if we humans could mimic 'natural causes'? If, for example titanic eruptions could tilt climate, etc, could human contributions do the same, even hypothetically? I wish you would share your chain of reasoning more. You say the present interglacial is a rare pause. How do we check that statement? Did what you assert is 'not a science' come to deliver plausible or solid theories that you accept (in re glacial epochs)? In my reading of Weart, it seems to me that the greatest 'discovery' about climate was that it had rapid switches in the past, rather than gradual steady undramatic changes between hot and cold ... here's the part of his online book that covers the non/science of glacial epochs: Past Climate Cycles: Ice Age Speculations. _____________ ** NB this link to Jonathan's comment in the "How to deal with global warming thread:: The case of 'an assistant professor of philosophy wants to lock up "deniers"' sheds light on the suggestion that there are "massive public financial incentives involved in AGW research ... motivating people to ... advocate putting their fellow men in cages for having a different opinion" My posts are backed up in the editing suite. I would like to return to this. -- sunny days on the Wet Coast:

Tony, your comment is a good jumping-off place, with questions that deserve answering. I am going to answer this in the other Global Warming thread, "Scientific Fraud becoming endemic?"

That's hard to answer properly. As is likely the same with you, my attention to the issues covers years of reading and thinking. As is also likely with you, to synthesize and summarize a particular author across his or her output in multiple venues is a tall order. It's asking us to reduce a large ambit of discourse to a pithy kernel, and then to crack it ... (Which prominent critics of AGW have you read, Jonathan? what would you say is the substance of their criticisms? Is it fair to ask you?) -- but to answer as best I can, without helping myself fill in memory holes via the internets, I have most recently read Ian Plimer's book, I am glancingly familar with writers associated with the Heartland Institute, and know of and have read into arguments put forward by such as Bjorn Lomborg, Fred Singer, Christopher Monckton, Steve McIntyre, Roy Spencer, Anthony Watts. A few other names escape me right now. To answer each of their substantive criticisms (of AGW) individually would occupy me until May, but again off the top of my head, the criticisms I retained most strongly would be a mix: The globe is not really warming at all. We are experiencing variation but the signal is strong and steady: in the long-run of millennia, we will cool.Global warming is happening, but it’s not caused by humans. It is a natural event influenced by a number of factors.It is happening, and is in part caused by humans, but the power and activity of our sun is much more important in explaining the warming.It's likely happening, but predicting future temperatures via CO2 emissions is fool's game.It is indeed happening, it is mostly caused by human activities, but it's a good thing. Provoking alarm is a bad thing.Global warming is happening, and may quite likely be caused by humans. But the earth can dampen the effect by natural processes. This is only what still stands out for me, broadly, categories of critiques of AGW. Do you want me to summarize a paper or chapter and then rebut, or do you want me to identify actual arguments I consider refuted, more generally adduced (go through eg Plimer's book, respond to contra-AGW points raised, or use the list above to lay out my understanding?). I can interpret your query more generically: "Which arguments against AGW do you consider strongest, and how do you answer them?" That's a fair question, needing thought. Next time out I'll address the remaining questions from your post. If you want to name some authors, articles, books, or particular questions thereof, great. I am wondering, of course, if you will declare your stance, as I have by attaching the Ogwah 'consensus' patch to my shoulder. Meanwhile, stormy and irrelevant weather:

Jonathan, I am not sure yet that you know what comprises my shorthand 'consensus' on anthropogenic global warming, by my own reckoning. I appreciate your tangle with the arguments given at the last two links above: It looks like you followed links on to review methodology of the research by James Powell that gave this image at the Scientific American site: The graphic was introduced this way by SA's bitchy blogger Ashutosh Jogalekar: Several items of note in your review give me this vibe: -- Powell was wrong to assume 'agreement' with AGW theories in his "not explicitly rejecting AGW" set -- Powell wrongly identifies a cohort as being part of the consensus -- Powell (and other estimators) wrongly subsume scholarly articles unrelated to any aspect of climate theory under the rubric "accept/agree" ... To clear up what Powell was doing with his literature review, from his page on methods. You write: I don't know how you have decided this. You say "it's clear that many of those who have 'reason for doubt'" were falsely counted as accepting (AGW consensus). How did you check for 'reason for doubt'? Did you, like me, download the table of articles netted by Powell's search criteria? -- I will return to this later, since I continue to slog through samples of Powell's catch of articles. With some effort I hope to quantify that which you assume, papers which may express 'reason for doubt.' We can meantime set it aside as 'Powell study degree of shittiness to be established.' I really appreciate you putting your mind to topics large and small in re AGW. We who populated the early posts in this thread did a lot of groundwork/seeding, though it only very slowly bears fruit! ******************* On to the other example, to NASA's attempt at defining 'the consensus'; note that the NASA page does not cite Powell's study for its illustration. Its "97%" is apprised from different research. It cites these three: 1. Expert Credibility in Climate Change; This article has a great reference section, covering the greater literature on the so-called consensus. Its authors promise: "A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts" 2. Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change ; This brief article discusses its survey of "a large and broad group of Earth scientists" 3. Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change; This short letter to Science attracted much attention (and a fair critique). It has some resemblance to Powell's paper as it too selected items from the literature. I'll take this bit to illustrate its point: First it quotes from a purported 'consensus' statement from the IPCC: -- this quote adequately expresses, in layman's terms, the hypothesis that the author puts to the test in her own review. The question posed might be, with elaboration as "does the record (the larger literature) actually support the IPCC's confident assertion? Jonathan, I think we could stipulate, as Adam did, that there is a stance presented as the consensus of climate science, a bottom-line set of statements so put forth. By stipulate I don't mean agree with that stance, just to agree that this stance, those claims, such statements are what is meant by the consensus. We can certainly clash on measures and methods and obstacles to asserting this or that percentage of consensus. I'd like to move on from this skirmish just now with one more article for perusal. This is another look at the literature, which attempts to quantify the 'no opinion given' cohort. Its authors state up front: "An accurate perception of the degree of scientific consensus is an essential element to public support for climate policy". 4. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature -- we can argue about these surveys/analyses, and the particular numbers that reflect 'consensus,' but I think we get a deeper agreement: estimating a consensus may be rife with uncertainty (or flim-flam, as you suggest), identifying what constitutes the agreed-upon basics of AGW theory is easier. I'll get back to this line and your post above in a day or so. Again, I appreciate discussion on Ogwah opening up. I am in a mood where I relish slow inquiry, instead of over-energetic jousting and crabbing, as I was wont. As for weather, I am sorry our big arctic high pressure dome slopped over the border into Minnesota. I read it's the seventeenth coldest winter since 1897! Here in Vancouver the rain has slunk back in. It is cherry blossom time, though: I suggest we each add lovely and irrelevant photos to our posts.

What do you mean by "the modern consensus"? Do you mean that a consensus of all scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by man's activities, or do you mean that a consensus of a relatively small group of scientists who were selected to attend certain conferences agree that it is likely that man's activities have contributed to one degree or another to global warming? Or do you mean something else? 'The modern consensus' is shorthand. Even shorter would be 'AGW is happening' ... but implied is 'scientific' agreement. I just quickly reviewed the timeline, and I see that it notes findings during certain years that have been contrary to AGW theories, but it dismisses them as anomalies or enigmas rather than as disproof of the theories. It seems that when confronted with findings which don't support AGW theories' predictions, the idea is to not abandon the theory, but to move the goal posts and concoct an explanation for the "anomaly" that is more conjecture than science. Also, I'll have to dig a little deeper before saying for certain, but the timeline appears that it might be selective in what it contains and what it leaves out, and it appears to possibly contain some anachronistic airbrushing of errors and terms used at different times. The timeline is good for jumping off into the associated material at Weart's website. For me, it is the early workers that stand out. Before I read into the work of the guys named above, I didn't really know how the concept we now know as AGW emerged in such detail, step by step or block by block. Specifically which "consensus" are you referring to? This Scientific American blog-post wryly explicates: About that consensus on global warming: 9136 agree, 1 disagrees. I am inclined to save this Harriman/Peikoff thread from drowning due to AGW; there are a couple of global warming-ish threads already. I'll add this to "Scientific Fraud becoming endemic?" and elaborate my short answers here over there. After a cycle in the warm spring sun.

What do you mean by "the modern consensus"? Do you mean that a consensus of all scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by man's activities, or do you mean that a consensus of a relatively small group of scientists who were selected to attend certain conferences agree that it is likely that man's activities have contributed to one degree or another to global warming? Or do you mean something else? 'The modern consensus' is shorthand. Even shorter would be 'AGW is happening' ... but implied is 'scientific' agreement. I just quickly reviewed the timeline, and I see that it notes findings during certain years that have been contrary to AGW theories, but it dismisses them as anomalies or enigmas rather than as disproof of the theories. It seems that when confronted with findings which don't support AGW theories' predictions, the idea is to not abandon the theory, but to move the goal posts and concoct an explanation for the "anomaly" that is more conjecture than science. Also, I'll have to dig a little deeper before saying for certain, but the timeline appears that it might be selective in what it contains and what it leaves out, and it appears to possibly contain some anachronistic airbrushing of errors and terms used at different times. The timeline is good for jumping off into the associated material at Weart's website. For me, it is the early workers that stand out in Weart's book. Before I read into the work of the guys named above, I didn't really know how the concept we now know as AGW emerged in such detail, step by step or block by block. Specifically which "consensus" are you referring to? This Scientific American blog-post wryly explicates: About that consensus on global warming: 9136 agree, 1 disagrees. Another, less wry exposition from NASA: "Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree."

Details from a February Yahoo article: When I thought of 'off-the-grid' lady in Florida, I imagined her and a semi-rural plot of land, not a duplex. The rest of the story just makes me feel sorry for her. That she sluiced out her toilets and drained her sinks into the the town's sewer works against her case. She should do an Indigogo crowdfunder to buy herself a place further away from those meddling humans.

Ogwah notwithstanding, this is a great thread. Love, triumph, schisms, Dan Edge, forcible confinement, Nixon, and more. Thanks especially to Ellen, MSK and Jonathan for reporting from the frontline.

I am an AGWer, I suppose. To list out results which would disprove 'their theories' it's necessary to examine the building blocks of what we might call CO2-warming theory. From my reading over the years and especially reading of The Discovery of Global Warming by Weart, there have been many steps and lines of inquiry converging on the modern consensus. Individual achievements are many but seldom noted: here's a timeline from Weart's online version of the book. I recommend the book highly. Results or findings contrary to a modern AGW theory would then be expected at any stage along the timeline, from Tyndal to Arrhenius to Revelle to Keeling and to more recent panoptic science. For example, several lines of evidence converge to separately support that atmospheric CO2 is vital to Earth's relative warmth, and those lines were supported by more fundamental findings on exact mechanisms. Each component that has withstood falsification contributed to the understanding of long-term climate characteristics and changes. For this AGWer, a demonstration that CO2 does not act as advertised in the consensus, does not contribute to a 'greenhouse' effect, does not have a relationship with Earth's long-term temperature swings, that would tend to make me question the fundamentals. Hope you can give a look to the Weart timeline at least to see the many scientific inquiries contributing to current climate models (and warnings of consequences of CO2 rise). More close to home, a swing to world-wide temperature decreases, a cooling ocean, a resurgence of lost icefields and glaciers, a lowering of sea levels -- despite increasing CO2 -- these would cause me to get back to my climate science homework! Hope that makes sense. -- to your other point, can you elaborate on goal-post shifting that annoyed you? _______________________________ An excerpt from an Amazon review of Weart's book:

In the broader Arab-minded scheme of things, those Arabs who left Israel/Palestine in 1948 are still considered refugees. In Jordan and in Syria Palestinian refugees are afforded parity with citizens: this includes right to work, travel documents, education, etc (though the Syria war has brought further pain to its Palestinian refugees -- as in the Yarmouk 'camp' in Damascus). Jordan is almost alone in granting citizenship rights to the great majority of its refugees. The ostensibly Palestian-run West Bank still holds 60-odd camps. In Lebanon, the delicate sectarian balance achieved by the Taif accord means that Palestinians still also live in 'camps' (though as in Syria, human instincts to 'settle' mean that camps sometimes resemble the urban surrounding fabric). The territories of Mandate Palestine that were conquered by Israel but which contain Arab majorities under occupation are well known. They are in effect under British military law, as interpreted by the Israeli state. They are essentially stateless, without recognition as citizens of any country (though some few states do accept Palestinian Authority passports). Is the state of relations between Israel and a putative Palestine complicated? I would argue yes, beyond a doubt. To reduce these relations to a simplistic good versus evil does little work, provides no road to solutions, and judges those in the 'evil' classes to be without humanity . I reject these kinds of peremptory sorting into 'blessed' and 'cursed,' as without warrant. Greg, I am atheist. I have never had faith in the supernatural, in gods, fairies, brownies or devils or leprechauns. I do not 'believe' in any god. It just isn't there. Your own ChristianKarma faith is noted, but you make a category error when you imply that atheists all arrived to 'deny' Christian faith based on a long argument with Christ or active 'denial.' In other words, faith did not 'take' in some cases, as it did with you. This phrase is unsound: "For denial is exactly the same kind of belief" ... because one 'kind of belief [that god/s exist]' is not a corollary to 'disbelief.' Belief in gods does not follow a structured initiation, a scholastic indoctrination, a reasoned argument ... without faith. Faith in unseen gods, forces, moral gravitation fields, heavens, hells, purgatories, perfect Karma, and eternal 'souls' is the basis for belief. Faith in a 'divine' order is predicated on faith that invisible intelligent and immortal agents exist. For disbelievers in gods, or for those without an undergirding faith in 'scriptures,' the lack of faith is simply that: a lack. There should be no particular mental struggle inferred, Consider one of your heroines, Ayn Rand. As far as can be told, she never acquired faith, nor needed schooling to upend a previous faith. "God" imprecations and 'spirit' faith simply did not take root. When you discuss your idiosyncratic KarmaChrist beliefs with Objectivists or other atheists, you should be aware that what you consider 'choice' in widest connotation did not necessarily occur in the minds of those without faith. If you and I both, Greg, do not 'believe' in Thor, Jupiter, Jehovah, Allah, or Ahura Mazda, this does imply atheism. But does your saying that ThorEtc does not exist means the same as your saying God does exist? Is it exactly the same kind of faith-statement (for you)?. (what I do find attractive about Greg's KarmaChristology is its 'just-so' quality. Anything that happens happens because it was deserved. A bit of Calvinism, a splot of Vedic verities, a spooge of 'eternal moral law', a thumb on the scale -- and no mysteries remain!) "The Beauty Of God's Love" -- now that would be a pot-boiler of a post on OL, with guaranteed longevity in its comment thread! It's actually quite simple. The conflict is between two completely different moral standards of behavior. One moral standard seeks to totally annihilate the other, while the other seeks to coexist in peace. In your view, there is no difference between those two moral standards of behavior. And in my view, they are as different as good and evil. I am wondering if the next step in this illogical thought-stream is to quibble with the degree of Good and the extent of Evul in the two parties: -- are Israelis and their actions completely/utterly Good? -- are Palestinians and their actions completely/utterly Evul? -- does not scripture predict Gawd's wrath? For me, to reduce a sixty-five-year struggle to Satan versus JesusThor pays no dividends whatsoever. The tone of the statements, the lack of empathy, the camp assignment, each further portends a hammer of Jehovah upon Palestinians. Who needs that?

Re: paid factions, whether they’re from political, corporate or other special interests Michael, I've been busy reading papers about online shenanigans by state actors (intelligence agencies especially). The kind of disruption by entity Eva/Bill/Aunt Fannie seems toddler-level by comparison. Glenn Greenwald and team, and the newly-Soviet Snowden have been banging on about this for a while. Here's a rather chilling slideshow of the kinds of operations designed by the UK's GCHQ, "a top secret document prepared by its secretive JTRIG unit." The story of these creepy (but/not necessary) counterintelligence plans is told at the Intercept: "How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations" Some of this stuff almost reaches the level of Scientology's Fair Game policy.

Carol, I hope this appearance means more to come from you, even if only on weekends. A certain tartness has been missing from OL. If you haven't been reading OL regularly, you may need lots of prepping for discussion, though. Re Eva/Addie fake-a-thon, and the bruited programme to 'de-conspiracize' the internets ... Sharyl Attkisson's book is coming in November: Stonewalled: One Reporter's Fight for Truth in Obama's Washington. I hope she finds her feet somewhere in broadcasting, but not RT. She had a lot of reporting that didn't make the cut on the Evening News, but has over 2K reports at CBSnew.com No, we don't have to look too far to find corruption, that 'fake accounts, trolling has spread' ... where I hang out and read (my Syria files), this has been the norm from as long as I can remember. There was always a suspicion that certain prolific accounts were paid actors (of the Syrian regime, of the moneyed Western patrons of the opposition, of Mossad, Iranians, Hizbollah, etcetera). Even back further to my time online at Usenet during the Memory Wars, it was assumed by one side that the other side used ringers, hirelings and 'spooks.' Of course, debate/struggle was often between named folks who actually did have vested interests. Sometimes our fears are made of fear and sometimes of fact. Unless we are quite as crazy as the Turkish prime minister (if you have been following the scandals since mid-December, you see how raw power is wielded -- firings, jail, deportation and lately the attempt to remove critics by removing their platform). Hostile radar ... nice term. I know at least one person who is reading OL from a hostile distance. I can imagine him bent over the screen right now. Here's a snippet from an Attkinson interview with a local CBS outlet:

I agree with you that Eva's effect was disruptive, but in a small trollish way, not as part of a campaign. No operating goals were reached, no minds were changed, and I don't think search results featuring Eva's misspelled rants will be tempting to anybody. That said, your antennae are working well: I too get a chill at the creepiness of the Sunstein suggestions ... especially in light of what already has happened, the ever-inventive ways governments snoop, intrude and massage in all media. What's also glaring is that costs are not even hinted at. Here's an extract from Glenn Greenwald's "Obama Confidant's Spine-chilling Proposal" at Salon: he quite trenchantly hangs Sunstein/Progressive/Democrats with the rope they measured out for Bush-era actions of the exact same sort ... Back to Eva, I tend to think she/he is a self-generated "troll" and not much more. I don't think that 'cognitive infiltration' corps would select such an ill-equipped persona to do battle. Ultimately a cognitive warrior/infiltrator would perform much better than an "Eva" whose output did nothing to alter debate or assumptions about major issues. All this said, I consider the most likely folks to try to 'cognitively infiltrate' are actually self-selected. They are ride-alongs or recruits to a volunteer mental militia, so to speak. One might even consider that Objectivism's evangelical effort (if only the half-million Atlas Shrugged delivered to schools) is a kind of action similar to cognitive infiltration, an attempt to countermand a reigning conspiracy theory (it's all capitalism's fault). Maybe Objectivism -- at least by manifold appearances via internet forums -- is both an incubator for cognitive infiltration and a target of volunteer cognitive saviours. But a designed target for professionals? Not yet. I have come across this month a kind of openly funded and directed cognitive infiltrator on Twitter. Some of you may already heard that the US State Department has Twitter handle to engage the maddest of the mad in Syria, the jihadis: @ThinkAgain_DOS. How much money this has cost the US taxpayer? A bit more up-front than this (Guardian report of military contracts let for social media drone and clone):

Does Mrs Whitmore née Volland know you are using her photo in place of your own face, Eva? Here is a section from the Rules and Regs of Objectivist Living: Pseudonyms (and made up monikers) are in practice not harried by the list owners, nor are those of us who use alternative pics to represent us (as I use poppies). This is probably because Michael and Kat know us through years of OL posting. But using someone else's visual ID marker seems to be deceptive. Having adopted an avatar that belongs to another person is a mistake, an error in judgement that only makes your identity more mysterious and much more subject to doubt. I suggest you come clean on using Volland/Whitmore's face as your own. ************************ Or not. The cleaver has come down, enforced the OL contract, voided your ability to participate. This is rather an object lesson in how to get banned in one easy step. Meanwhile, over at a former sister forum, the only one unbanned seems to be the Emperor of SOLO. You might try to set up and post over there, Eva, one on one. Bear in mind that SOLO demands a real name and picture also (or, The Doug Bandler Show). It's not the end, Eva, but a new beginning. So many doors fly open!

Here is a set of possible causes of the plane's disappearance. It hinges on a problem reported in another 777 that could have contributed to rapid depressurization and lost communications. The site is http://www.malaysiandigest.com/

I have enjoyed most of the nose-tweaking and fanny-paddling you have done over at RoR, Eva, and a number of the entries you have made here. Your posts show a confidence in swinging the axe of criticism -- even if those wounded by your axe were hardly needing such attacks, or so many whacks. I must mention though that here as elsewhere in the Objectivish online world, boundaries are drawn deeply, and defended with great enthusiasm. You will cross these otherwise invisible boundaries whenever you take a whack at what makes other folks gather: a high regard for Ayn Rand in all her areas of accomplishment. This is a long-winded way of saying that folks will be outraged here over comments that "out there" would pass without a word. It offends folks to take issue with Rand, to undermine her genius, to slag her and her works. I am by no means an Objectivist, finding Rand's psychology to be crude and unwarranted, but I do understand a bit about groups dynamics, having been posting (as a critic of Objectivism) since 2005. Folks are going to get wound up about your interjections here. If this is your aim, have at it. If you on the other hand want to engage with others, you will likely need more than one 'voice' or register. Here is Brant making it personal, assigning you to the bad side of the ledger, and essentially trying to insult you off the board, or to at least rope you and bridle you, in an effort to make you observe the verities. You strike the bone when you subtly or not-so-subtly imply that those who follow Rand or rank her high in the Pantheon are rubes, dullards or cult members. All in all, this is an officially welcoming place (as evidenced by MSK, forum owner and policeman, and welcome wagoneer), but at times a pretty insular bunch. It does not take too many jabs at Rand for the bristles to stiffen and for discussion to be degraded.

I enjoyed watching this clip. I don't generally like or watch Morgan (too much sleaze in his tabloid background, too much shallowness in his arguments), but this bit was worth it -- for Alex Jones in full foam. Perhaps if Morgan had hosted more challenging guests (or insane guests) his ratings might not have been so disappointing to CNN. "THEY're giving them mass murder SUICIDE pills!!!"

Thanks all for the kind birthday greetings. I am enjoying sunny weather and the regard of my extended family on this most sobering of days.

While I was reading RoR closely, I remember Dean had what seemed like a manic episode. He got support and came down from the high within a month. I sometimes wonder at his (and my, and others') exuberant over-reach. Perhaps he was in the midst of an episode during the time above ... ? -- here is Dean describing one episode.

I am intrigued by the faint praise phrase "in some ways seminal." In which ways, by what measure? What hath it wrought? Like PDS I do not feel happy to hear of life-support being pulled from the living, no matter how corpse-like they appear. I also agree with Jonathan that a less heavy hand on the red button would have better served Lindsay's goals. Now he has semi-retired, we can look back all the way to him atop the original SOLO, before the series of 'breaks' took their toll, a much more fecund time for online O and for Lindsay. To be filed under 'Passings' ...

Michael disabled the 'like' function, to keep unruly or demented people from 'gaming' the system (by voting down or up according to pique and not real reaction) -- at least that is my remembrance.

A lovely, wise, and gracious lady. I will miss her voice here. My condolences to those who loved her.

RB, I hope you take the time to reconsider leaving. Michael's take on your 'preachiness' if untrue can be overlooked. In most times and situations, Michael acts just like another commenter (except for paying the bills), so you do not have to head to the departure gates thinking the Emperor has your name edged in black and will be ready to assail you, or beat you about the head upon your next presumed blunder. I have over the years riled him to the nth, and he has riled me to the mth. I have been to the edge of insult and beyond, and so has he almost (at times). I think it will serve your own interests better to persevere, go beyond. Sometimes being 'called' on an excess that seems entirely unjust is just what is necessary (mutual high dudgeon and all notwithstanding). We all usually let our boar-bristles settle down, given time. My personal (and perhaps wrong) take on the 'check your premises' retort from Michael was that Rand has written (and other Objectivists at great great length) about the very situation you remarked upon -- that thieving can seem to be a thing of rational self-interest, if the thief will not get caught. It's can be a discussion-starter, or a thought-stopper. It has been wielded before, and for some of us (I am by no means an Objectivist) it is a bit skimpy, when put up as a 'killer' of Rand's moral calculus and her careful thought on just this subject of thievery. For how many thieves can be trusted to only steal during a perceived 'perfect' situation (no knock-ons)? I have seen a couple of good comebacks to this bit, each predicated on the effects upon the thief, his own, and his moral/ethical ground. [of course, I find the 'rationally selfish' thief to be emboldened by a lack of foresight of the knock-ons, and sometimes by a kind of irrational loss of humanity (in frontal lobe syndromes)] Those without a conscience, in other words, those with scant empathy and less ability to dam their own impulses. Sociopaths have no compunction, of course, because they do not feel anything but contempt for others as feeling, hurting humans. As others have found value and interest in your contributions, on balance life is too short for too many slammed doors and departures (or as Lindsay Perigo styles it, 'Flouncing'). Don't flounce just yet, please ... give an honest effort to see what 'set off the maestro' ... and I am sure you will keep your key to the board(room).

You are a sap, Michael. Me too.

Here's a showstopper from my metropolitan region. It combines both, but gives off a distinct 'liberal brain' buzz to me. http://i.imm.io/1jlft.jpeg