COVID-19 RESOURCES
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Good Reads


How To Approach A Scientific Issue In The Public Arena: Glyphosate and Climate Change

by Francis Menton
(Menton is a retired partner of Wilkie, Farr & Gallagher, LLC— if you don't know who Wilkie, Farr is, stop reading now; the message will fall on deaf ears)



...So how can you, as a reasonably informed citizen, hope to come to a rational view as to which scary scientific claims to credit and which to dismiss?

...The Manhattan Contrarian Guide To Evaluating Environmental Scares can be summarized in four words: Follow The Scientific Method. Unfortunately, almost no journalist knows the basics of the Scientific Method (even though probably all of them were exposed to it somewhere in high school or even junior high school); and therefore, almost everything you read about environmental scares claiming the mantle of science is at the minimum misleading, if not downright wrong. Following the Scientific Method really directs you to looking at only three key questions to lead you to the right answer:

1. What is the falsifiable hypothesis? The Scientific Method requires a falsifiable hypothesis. A falsifiable hypothesis requires a statement of the proposition at issue that by its nature can be falsified and thereby invalidated by some evidence that it is possible to acquire, and also a recognition by the proponents of the hypothesis as to what evidence, if it emerged, would be sufficient to falsify and invalidate the hypothesis. Without a statement of a falsifiable hypothesis, it is not science, no matter what the proponents may say, and therefore any claims of "scientific" consensus or "scientific" validity are an obvious fallacy...

more...


​


​
 


a/k/a "Stick A Fork In It"




Things That Are Over Although Their Proponents Don't Admit It Yet
by Francis Menton
(The "Manhattan Contrarian")
https://www.manhattancontrarian.com...r-although-their-proponents-dont-admit-it-yet




...The New York Times, already purple with rage over the Trump administration's actions on the environmental front, reacted to the latest developments in Australia with still more anger and invective ("A Climate Reckoning for Australia," August 21):


"Ideology and idiocy, of course, are not limited to climate policy or to any country. But it is especially dismaying when science-denying hacks and self-serving industries block action that is in the obvious and urgent interest of all humanity. That should not be happening in Australia."​


Or consider this primal scream on August 21 from a writer named Jill Filipovic at CNN:


"The [Trump administration ACE {Affordable Clean Energy rule}] proposal reflects a longstanding and fundamentally damaging idea in right-wing politics: That climate change is a matter of opinion, not fact, and that people who have no interest in the facts still deserve to hold political office. The deluded perspective is not confined to America's Republican Party. Conservatives in Australia have also latched on to the theory that climate change is debatable, and that efforts to fight it are a liberal conspiracy against big business."​


Actually, Jill, what people want is to avoid paying five times the price for their electricity for no measurable effect on the climate. But anyway, it doesn't matter, because by this time it clear that nobody -- and I mean nobody -- is going along with the program. OK, maybe California and a few other U.S. states. They add up to about 1% of the world's population. Like I said, nobody. It's over. Time to face the facts.


Emphasis added
​


​



_______________


The New York Times, obviously, simply cannot get it through their collective thick skulls that Australia is completely fed up with the climate scam and is tired of having the lights go out while electricity prices skyrocket.

​
 
Just finished The Everything Box by Richard Kadry, a "dark fantasy comedy" about the Angel of Death losing a Doomsday device right after the Noah's Ark flood and spending 4000 years trying to reclaim it. He eventually locates it in Hollywood CA present day. He enlists a magic-proof thief to recover it.

Very derivative of Christopher Hitchens's stuff and evidently the start to a new series. Some scenes stolen right out of the movie Dogma.

Two stars out of five.
 
IMG_4176.jpg

IMG_4177.jpg

IMG_4178.jpg

IMG_4179.jpg

IMG_4180.jpg
 


Bars In Alaska



by Willis Eschenbach


My first encounter with a bar in Alaska was when I went there in 1965 at age eighteen to make my fortune … riiight.

Along the way to not making my fortune in Alaska, I got my first job playing with a bar band. Of course, I was too young to drink and it was illegal for me to be in the bar at all, but nobody seemed to care … so why should I?

In Sitka, I got a gig as the rhythm guitarist and lead singer, complete with electric guitar, in a bar band which was usually composed entirely of what used to be called “Indians”. Columbus wanted to believe he’d gotten to India, so he called the locals “Indians”. This led to centuries of confusion, where people had to continually be asking “You mean Indian with a dot or Indian with a feather?” So they decided to change their name. Fair enough. Here’s what the Sitka turf looks like …

It’s not politically correct to call them Indians now, I know. These days, I’m a reformed cowboy, so I use a more modern name which reflects their actual heritage. I call them “Early Asian Immigrants”, to distinguish them from the “Later Melanin-Deficient Immigrants”. I don’t generally use the term “Native Americans”, though, unless a man insists on it. According to science, they’re no more native to the Americas than any human is, and that’s not native at all.

To maintain the historical accuracy, however, I’ll use the terms of the era. The guys called themselves Indians the first time I met them. It was early one evening. They were playing in a roadside dance hall bar in Sitka. The conversation opened with something like me saying “Where’re you guys from”, and them saying “We’re Indians. Sitka tribe.” Good enough for me. They had a lead guitar, bass guitar, and drums. They were on a break. I bought them a drink. I told them I liked their music. I said I was a musician. They had a spare electric guitar, we played a few tunes, we had fun... At that time the best bar in town was at the strangest combination bar and whorehouse I’ve ever seen. Not that I’ve seen many, buying sex always seemed creepy to me. But this one was in a class all its own.



much more...

​

​
 


Manhattan Contrarian Quiz— Climate Tipping Points Edition

Frickin' priceless.

For those of you with short memories:




...Prediction Number 3:

[Predictor] . . . told author Bob Reiss in [year of prediction] that New York City would be underwater in 20 years. "The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water," [predictor] said. "And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won't be there. The trees in the median strip will change..."







Nine (9) more Predictions of Imminent DOOM and their genius authors...
​


​
 
People who tell long stories on twitter should have their thumbs removed.
 
Pete Souza On ‘SHADE: A Tale Of Two Presidents


November 8, 2018

"Greater Boston," on WGBH Public Broadcasting System Television


American presidents know that from the moment they wake up to the moment they go to bed, the lens of history is on them. For former President Barack Obama, that lens typically belonged to official White House photographer Pete Souza, who traveled just about everywhere with him. When the White House changed hands, Souza didn't stop telling Obama's story , but he started doing it in a very different way, using the photos he took on the job, to offer a silent commentary on President Trump via social media. He documents it all in his new book, "SHADE: A Tale Of Two Presidents."

https://www.wgbh.org/news/national-news/2018/11/08/pete-souza-on-shade-a-tale-of-two-presidents
 
The elegant art of not giving a shit

During a very famous moment, Krishnamurti asked the audience if they wanted to know his secret. The lecture hall went silent, and everyone leaned forward.

“You see,” he said, “I don’t give a shit.”

I’m paraphrasing. By most accounts he said “You see, I don’t mind what happens,” but he could have easily said either, and not giving a shit is a concept more people can identify with. I apologize for the vulgarity of the phrase — I will use it a lot in this article — but nothing else captures this piece of wisdom quite as well.

When you tell people to “not mind what happens,” they’ll probably look at you funny unless they’re the type of person who would be in the audience at a Krishnamurti lecture. But everyone understands that there are times in life when the best way to respond to an unpleasant event is to not give a shit.

Giving a shit really just amounts to thinking about what happened. If someone was rude to you on the phone, and you think a lot about it, you are giving a shit. If you hang up and shrug and then go for a bike ride, then you are successfully not giving a shit.

Giving a shit does not necessarily mean you’re doing anything useful, but it makes it seem like you are. It feels like there’s some kind of justice that you’re getting closer to with every moment you give a shit. But that’s not true, because giving a shit, by itself, is only thinking — and thinking has little use aside from figuring out what to do.

This illuminates one of our most stubborn, silly beliefs about human thinking: that most of it is worthwhile, that it’s actually getting you somewhere. Most thoughts just fill up your head and distance you from the life that’s still unfolding in front of you. They’re not leading to any important decisions or insights, they’re just taking over your present moment, and possibly shortening your life on the other end too.

We often believe that our thoughts are accomplishing something just because they’re emotionally charged, or because they’re “about” something we consider important, like fairness, respect, or the state of society.

No. They are useful only insofar as they get you to move your body and do something useful.

This isn’t to say that action is always necessary when it comes to responding to life’s countless little annoyances, rudenesses, and unfairnesses. In fact, usually it isn’t. Often there’s nothing you can do, or nothing you’re willing to do. That’s fine. In those cases, which I think represent the vast majority of cases, you’re better off not giving a shit.

Not giving a shit sounds like apathy, but it’s not. It’s simply a refusal to waste your energy and time on thoughts you’re not going to act on. So when you do give a shit, make sure that the point of this shit-giving is to figure out what you’re actually going to do in response to what happened, and then move on to the action part.

Read more: https://www.raptitude.com/2014/07/not-giving-a-shit/


TFW you've found a real good read.

tumblr_lxpj6grFIe1qcaomb.gif
 


How Could The Times Not Realize That It Is A Laughingstock?
https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2018-12-29-3eg3ztznm4yth3n3bv40biumzfqe2c


by Francis Menton ("Manhattan Contrarian")




"...But hadn’t Pravda assured us that the rest of the world would never be tricked into following Trump’s lead, but rather was going to put this retrograde idiot in his place? Perhaps you can recall a smug Pravda on March 29, 2017, shortly after Trump took office, awarding the coveted mantle of “climate leadership” to the genius totalitarians in China. From that piece:

“They’ve set the direction they intend to go in the next five years,” Barbara Finamore, a senior lawyer and Asia director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, based in New York, said of China. “It’s clear they intend to double down on bringing down their reliance on coal and increasing their use of renewable energy.”​

“China wants to take over the role of the U.S. as a climate leader, and they’ve baked it into their five-year plans,” she added, referring to the economic development blueprints drawn up by the Chinese government. . . . Since Mr. Trump’s election in November, senior Chinese officials and leaders have been taking the high ground on the issue by urging all countries, including the United States, to abide by their climate commitments.
​

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! Actually what China was doing was playing the NRDC and the New York Times for the dupes they are. (The Manhattan Contrarian take on this situation — on June 8, 2017 — was “Believe Me, You Don’t Have To Worry About China Seizing ‘Climate Leadership.’”) After mouthing the right platitudes to dupe these credulous fools, China went right ahead and resumed or kept building as much new coal-fired electricity generation capacity as the U.S. has in total, to go with its existing coal-fired capacity, which is about 3 times what the U.S. has. The BBC had the story on September 26, 2018:

Building work has restarted at hundreds of Chinese coal-fired power stations, according to an analysis of satellite imagery. The research, carried out by green campaigners CoalSwarm, suggests that 259 gigawatts of new capacity are under development in China. The authors say this is the same capacity to produce electricity as the entire US coal fleet"...​
​


more...


​



It's no particular surprise to see that the editorial board of the New York Times is utterly detached from reality.

The only thing that's surprising is that there are any educated persons who are unaware of the fact.


​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
David Crosby, Byrds and Crosby, Stills & Nash Co-Founder, Dies at 81
Replies
8
Views
563
BongoGal
BongoGal
HornyHaileyVasquez
Bottomless Sandwich Artist
Replies
8
Views
4K
Shaglus_Ziegler
Shaglus_Ziegler
TwistedManc
An Authors Feedback
Replies
3
Views
752
PastMaster
PastMaster
butters
the good stuff
Replies
12
Views
845
greeneyes666
greeneyes666
G
To be a good man, or to be satisfied.
Replies
10
Views
2K
HealingEnergyWitch
HealingEnergyWitch
Back
Top