Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

  • was involved early on with the main players and my experience with them was (a)

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#53e0d3204c7chttps://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#53e0d3204c7cI was involved early on with the main players and my experience with them was (a) a pack of money seeking bureaucratic parasites, (b) a bunch of well meaning political fools (c) a set of scientists of extremely questionable ethics providing malincentives to a+b. Personally my company lost 2M via the Clinton foundation, and I lost about 200k, in November of 09 when it came out that the data had been ‘creatively manipulated’ and ‘counter evidence’ had been actively suppressed. I try not to do business with the government, but it was at MSFT’s request, so we did it. And while I gotta say the POLITICIANS were good well intentioned people, the bureaucracy was fucking corrupt as hell, the two major ‘private’ agencies were corrupt as hell, and the scientists were profit seeking bullshitters. And the left and the public are sheep.

    (Pointing out that, according to a friend, this is a survey of people in the oil industry in Alberta. But every chance I have to discredit the activist community I’m taking…)


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-03 09:24:00 UTC

  • was involved early on with the main players and my experience with them was (a)

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#53e0d3204c7cI was involved early on with the main players and my experience with them was (a) a pack of money seeking bureaucratic parasites, (b) a bunch of well meaning political fools (c) a set of scientists of extremely questionable ethics providing malincentives to a+b. Personally my company lost 2M via the Clinton foundation, and I lost about 200k, in November of 09 when it came out that the data had been ‘creatively manipulated’ and ‘counter evidence’ had been actively suppressed. I try not to do business with the government, but it was at MSFT’s request, so we did it. And while I gotta say the POLITICIANS were good well intentioned people, the bureaucracy was fucking corrupt as hell, the two major ‘private’ agencies were corrupt as hell, and the scientists were profit seeking bullshitters. And the left and the public are sheep.

    (Pointing out that, according to a friend, this is a survey of people in the oil industry in Alberta. But every chance I have to discredit the activist community I’m taking…)


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-03 09:24:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://nypost.com/2017/01/14/its-time-to-face-facts-obamas-presidency-was-a-failure/http://nypost.com/2017/01/14/its-time-to-face-facts-obamas-presidency-was-a-failure/


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-03 06:01:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://nypost.com/2017/01/14/its-time-to-face-facts-obamas-presidency-was-a-failure/


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-03 06:01:00 UTC

  • And then I saw your post….

    –“Holy crap, i was practicing a speech about the evolution of christianity and talking about Aquinas’s attempts to reconcile the Aristotle’s empirical views with christianity. That aquinas didn’t want christianity to follow the path of the muslims in banning any form of empirical logic, but at the same time kept knowledge of God through the bible as paramount. And in my speech I jump to Francis Bacon as being the one to refine the empirical method as a seed of the scientific method that we have today. Bacon, while relying on Aristotle’s empiricism simultaneously despised the flaws in how Aristotle carried them out, felt it was too discursive. Bacon simplified the method to focus on observations and systematically describing the object while being careful to avoid generalizing in the inductive reasoning process of what the observed facts can demonstrate. And then I saw your post…..”— A Friend I think anyone who knows the of the development of scientific thought knows this. It’s cannon. I think we’d say it’s Roger Bacon > { Newton + Francis Bacon + Galileo + Descartes} > … And while we find arguments to the influence of Francis Bacon, and Descartes, they are minor compared to Newton and Galileo. They were all relative contemporaries. Bacon and Galileo corresponded. But it was Galileo that gave us science finally, and he and Descartes led the battle against the church on behalf of Copernicus.

  • And then I saw your post….

    –“Holy crap, i was practicing a speech about the evolution of christianity and talking about Aquinas’s attempts to reconcile the Aristotle’s empirical views with christianity. That aquinas didn’t want christianity to follow the path of the muslims in banning any form of empirical logic, but at the same time kept knowledge of God through the bible as paramount. And in my speech I jump to Francis Bacon as being the one to refine the empirical method as a seed of the scientific method that we have today. Bacon, while relying on Aristotle’s empiricism simultaneously despised the flaws in how Aristotle carried them out, felt it was too discursive. Bacon simplified the method to focus on observations and systematically describing the object while being careful to avoid generalizing in the inductive reasoning process of what the observed facts can demonstrate. And then I saw your post…..”— A Friend I think anyone who knows the of the development of scientific thought knows this. It’s cannon. I think we’d say it’s Roger Bacon > { Newton + Francis Bacon + Galileo + Descartes} > … And while we find arguments to the influence of Francis Bacon, and Descartes, they are minor compared to Newton and Galileo. They were all relative contemporaries. Bacon and Galileo corresponded. But it was Galileo that gave us science finally, and he and Descartes led the battle against the church on behalf of Copernicus.

  • “The dating scene in the bay area has turned me into a full on misogynist. I’ll

    —“The dating scene in the bay area has turned me into a full on misogynist. I’ll be writing my memoirs as a stunning exposè into the broken women of Western Civilization, I’m calling it “It’s Not OK Cupid”.—- A Friend


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-02 15:52:00 UTC

  • Sorry man. My strategy? (a) I don’t do images, (b) I don’t do, or allow memes or

    Sorry man. My strategy? (a) I don’t do images, (b) I don’t do, or allow memes or images. (c) I write at fletch-kincaid 28 or so. Meaning there is no way the editors (or the proles) can understand anyway. lol


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-01 19:34:31 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1002634517109264390

    Reply addressees: @RevengeSgt

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1002590256456241155


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1002590256456241155

  • 8) That’s pretty heavy but I think it’s in your intellectual wheelhouse

    8) That’s pretty heavy but I think it’s in your intellectual wheelhouse.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-01 16:18:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1002585143616434177

    Reply addressees: @MartialSociety

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1002367912512970752


    IN REPLY TO:

    @MartialSociety

    @curtdoolittle I searched your site & didn’t find anything related. Most discussions of externalities are at least tangentially prefaced with a description of the Coase theorem & its limitations. I’m interested in how you (or another propertarian) would approach the problem.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1002367912512970752

  • Love ya back man. 😉

    Love ya back man. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-01 16:01:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1002580870883086336

    Reply addressees: @RevengeSgt

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1002558864875835398


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1002558864875835398