Breaking News

1,118,930 Views | 12425 Replies | Last: 4 hrs ago by bear2034
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Meanwhile, the Corporate Bond Market saw the biggest single day of issuers on record tapping the bond market, from Ford to Target, with a total of 29 companies issuing debt.

Underwriting professionals expect corporations to borrow about $125 BILLION through US high-grade bond sales in the month of September.

"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Down 626 st the close.

MarketWatch: Stock Market Today: Dow ends down over 600 points to suffer worst day since early August after weak manufacturing reading

Translation: Biden-Harris manufacturing policies fail again, including the Green New Scam.
MinotStateBeav
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

MinotStateBeav said:

OUCH, Sony game development studio just took the largest loss in gaming history with this game called, Concord, that they released 3 weeks ago for PS5 and PC. It was a woke game apparently. 8 Years in development and they spent $200 million only to see it flushed down the drain in record time.

https://blog.playstation.com/2024/09/03/an-important-update-on-concord/
What makes this game a "woke" game?
Well pronouns for pretend characters is a start I think. Do you think children care about the sexuality of video game characters?
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Seriously? Pronouns and the women aren't attractive enough? That's it?
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

Seriously? Pronouns and the women aren't attractive enough? That's it?

Well, that's about half their agenda right there, isn't it? Just throw in a little DEIB hate and you're there.
Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:


Radio Times? Everyone knows the groundbreaking cutting edge climate journalism is found in the PennySaver.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:

sycasey said:

Seriously? Pronouns and the women aren't attractive enough? That's it?

Well, that's about half their agenda right there, isn't it? Just throw in a little DEIB hate and you're there.
I should also say: it might be that this game is just bad anyway. I'll probably never play it, but a lot of the criticism seems to revolve around it being very similar to other games that are better and more popular. That would seem to me the more likely reason the new one failed. The "wokeness" claims seem petty.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Republican candidate for Governor of North Carolina used to attend a porn shop daily
https://www.threads.net/@thedailybeast/post/C_eIG_VRWK0/?xmt=AQGzUjUgay07bS97bFeafAOsFKjjIomrtLriftLOL1ui2g
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Eastern Oregon Bear said:

movielover said:


Radio Times? Everyone knows the groundbreaking cutting edge climate journalism is found in the PennySaver.

That Radio Times was a magazine published by the BBC, not some supermarket tabloid:
https://www.bbc.com/historyofthebbc/research/radio-times


In any case,
New York Times. 1975:

"A new ice age is on the way... Sooner or later a major cooling of the climate is widely considered as inevitable"




The 1970s global cooling consensus was real.

Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

movielover said:


Radio Times? Everyone knows the groundbreaking cutting edge climate journalism is found in the PennySaver.

That Radio Times was a magazine published by the BBC, not some supermarket tabloid:
https://www.bbc.com/historyofthebbc/research/radio-times


In any case,
New York Times. 1975:

"A new ice age is on the way... Sooner or later a major cooling of the climate is widely considered as inevitable"




The 1970s global cooling consensus was real.


What? None of your fake Time and Newsweek covers from the 1970s?
Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

movielover said:


Radio Times? Everyone knows the groundbreaking cutting edge climate journalism is found in the PennySaver.

That Radio Times was a magazine published by the BBC, not some supermarket tabloid:
https://www.bbc.com/historyofthebbc/research/radio-times


In any case,
New York Times. 1975:

"A new ice age is on the way... Sooner or later a major cooling of the climate is widely considered as inevitable"




The 1970s global cooling consensus was real.


Even if that was true, so what? Science based thoughts have frequently changed over time as more facts and data are uncovered. We know far more about climate both recent and historic than we did 50 years ago.
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Eastern Oregon Bear said:

Cal88 said:

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

movielover said:


Radio Times? Everyone knows the groundbreaking cutting edge climate journalism is found in the PennySaver.

That Radio Times was a magazine published by the BBC, not some supermarket tabloid:
https://www.bbc.com/historyofthebbc/research/radio-times


In any case,
New York Times. 1975:

"A new ice age is on the way... Sooner or later a major cooling of the climate is widely considered as inevitable"




The 1970s global cooling consensus was real.


What? None of your fake Time and Newsweek covers from the 1970s?

There you go -





Translated from German
This article was published 50 years ago in June 1974. Average global temperatures had fallen by 1.5 C (2.7 F) in 30 years. Satellite data showed that ice and snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere had increased by 12%. The weather was going crazy. The USA, Pakistan and Japan experienced the worst floods in centuries, and Africa experienced severe droughts that lasted for over 6 years.

The warning about the climate catastrophe at that time was similar to today's in every detail, only with the opposite sign in terms of temperature - there were warnings about a new ice age with unstable weather, crop failures and many deaths. Colder weather would be a great danger to humanity, the scientists were sure.


sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Eastern Oregon Bear said:

Cal88 said:

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

movielover said:


Radio Times? Everyone knows the groundbreaking cutting edge climate journalism is found in the PennySaver.

That Radio Times was a magazine published by the BBC, not some supermarket tabloid:
https://www.bbc.com/historyofthebbc/research/radio-times


In any case,
New York Times. 1975:

"A new ice age is on the way... Sooner or later a major cooling of the climate is widely considered as inevitable"




The 1970s global cooling consensus was real.


Even if that was true, so what? Science has always changed over time as more facts and data are uncovered.

And it wasn't true. Yes, some scientists speculated that global cooling was coming (hence what you'll see in some of these articles). Others thought warming. There was no consensus. The "warming" consensus arrived later.
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:



We could start with the idiot who said about COVID-19 :

"We have it totally under control. It's one person coming in from China, and we have it under control. It's going to be just fine."

Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

Cal88 said:

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

movielover said:


Radio Times? Everyone knows the groundbreaking cutting edge climate journalism is found in the PennySaver.

That Radio Times was a magazine published by the BBC, not some supermarket tabloid:
https://www.bbc.com/historyofthebbc/research/radio-times


In any case,
New York Times. 1975:

"A new ice age is on the way... Sooner or later a major cooling of the climate is widely considered as inevitable"




The 1970s global cooling consensus was real.


Even if that was true, so what? Science has always changed over time as more facts and data are uncovered.

And it wasn't true. Yes, some scientists speculated that global cooling was coming (hence what you'll see in some of these articles). Others thought warming. There was no consensus. The "warming" consensus arrived later.

The late 60s/70s scientific consensus for global cooling was of the order of 85%, so clearly there was a consensus.


Quote:

It is evident from Figure 2 that, for the 1965-1979 reference period used by PCF-08, the number of cooling papers significantly outnumbers the number of warming papers. It is also apparent that there are two distinct sub-periods contained within the reference period, namely:

1. The 1968-1976 period when cooling papers greatly outnumber the warming papers (85% to 15%), if we ignore the neutral papers (as was done in the Cook et al (2103). The 85% to 15% majority is an overwhelming cooling consensus. Additionally, this is probably the period when the 1970s "global cooling consensus" originated because cooling was clearly an established scientific consensus not the myth that PCF-08 contend.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/19/the-1970s-global-cooling-consensus-was-not-a-myth/
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

sycasey said:

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

Cal88 said:

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

movielover said:


Radio Times? Everyone knows the groundbreaking cutting edge climate journalism is found in the PennySaver.

That Radio Times was a magazine published by the BBC, not some supermarket tabloid:
https://www.bbc.com/historyofthebbc/research/radio-times


In any case,
New York Times. 1975:

"A new ice age is on the way... Sooner or later a major cooling of the climate is widely considered as inevitable"




The 1970s global cooling consensus was real.


Even if that was true, so what? Science has always changed over time as more facts and data are uncovered.

And it wasn't true. Yes, some scientists speculated that global cooling was coming (hence what you'll see in some of these articles). Others thought warming. There was no consensus. The "warming" consensus arrived later.

The late 60s/70s scientific consensus for global cooling was of the order of 85%, so clearly there was a consensus.


Quote:

It is evident from Figure 2 that, for the 1965-1979 reference period used by PCF-08, the number of cooling papers significantly outnumbers the number of warming papers. It is also apparent that there are two distinct sub-periods contained within the reference period, namely:

1. The 1968-1976 period when cooling papers greatly outnumber the warming papers (85% to 15%), if we ignore the neutral papers (as was done in the Cook et al (2103). The 85% to 15% majority is an overwhelming cooling consensus. Additionally, this is probably the period when the 1970s "global cooling consensus" originated because cooling was clearly an established scientific consensus not the myth that PCF-08 contend.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/19/the-1970s-global-cooling-consensus-was-not-a-myth/

This article is full of motivated reasoning and actually includes the fake Time Magazine cover as an image at the top! Not your most convincing work here.
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

Cal88 said:

sycasey said:

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

Cal88 said:

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

movielover said:


Radio Times? Everyone knows the groundbreaking cutting edge climate journalism is found in the PennySaver.

That Radio Times was a magazine published by the BBC, not some supermarket tabloid:
https://www.bbc.com/historyofthebbc/research/radio-times


In any case,
New York Times. 1975:

"A new ice age is on the way... Sooner or later a major cooling of the climate is widely considered as inevitable"




The 1970s global cooling consensus was real.


Even if that was true, so what? Science has always changed over time as more facts and data are uncovered.

And it wasn't true. Yes, some scientists speculated that global cooling was coming (hence what you'll see in some of these articles). Others thought warming. There was no consensus. The "warming" consensus arrived later.

The late 60s/70s scientific consensus for global cooling was of the order of 85%, so clearly there was a consensus.


Quote:

It is evident from Figure 2 that, for the 1965-1979 reference period used by PCF-08, the number of cooling papers significantly outnumbers the number of warming papers. It is also apparent that there are two distinct sub-periods contained within the reference period, namely:

1. The 1968-1976 period when cooling papers greatly outnumber the warming papers (85% to 15%), if we ignore the neutral papers (as was done in the Cook et al (2103). The 85% to 15% majority is an overwhelming cooling consensus. Additionally, this is probably the period when the 1970s "global cooling consensus" originated because cooling was clearly an established scientific consensus not the myth that PCF-08 contend.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/19/the-1970s-global-cooling-consensus-was-not-a-myth/

This article is full of motivated reasoning and actually includes the fake Time Magazine cover as an image at the top! Not your most convincing work here.

That cover is the red herring you are using to dismiss the fact that Time Magazine, among many other media, did publish articles about global cooling in the 1970s, which I have posted above. Here is that article in full:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070205145701/https://time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

Excerpt from that real Time Magazine article:

"ANOTHER ICE AGE?

...However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

Telltale signs are everywhere from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7 F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.

Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds the so-called circumpolar vortexthat sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world."


One altered Time Magazine cover does not detract from the fact that the outlet, like most other leading media of hat time, did publish articles whose main theme was that scientists are reporting global cooling and even the advent of another ice age.
Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

Cal88 said:

sycasey said:

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

Cal88 said:

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

movielover said:


Radio Times? Everyone knows the groundbreaking cutting edge climate journalism is found in the PennySaver.

That Radio Times was a magazine published by the BBC, not some supermarket tabloid:
https://www.bbc.com/historyofthebbc/research/radio-times


In any case,
New York Times. 1975:

"A new ice age is on the way... Sooner or later a major cooling of the climate is widely considered as inevitable"




The 1970s global cooling consensus was real.


Even if that was true, so what? Science has always changed over time as more facts and data are uncovered.

And it wasn't true. Yes, some scientists speculated that global cooling was coming (hence what you'll see in some of these articles). Others thought warming. There was no consensus. The "warming" consensus arrived later.

The late 60s/70s scientific consensus for global cooling was of the order of 85%, so clearly there was a consensus.


Quote:

It is evident from Figure 2 that, for the 1965-1979 reference period used by PCF-08, the number of cooling papers significantly outnumbers the number of warming papers. It is also apparent that there are two distinct sub-periods contained within the reference period, namely:

1. The 1968-1976 period when cooling papers greatly outnumber the warming papers (85% to 15%), if we ignore the neutral papers (as was done in the Cook et al (2103). The 85% to 15% majority is an overwhelming cooling consensus. Additionally, this is probably the period when the 1970s "global cooling consensus" originated because cooling was clearly an established scientific consensus not the myth that PCF-08 contend.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/19/the-1970s-global-cooling-consensus-was-not-a-myth/

This article is full of motivated reasoning and actually includes the fake Time Magazine cover as an image at the top! Not your most convincing work here.
A couple of my coworkers have communicated with wattsupwiththat a couple of times trying to update outdated weather station information on his site. He's total slime. He told them he was keeping the old information because it fit the agenda he was pushing. Not his exact words, but that's what it boiled down to. If he told me the sun rose in the east, I'd still get up early and confirm it. I certainly wouldn't trust any 1970s global cooling literature search he came up with as being complete and unbiased.
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Perjury, or worse? Forfeit law license?

DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?


Oski's Mom . . . Karen McCloskey, St. Louis.
"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
bear2034
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Don't worry about Antioch, he's still upset that his vote for Biden in the primaries didn't count for anything.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Eastern Oregon Bear said:

sycasey said:

Cal88 said:

sycasey said:

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

Cal88 said:

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

movielover said:


Radio Times? Everyone knows the groundbreaking cutting edge climate journalism is found in the PennySaver.

That Radio Times was a magazine published by the BBC, not some supermarket tabloid:
https://www.bbc.com/historyofthebbc/research/radio-times


In any case,
New York Times. 1975:

"A new ice age is on the way... Sooner or later a major cooling of the climate is widely considered as inevitable"




The 1970s global cooling consensus was real.


Even if that was true, so what? Science has always changed over time as more facts and data are uncovered.

And it wasn't true. Yes, some scientists speculated that global cooling was coming (hence what you'll see in some of these articles). Others thought warming. There was no consensus. The "warming" consensus arrived later.

The late 60s/70s scientific consensus for global cooling was of the order of 85%, so clearly there was a consensus.


Quote:

It is evident from Figure 2 that, for the 1965-1979 reference period used by PCF-08, the number of cooling papers significantly outnumbers the number of warming papers. It is also apparent that there are two distinct sub-periods contained within the reference period, namely:

1. The 1968-1976 period when cooling papers greatly outnumber the warming papers (85% to 15%), if we ignore the neutral papers (as was done in the Cook et al (2103). The 85% to 15% majority is an overwhelming cooling consensus. Additionally, this is probably the period when the 1970s "global cooling consensus" originated because cooling was clearly an established scientific consensus not the myth that PCF-08 contend.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/19/the-1970s-global-cooling-consensus-was-not-a-myth/

This article is full of motivated reasoning and actually includes the fake Time Magazine cover as an image at the top! Not your most convincing work here.
A couple of my coworkers have communicated with wattsupwiththat a couple of times trying to update outdated weather station information on his site. He's total slime. He told them he was keeping the old information because it fit the agenda he was pushing. Not his exact words, but that's what it boiled down to. If he told me the sun rose in the east, I'd still get up early and confirm it. I certainly wouldn't trust any 1970s global cooling literature search he came up with as being complete and unbiased.

Yeah, I had this guy pegged a while ago. Of course Cal88 loves to cite him.
bear2034
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Why are these Democrats smiling at Arlington? It's so outrageous.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:

Benny Johnson robbed at Oakland In-N-Out Burger while shooting segment about it closing due to robberies

"Oakland has seen a 43 percent increase in strong-armed robberies within the last year, according to stats from Nov. 2023. The city's violent crime reached its highest numbers since the crime wave of the 90s. "

https://thepostmillennial.com/benny-johnson-crew-robbed-while-filming-shooting-video-about-in-n-out-burger-closing-in-oakland-due-to-robberies


Bennie Johnson named in indictment as spreader of Russian propaganda
https://www.threads.net/@oneunderscore__/post/C_gkPmFytME/?xmt=AQGzXtRMTYu1QgytYtc4j1bSZkLtYWN-WGqmfT5naSN8Sw
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Proof that baseball is a more injurious sport than soccer.

https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/41128757/usa-croix-bethune-suffers-season-ending-knee-injury
AunBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Proof that 003 thinks he's funny but really isn't.

oski003 said:

Proof that baseball is a more injurious sport than soccer.

https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/41128757/usa-croix-bethune-suffers-season-ending-knee-injury
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Nick can stand in line with all the other chumps that were late to the party figuring out that tRump f@ucks over everybody in his orbit sooner or later:

Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Trump right again.

DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm surprised that the Kool-Aid Drinking Cult hasn't posted this yet . . .

Hunter Biden pleads guilty (Alford plea) to misdemeanor and felony charges for $1.4 million in tax evasion.
Without even the benefit of a deal with prosecutors, hours after jury selection was supposed to begin.

Looks like we won't learn anything about Hunter's overseas "dealings".
Shucks!

Signed, sealed, delivered.
Next.




"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
^^ Pops will pardon Hunter after the election. ^^

bear2034
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

I'm surprised that the Kool-Aid Drinking Cult hasn't posted this yet . . .

Hunter Biden pleads guilty (Alford plea) to misdemeanor and felony charges for $1.4 million in tax evasion.
Without even the benefit of a deal with prosecutors, hours after jury selection was supposed to begin.

Looks like we won't learn anything about Hunter's overseas "dealings".
Shucks!

This plea deal was brokered when Joe Biden was forced to stepped down.
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bloomberg: Liberal San Francisco Is Deporting Migrants to Fight Fentanyl Crisis

The city has adopted more hardline policies as the human and economic pain from the deadly drug mounts.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-09-05/san-francisco-s-fentanyl-crisis-triggers-migrant-deportation-crackdown
MinotStateBeav
How long do you want to ignore this user?
First Page Last Page
Page 332 of 356
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.