chiefalchemist

Yes, buy NPD *is* in the DSM. While I'm not a mental health professional (read: I can't diagnose with any authority), I would still say that Mullenweg consistenly exhubits many / most of the symptoms of classic NPD.

NPD = Narcissistic Personality Disorder

You’re going to love… These are not baskets of plants.

But yeah, typically HN. Make a pointless comment instead of something like “Yeah, the article was thin on facts and details.”

Sure, mock me. While CNN turns what’s left of your thinking into mashed potatoes. But yeah, you’re thinking hanging plants are similar.

So people are just going to hang them out windows? Perhaps many stories up? What about severe weather? I wonder how long before you’ll need a license to install one of these?

That aside, thanks for filling me in. We’ll have to see how it goes

Unfortunately, the article makes no mention of (approx) how many rental units there are in NJ. A step further would be, of those, how many have balconies. And finally, how many face south (or close).

I live in Central NJ. This bill certainly can’t hurt. But is the impact significant? Anecdotally, it doesn’t feel that way. The (new) governor still has a campaign promise to fulfill.

> but it’s free to use

This is false. Nothing is free.

We watch ads. We are tracked like animals. That time, attention and loss of privacy *is* payment. For this, it’s reasonable to expect a service that aspires to rise above shit-show.

Let me rephrase:

The most important Science [1] in the history of Science and history of The World… is no science at all. It’s consensus. Nothing more.

Let that ^^^ sink in.

I might consent, as a matter of caution. But I do so reluctantly and with skepticism. Most importantly, I’m not fooling myself and thinking I’m believing in something that is. Not. There. That is, Science. I’m not mindlessly parroting a narrative [2] - like a bad version of kindergarten telephone - because I’m afraid of asking obvious, worthy, and intelligent questions. I’m not a victim of my biases.

We’re done here.

1 - Please note, the upper case S.

2 - Examples given, there are others.

I’ve looked at it. I’ve seen it before. I saw it when it was initially published. It’s why I said: the planet has been warmer, and it’s been cooler. There is no normal.

So when I hear “climate scientists” make big brush statements about the last 100 yrs, 500 yr, or even 1000 yrs, I laugh. When they make a proclamation about “since records were kept” I laugh again.

I laugh because I’ve seen that graph and I know they evidently haven’t seen it, or are for some reason pretending otherwise. I presume they’re trying to be funny. They’re certainly not being scientific serious.

The climate has risen before, and there were no humans around. None. And what then explains that increase.

I’m not arguing against climate change. All I’m asking for is scientific proof that isn’t correlation, hearsay, parroting, etc.

This is the last time I’m going to say this… FFS…

consensus === Science.

In fact the repetition of consensus is a classic tool of propaganda. “I’ve heard it a bunch of times… it must be true.” And if you don’t think scientists aren’t subject to the same influence, you’re naive.

Stop waving your finger.

Thanks for proving my point.

Read the reference articles. All perfectly legit sources. All are examples of how corruptible “The Science” can be.

Maybe that’s not the case with climate? Yet, not a single shared link pointing to science-based proof.

This thread is a perfect example of the type of human behavior that leads to false consensus.

Look at the climate record, what leads you to believe this isn’t natural and we should have a chance to “reverse” it.

Simple enough… share links to the science that thoroughly proves what you’re saying. “Al Gore said it, it must be true,” isn’t going to cut it.

As for the “never ever”, that’s another assumption. The climate record over the looooong term simply is not that accurate.

Of course, there is a fair amount of correlation and circumstantial evidence, but parroting that as absolute fact and causation does make it scientific. There is a lot of “telephone” on this issue. Those using hundreds of years or even thousands should be met with skepticism.

To clarify: I agree 100% that the climate is changing. It always have. Unfortunately, the rabbit hole of proof is not that deep. Most of “proof” is based on consensus and groupthink dictated by “the experts.”