Upcoming Interview With Jack Ward -- Global Nova Scotia Warming :)

Fair enough. Just going by what I've been exposed to here. To be clear, you're inferring he's more broadly critical across the political spectrum?
I just think he’s just a true progressive and a talented comedian. ‘True’ meaning when he gets behind a AOC, a Bernie, or an Andrew Yang, and later finds out they have completely sold out, he aims fire at them.
I wish more Trump supporters would do that.
I had a lot of hope for the MAGA movement at one time, but it has turned in to just another religiously political ordeal. But back when I was hopeful toward it, I remember having to take a break from Jimmy Dore due to how hard he was blasting Trump and Trump supporters. But I never got mad at him, because he deals from an honest place.
 
I wish more Trump supporters would do that.
More? Any would be a nice start.

I had a lot of hope for the MAGA movement at one time, but it has turned in to just another religiously political ordeal. But back when I was hopeful toward it, I remember having to take a break from Jimmy Dore due to how hard he was blasting Trump and Trump supporters.
This is what I don't understand so I'd be curious to hear a bit more from you on this. I am an unabashed critic of Trump's and was from the jump of his political career. Prior to that I just found him to be a sometimes entertaining charlatan. So, when his self-sourced MAGA movement started I had a strong sense that it was flawed from the start simply because of the man at the tip of the spear. Sure, taking Trump out of it there was some intrigue at the notion of a DC outsider draining the swamp. But the moment I mused on that point, I was brought back to the realization "Wait, we're talking about Donald Trump here?". And I had conviction that not only was it a farce but that it was dangerous.

So, my question for you (sorry about the above, but just wanted to give you where I've been on Trump throughout this thing): How were you ever hopeful about a Trump led movement and at what point did you "lose hope"?
 
I tend to agree on this point, however, how does Sam Harris’s worldview bring out his irrational behaviour where Trump (and other things) are concerned?

In my case, I think my worldview influences my thinking on the big issues like death and that maybe influences how I tend to think about other linked things, but I don’t think it is the reason I feel strongly about some things, though it may make a difference to how I act as a result. Interesting stuff Imo.

edit: Thinking about this, I feel more strongly about Sam Harris’s arrogance than I do about Trump’s - yet I know that Trump is a narcissistic fool, (though he’s no fool). Perhaps Sam is just as bad if not worse because his ‘academic prowess’ impresses so many - where to me he’s basically full of shite! I see the same thing with Jimmy Dore, pals of mine dislike him and accuse him of being a ‘right winger’ simply because he is constantly highlighting the democrats hypocrisy. It’s tribal bullshit..

It IS all tribal bullshit. I just had a phenomenal discussion with one of my friends on the phone and this might be part and parcel of the reboot of my podcast on the subject. Beginning with the understanding we all have a worldview.. how much of this worldview is influenced?
My friend pointed out something that I've noticed but hadn't put exactly my finger on. There's a tendency for people doing these to grasp on to a particular "truth" not recognizing that there are multiple messy ways that human beings experience this reality. That's why there's not just Atheists and Christians. Hell, even Christians have such a massive variation within their various groups that you can't simplify Christianity. You could argue, "Well they believe that Jesus is our Lord and Savior".
Okay, what about "Jews for Jesus" then? They consider themselves Jews and not Christians. Or Islam that considers Jesus one of the great teachers. Or Baháʼí who say that Jesus is who he says he is. Or Zoroastrianism which by all possibilities is the very roots of the Abrahamic Tree.

The very focus of what I think should be is this... "What do you know? What can you prove? And what do you believe?"
Because too many people start with the third question and apply it to the other two.
J
 
I just think he’s just a true progressive and a talented comedian. ‘True’ meaning when he gets behind a AOC, a Bernie, or an Andrew Yang, and later finds out they have completely sold out, he aims fire at them.
I wish more Trump supporters would do that.
I had a lot of hope for the MAGA movement at one time, but it has turned in to just another religiously political ordeal. But back when I was hopeful toward it, I remember having to take a break from Jimmy Dore due to how hard he was blasting Trump and Trump supporters. But I never got mad at him, because he deals from an honest place.

Nice. I think a lot of this applies to Alex Jones as well... sure he's a flawed character... and he fell for the trumpster... but people forget where he stood on 9/11... and who was in charge at that time.

We're all susceptible to the " religiously political ordeal" but it seems like progressives have a bigger appetite for it.
 
It IS all tribal bullshit. I just had a phenomenal discussion with one of my friends on the phone and this might be part and parcel of the reboot of my podcast on the subject. Beginning with the understanding we all have a worldview.. how much of this worldview is influenced?
My friend pointed out something that I've noticed but hadn't put exactly my finger on. There's a tendency for people doing these to grasp on to a particular "truth" not recognizing that there are multiple messy ways that human beings experience this reality. That's why there's not just Atheists and Christians. Hell, even Christians have such a massive variation within their various groups that you can't simplify Christianity. You could argue, "Well they believe that Jesus is our Lord and Savior".
Okay, what about "Jews for Jesus" then? They consider themselves Jews and not Christians. Or Islam that considers Jesus one of the great teachers. Or Baháʼí who say that Jesus is who he says he is. Or Zoroastrianism which by all possibilities is the very roots of the Abrahamic Tree.

The very focus of what I think should be is this... "What do you know? What can you prove? And what do you believe?"
Because too many people start with the third question and apply it to the other two.
J
Jack, how about you thinking very hard about this global warming issue - not skittering off the point. I'd love to see you realise that the evidence for GW is extraordinarily thin - which is exactly why they changed the name to 'climate change'. When they did that I thought everyone would laugh at them because climate always shifts a bit in any one place, but somehow the absurdity of this change never got through.

I mean any 'climate change' is supposed to be due to GW, so why not stick to the main scientific prediction? If 1.2C over 140 years doesn't sound impressive enough - well that is all it is. I think given all the uncertainties of that measurement, I'd say the most likely figure is zero.

Think of all the destruction going on right now in the name of stopping GW, think of all the people who will die of cold in higher latitudes. We need an awfully rock solid reason to do that, don't we?

David
 
Jack, how about you thinking very hard about this global warming issue - not skittering off the point. I'd love to see you realise that the evidence for GW is extraordinarily thin - which is exactly why they changed the name to 'climate change'. When they did that I thought everyone would laugh at them because climate always shifts a bit in any one place, but somehow the absurdity of this change never got through.

I mean any 'climate change' is supposed to be due to GW, so why not stick to the main scientific prediction? If 1.2C over 140 years doesn't sound impressive enough - well that is all it is. I think given all the uncertainties of that measurement, I'd say the most likely figure is zero.

Think of all the destruction going on right now in the name of stopping GW, think of all the people who will die of cold in higher latitudes. We need an awfully rock solid reason to do that, don't we?

David

"I mean any 'climate change' is supposed to be due to GW, so why not stick to the main scientific prediction? If 1.2C over 140 years doesn't sound impressive enough - well that is all it is. I think given all the uncertainties of that measurement, I'd say the most likely figure is zero."
- Because science isn't chicken entrails and ground tea leaves? It's operating with the best evidence we have at the time. Right?
I thought we would agree from the beginning that science ISN'T a position statement. It's looking at the evidence as it stands. As our understanding of the evidence changes, so do our predictions and understandings.
J
 
Jack, how about you thinking very hard about this global warming issue - not skittering off the point. I'd love to see you realise that the evidence for GW is extraordinarily thin - which is exactly why they changed the name to 'climate change'. When they did that I thought everyone would laugh at them because climate always shifts a bit in any one place, but somehow the absurdity of this change never got through.

I mean any 'climate change' is supposed to be due to GW, so why not stick to the main scientific prediction? If 1.2C over 140 years doesn't sound impressive enough - well that is all it is. I think given all the uncertainties of that measurement, I'd say the most likely figure is zero.

Think of all the destruction going on right now in the name of stopping GW, think of all the people who will die of cold in higher latitudes. We need an awfully rock solid reason to do that, don't we?

David

https://dailysceptic.org/2022/08/18...ionals-declare-there-is-no-climate-emergency/

The political fiction that humans cause most or all climate change and the claim that the science behind this notion is ‘settled’, has been dealt a savage blow by the publication of a ‘World Climate Declaration (WCD)’ signed by over 1,100 scientists and professionals. There is no climate emergency, say the authors, who are drawn from across the world and led by the Norwegian physics Nobel Prize laureate Professor Ivar Giaever. Climate science is said to have degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound self-critical science.

Since emerging from the ‘Little Ice Age’ in around 1850, the world has warmed significantly less than predicted by the IPCC on the basis of modelled human influences. “The gap between the real world and the modelled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change,” the WCD notes.

The Declaration is an event of enormous importance, although it will be ignored by the mainstream media. But it is not the first time distinguished scientists have petitioned for more realism in climate science. In Italy, the discoverer of nuclear anti-matter Emeritus Professor Antonino Zichichi recently led 48 local science professors in stating that human responsibility for climate change is “unjustifiably exaggerated and catastrophic predictions are not realistic”. In their scientific view, “natural variation explains a substantial part of global warming observed since 1850”. Professor Zichichi has signed the WCD.
 
Because science isn't chicken entrails and ground tea leaves? It's operating with the best evidence we have at the time. Right?
I thought we would agree from the beginning that science ISN'T a position statement. It's looking at the evidence as it stands. As our understanding of the evidence changes, so do our predictions and understandings.
It is, Jack, except when it is driven by money gunning for one answer - that is the absolute worst way to do science.

Nobody (except perhaps computer climate modellers) can convert a rise in temperature of 1.2C in 140 years into a "climate emergency" - particularly when you consider that the supposed rise in temperature is proportional to the log of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. That means that as you add more CO2, it has less and less effect.

David
 
  • Like
Reactions: K9!
It is, Jack, except when it is driven by money gunning for one answer - that is the absolute worst way to do science.

Nobody (except perhaps computer climate modellers) can convert a rise in temperature of 1.2C in 140 years into a "climate emergency" - particularly when you consider that the supposed rise in temperature is proportional to the log of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. That means that as you add more CO2, it has less and less effect.

David

Why don't we want to look at the real money that's behind the anti-Climate Change folks then? Big Oil? They have the same people working with them that denied a cancer connection to cigarettes.
Wouldn't that be an important thing to consider, if you think money is the issue?
 
Wouldn't that be an important thing to consider, if you think money is the issue?
The greed objection is always suspect. You have to accept that those on the other side of the moat are the white hats who are either not motivated by greed/money/ego/power or have some how risen above those rather mundane and common human traits. (While accepting the other side, again, can in no way also rise above).
 
I wonder how much teachers in Nova Scotia are being paid to abuse children?

Brendon Gillis, a teacher at Memorial High School in Sydney Mines, Nova Scotia, inappropriately asked students for private medical information (their vaccine status) and encouraged the class to bully their unvaccinated classmates.

 
Last edited:
Jack, how about you thinking very hard about this global warming issue - not skittering off the point. I'd love to see you realise that the evidence for GW is extraordinarily thin - which is exactly why they changed the name to 'climate change'. When they did that I thought everyone would laugh at them because climate always shifts a bit in any one place, but somehow the absurdity of this change never got through.

I mean any 'climate change' is supposed to be due to GW, so why not stick to the main scientific prediction? If 1.2C over 140 years doesn't sound impressive enough - well that is all it is. I think given all the uncertainties of that measurement, I'd say the most likely figure is zero.

Think of all the destruction going on right now in the name of stopping GW, think of all the people who will die of cold in higher latitudes. We need an awfully rock solid reason to do that, don't we?

David
I wonder how much teachers in Nova Scotia are being paid to abuse children?

Brendon Gillis, a teacher at Memorial High School in Sydney Mines, Nova Scotia, inappropriately asked students for private medical information (their vaccine status) and encouraged the class to bully their unvaccinated classmates.


I can tell you (though you wouldn't believe me anyway) that such a thing is not only not encouraged, it will end up in the firing of the teacher in question, as it should be.
Not sure what that has to do with climate change though.
My how people tend to dance around a subject.
 
I can tell you (though you wouldn't believe me anyway) that such a thing is not only not encouraged, it will end up in the firing of the teacher in question, as it should be.
Not sure what that has to do with climate change though.
My how people tend to dance around a subject.

Activist teachers have become the norm. They are better at social engineering than science and math.

You haven't been able to make a scientific argument supporting your position, which is probably why you won't ever go on skeptiko, despite Alex's willingness to have you on his show.
 
Last edited:
Activist teachers have become the norm.
No, they haven't. That's not to say we shouldn't be pushing back here. I'm all for vigilance in this regard. But please, let's not be hyperbolic. I have three kids who just went through public schools in the U.S. Didn't have one teacher than any fair minded individual would label "activist".
 
No, they haven't. That's not to say we shouldn't be pushing back here. I'm all for vigilance in this regard. But please, let's not be hyperbolic. I have three kids who just went through public schools in the U.S. Didn't have one teacher than any fair minded individual would label "activist".

Canada may be ahead of you on this one, but clearly activist teachers are also a problem in the US.

 
No, they haven't. That's not to say we shouldn't be pushing back here. I'm all for vigilance in this regard. But please, let's not be hyperbolic. I have three kids who just went through public schools in the U.S. Didn't have one teacher than any fair minded individual would label "activist".
Do you deny that a substantial proportion of teachers in the US are activists (whether or not your kids encountered one)?

Teachers should generally teach both sides of a subject, or stay out of certain debates.

David
 
o you deny that a substantial proportion of teachers in the US are activists (whether or not your kids encountered one)?
Sure I do David. Simple reason? I haven't seen one iota of empirical evidence to support the claim.

The burden is on those asserting that "activist" teachers are a substantial proportion. That's the claim.

I think its all too easy to be drawn into the loudest voices on the internet or to selectively seek out YouTube anecdotes such as K9 seems to do. But none of that is evidence. Are there activist teachers? I'm sure. Are they a "substantial proportion"? Well, now we have to get into a) defining what an activist teacher is and then b) finding some empirical measure of their populace to support the claim. I've seen neither.

Its all fine if you just want to gnash teeth here, but I won't apologize for asking what rigor is behind it all.
 
Back
Top