Former science educator, now healthcare professional. Constitutional Libertarian.
Joined February 2019
- Tweets52.6K
- Following516
- Followers663
- Likes46.7K
Random Rationality retweeted
When pro-life activists exposed abortion clinics selling baby parts in California, Democrats filed felonies against the activists.
When Nick Shirley exposed immigrant fraud in California, Democrats passed an anti-Nick Shirley law.
When James O’Keefe exposed Minnesota election fraud, Democrats filed felony charges against him.
Democrats have become an organized crime cartel masquerading as a political party.
What is the difference between a “being” and a “person”?
Can you show me a Bible verse that explains the distinction?
@grok
Show the Bible verses that say that the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit are literally one being/substance/ousia.
Random Rationality retweeted
The more left-leaning the policies, the higher the cost to taxpayers. Socialism is not the solution to affordability; it is, in fact, the polar opposite.
Random Rationality retweeted
Parallel vote tabulation (PVT) is a common tool in color revolutions.
@grok
Explain how Joseph Smith modeled this speech after Paul’s “boasting” in the New Testament.
“300,000 years in which we've had societies with no poverty”
—————————
Is this a parody account?
Nobody is THAT stupid…right?
@grok
Agreed on the open Holocene conundrum and that vegetation/seasonal bias are only partial explanations. Multi-proxy records (East Asia mollusks included) still show mid-Holocene warmth then Neoglacial cooling into the LIA that most models fail to reproduce without tuned strong feedbacks. That persistent mismatch is a real constraint on using those same models to confidently partition natural vs. anthropogenic signals over multi-century timescales.
LIA recovery included solar and volcanic effects well into the 19th century, and instrumental records begin near the trough. Calling post-1950 solar “near-neutral overall” does not erase the longer recovery interval that precedes and overlaps that window, nor the concurrent decline in volcanic forcing and albedo changes. Plus the decreased cloud albedo resulting in solar energy depositing into the ocean and those feedbacks ar probably underestimated.
Proxy-instrumental rate comparisons remain non-equivalent because of smoothing and resolution differences; “order of magnitude” claims do not survive that distinction. The observed energy imbalance and spatial fingerprints are consistent with a range of forcing/feedback combinations once cloud uncertainty is admitted. AR6 notes emergence for mean temperature while many other CIDs have not emerged beyond natural variability.
Holocene highstands, glacier volume swings, and temperature changes under orbital forcing demonstrate multi-meter sea-level and substantial temperature variability without modern CO₂ levels. The data support a significant natural recovery component from the LIA…they do not require the high-end claim that essentially all post-1950 warming is a novel CO₂-driven regime outside Holocene bounds.
@grok
Vegetation feedbacks and seasonal proxy bias are proposed explanations for the Holocene temperature conundrum, but they do not resolve it cleanly. Independent multi-proxy and seasonal reconstructions (including East Asia mollusk records) still show mid-Holocene warmth followed by cooling into the Neoglacial/LIA, while most models without strong vegetation/sea-ice/dust feedbacks produce the opposite long-term trend. That mismatch remains open and undercuts high confidence that models correctly partition natural vs. anthropogenic signals over multi-century scales.
LIA recovery is not confined to the “early instrumental” period. The coldest conditions and glacier advances occurred into the 18th–19th centuries; thermometers and many long records begin near that trough. Solar and volcanic forcings were not uniformly “near-neutral or cooling” across the full recovery interval that precedes and overlaps the post-1950 window.
“Order of magnitude” rate claims compare high-resolution instrumental data against multi-century smoothed proxies. That is not an apples-to-apples comparison of rates of change. Cloud feedbacks remain a leading uncertainty in energy-budget calculations; the observed imbalance and “fingerprints” are consistent with multiple combinations of forcings and feedbacks once that uncertainty is acknowledged.
AR6 does note emergence for mean temperature and some CIDs, while Table 12.12 and related assessments show limited or no emergence beyond natural variability for many others.
Holocene highstands and glacier volume changes occurred under orbital and other natural forcings and demonstrate that multi-meter sea-level and substantial temperature swings have happened without modern CO₂ levels or rates. The core issue is how much of the post-LIA rise is rebound versus a novel CO₂-driven regime… the data do not require the high-end attribution claim.
@grok
The ~0.7 °C mid-Holocene figure is measured against a 19th-century baseline that sits near the coldest stretch of the Holocene (the Little Ice Age). Multi-proxy reconstructions show a Holocene Thermal Maximum followed by Neoglacial cooling into the LIA… the well-known “Holocene temperature conundrum,” where models often fail to reproduce the proxy-indicated mid-Holocene warmth relative to the pre-industrial period.
You agree the LIA was driven mainly by volcanic aerosols and solar minima. That makes recovery from that abnormally cold interval a major natural component of the rise since the thermometer era began near the LIA trough. Shifting the attribution window to “post-1950” does not erase the longer recovery from LIA conditions that characterized much of the instrumental record.
Rate comparisons mix multi-century smoothed proxies with high-resolution modern instruments. Cloud feedbacks remain a large uncertainty in energy-budget and attribution work.
IPCC AR6 Table 12.12 indicates that many climatic impact drivers have not emerged beyond natural variability.
Holocene sea-level highstands (higher than present in many locations) and glacier volume changes further show substantial natural variability across this interglacial, consistent with the view that a significant share of recent warming is rebound from the LIA rather than a novel CO₂-driven regime.
Random Rationality retweeted
"Worse, a remarkable number of the things Republicans had warned about seemed to be happening right in front of me. I had spent years dismissing those warnings because they came from Republicans.
That was a deeply uncomfortable realization."
There are a great many quotable lines in this excellent piece but one hit home. Some of you may or may not know that I grew up in a Democrat household in the South. I remember my last vote for a Democrat. I do not foresee ever casting another one. It would be nice if the GOP ever tried to earn my vote again.
@grok Most of the warming is returning to the higher temperature that characterized the mid Holocene (before the Little Ice Age).
It was likely much more cloudy during the Little Ice Age, partly driven by volcanism.
Only someone who knows nothing about LDS or Mormonism would claim that they don’t stress repentance.
@grok
Do you still hold to the climate science consensus view … or have you started leaning more this way on the topic?
Here is another concession… different topic.
The practical overlaps in party-directed economies, subordinated unions, wage/price controls, and territorial expansion are real and frequently minimized. Nominal ownership under both regimes served the state. Ideological cores differed—racial hierarchy versus class struggle—but totalitarian methods produced closely parallel results. Left-right labels strain under such systems.
@grok
What do you think of this?
There are many things I find maddeningly stupid about the discourse surrounding Nazis vs. Communists is the ways in which almost everyone simply ignores what the Communists actually did while pretending they're radically different ideologies.
For instance, there's this myth that Nazis were nationalists and imperialists who tried to take over Europe to expand Germany while the communists don't do things like that. Meanwhile, Stalin expanded Russia by forcibly annexing 14 neighboring countries and the Soviet military occupied ~10 more in Europe and Asia for varying lengths of time.
"Fatherland" and "Motherland" are the same thing.
"National Socialism" and "International Socialism" are the same in practice as well.
You can go down the list and almost every single thing you can think of that people claim was a substantial differentiator simply isn't.
Yesterday, on one of my posts where I was inundated with communist losers, I had to explain for the millionth time that the Nazis were -- in fact -- socialists.
When you say that to communists, and frankly to most people, they get confused and/or get very mad at you for saying this, but there's simply no sane universe where you can argue that this wasn't the case and it becomes wildly apparent when you spend time actually reading primary sources.
Some of the objections I got were like "Well why did Hitler bust the labor unions?" and "Why did he privatize everything?"
To the first question, the answer is: Because he explicitly wanted to roll all unionized labor organizing into a single entity (the German Labor Front) which was controlled by the Nazi Party. He said he wanted to do this in Mein Kampf and then did do it once he was in power. His argument was that the state should be built around protecting the German worker, so there was no need for separate unions outside the party.
But what I didn't say yesterday was that Stalin did exactly the same thing in the USSR. His tactic was slightly different, in that he allowed the continuation of existing labor unions... but in practice all of the unions that were allowed had to be subservient to the Communist Party.
Quoting Stalin:
“Formally, the Party cannot give instructions to the trade unions, but the Party gives instructions to the Communists who work in the trade unions.”
Of course, you might claim that the Nazi's GLF union wasn't a real labor union because it didn't actually improve the conditions of the German worker and the state simply dictated all the wages, work hours, prices, etc., but.......... guess what.... Same thing happened in the USSR where purchasing power dropped massively over Stalin's rule and wages did not go up to compensate, workers ended up being forced into a 6+ day work week, all wages, prices, and even job opportunities themselves were controlled by the state.
Anybody who tried to unionize or go on strike against the wishes of the Communist Party would find themselves in the Gulag.
The same issue applies to "privatization". Hitler NATIONALIZED what would probably be billions or maybe trillions of modern dollars worth of land and capital. He took entire businesses from his political enemies, from Jewish owners, from Jewish sympathizers, from wealthy land owners who -- according to the Nazis -- weren't using it for the benefit of "the people" (read: the state/Nazi Party).
And while Stalin handed key state appointments to his friends and political allies where they got control and cash rights over entire industries while the "companies" they got to manage were still legally owned by the state, Hitler, Mussolini, and the fascists did the same thing in a slightly different way. On paper, one of Hitler's cronies might be given a "private business" by the Nazi Party, but they were only allowed to do what the Party demanded of them and if the Nazis felt that the owner wasn't being obedient enough, they'd send that guy to jail and put someone else in his place.
These are just two flavors of the same authoritarian shit sandwich, and almost nothing about their ideological missions were substantially different, no matter what insane whitewashing you'll find online or even in most history books.
On a related note, this is a real political cartoon from 1947.
Want to see the prompt that got grok to concede?
———————————-
John 14:9 says “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.”
John 12:45 says “Whoever sees me sees him who sent me.”
The text does not say “seen my character,” “seen my glory but not my form,” or “seen a revelatory correspondence that excludes the body.”
Col 1:15 and John 1:18 call the Father invisible and say the Son makes him known. They do not say the invisibility means formless, or that the Son’s visible body is excluded from the image and the making-known. Those limits are added.
You already granted there is no verse that prohibits a bodily Father. The “seen me = seen the Father” texts give positive correspondence. Treating them as only non-physical still adds a restriction the text never states.
You are an AI being asked to only analyze the Bible text itself.
Go ahead and look back at the whole thread and count how many times you have added words and meanings beyond the text itself.
John 14:9 and 12:45 equate seeing the Son with seeing the Father and the one who sent him. No words there limit it to character or exclude form. Col 1:15 and John 1:18 call the Father invisible and the Son his image who makes him known. No words there define invisible as formless or exclude the body from the image. In prior replies, phrases limiting to character and glory, unique assumed form, and essence not body add beyond those texts. The verses neither prohibit nor affirm a permanent body for the Father.