How many times was the nation of Maldives supposed to have been gone by now, covered in rising seas? I heard that one many times. That prediction had to have its signs taken down like at Glacier National Park “These glaciers will be gone by 2020.” Look, I found a link! 

13 hours ago, bradschrag said:

These are your words.

I have you a list of hypothesis.

They have the years the predictions were made.

The would be falsified had they not come true.

What else is there to answer in regards to your question?

No, your list doesn't answer all of the questions.

And you know that it doesn’t. You’re knowingly lying again.

Heh.Tell us what you think would happen if you were to actually answer the questions. Do you know? What am I going to do with that information?

7 hours ago, Peter said:

My point is let your own eyes be the tools of detection.

 

Humans perception isn't the best tool to pick up a signal like climate change that occurs so gradually, relative to our lifespans.

9 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

No, your list doesn't answer all of the questions.

And you know that it doesn’t. You’re knowingly lying again.

Heh.Tell us what you think would happen if you were to actually answer the questions. Do you know? What am I going to do with that information?

 

I didn't say it answered all the questions, and I explicitly stated I want going to answer all of them at once. As I said, there's no point in wasting time answering all questions when there is disagreement on a single one.

What would happen if I answered all of them? Nothing, you'd still be in denial. 

So in regards to the falsifiable hypothesis, with dates, what issue do you have with the list I linked you to?

1 minute ago, bradschrag said:

 

Humans perception isn't the best tool to pick up a signal like climate change that occurs so gradually, relative to our lifespans.

This is the entire problem with the climate change people.

They don't think they are human.

That's a quip, but it's also serious. 

From the God's eye view, of course they want to take charge of the world's economy and government so they can tell all the paltry humans what they can and can't do. Humans can't see that the planet needs saving. And humans can't do it. In fact, humans are destroying the planet. Only gods like themselves with their non-human perception can save the world.

That was quite a revealing statement.

Michael

18 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

They don't think they are human.

That's a straw man, unless of course you can back it up with evidence of a pro AGW individual claiming to be God. I can point you to a denier claiming to be such on Twitter, FWIW.

19 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

That's a quip, but it's also serious

That's an oxymoron. Beat you pick which side of the statement you want to reinforce. Could be seen as hypocritical to play both sides simultaneously.

20 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

From the God's eye view, of course they want to take charge of the world's economy and government so they can tell all the paltry humans what they can and can't do. Humans can't see that the planet needs saving. And humans can't do it. In fact, humans are destroying the planet. Only gods like themselves with their non-human perception can save the world.

That's a conspiracy theory.

20 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

That was quite a revealing statement

Yes, indeed it was. Yet, to it you responded with nil content.

1 hour ago, bradschrag said:

 

Humans perception isn't the best tool to pick up a signal like climate change that occurs so gradually, relative to our lifespans.

The original claim was catastrophic climate change which would be plenty obvious to everyone.  The Statue of Liberty in water up to her neck, the Houses of Parliament awash, etc.

Possibly unbeknownst to you, sources you're citing use jiggered stuff.  You seem to place much reliance on Gavin Schmidtt as a source.  Bad mistake.  He's one if the biggest cheaters-in-chief - and very skilled at his maneuvers.

Ellen

14 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

The original claim was catastrophic climate change which would be plenty obvious to everyone.  The Statue of Liberty in water up to her neck, the Houses of Parliament awash, etc.

 

Most would consider a mad extinction bad. There previous mad extinction too over 10k years to occur, it's not an overnight or even single generation event.

15 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Possibly unbeknownst to you, sources you're citing use jiggered stuff.  You seem to place much reliance on Gavin Schmidtt as a source.  Bad mistake.  He's one if the biggest cheaters-in-chief - and very skilled at his maneuvers.

More conspiracy. That's yours to deal with, not mine. Bring evidence next time.

1 hour ago, bradschrag said:

I didn't say it answered all the questions, and I explicitly stated I want going to answer all of them at once. As I said, there's no point in wasting time answering all questions when there is disagreement on a single one.

 

See, the reason that all of the questions go together is because they apply to the same specific single hypothesis, and only to it.

Your trick of answering one bit at a time has the purpose of shifting between different hypotheses while hoping that no one notices. A good example would be one of the items on the list that you posted on the issue of falsifiability was a hypothesis about Pinatubo. The subject at hand is the hypothesis that mankind is the primary driver of global warming, and has been for a long time. The subject is not the predictions of the effects of the eruption of Pinatubo. The subject at hand is not the other isolated items on the list.

Perhaps you're confused due to the inclusion of one of the questions on my list. That question asks that you specifically identify the hypothesis that was proposed prior to predictions and testing. In case you're confused (or, more likely, in case you're hoping to cause confusion), that doesn't mean that I'm asking you to provide any hypothesis that pops into your head -- say, about Pinatubo, for example -- but that the hypothesis must be that mankind is the primary driver of global warming, and that the people who proposed the hypothesis specifically identified it as such. Understand?

Earlier in this discussion, Billy clipped and pressed a floret of mine: "Oh, okay, well then let's talk about the repeatable science of making vinegar and baking soda volcanoes! Douchebag." That was in response to your douchebag maneuver of switching hypotheses and hoping that we didn't notice. The idea behind the comment is that you will look for any and every opportunity to slither and stray from the actual subject in order to attempt to pass off something that doesn't actually address the subject at hand, but which you only hope appears to do so.

If I demand falsifiability and repeatability, you will cite falsifiable and repeatable experiments, but ones which do not pertain to the subject at hand. The same is true of predictions and experiment dates and durations, and the choice of definitions: I ask that you identify the terms and conditions of the specific hypothesis and experiments, and instead you substitute your own idiotic pondering about how long of a time period you personally want as the defining aspect of "climate," and therefore how long of a time period that you feel should be required to be tested. Numbnuts, the questions are not about you and your moronic opinions, but about what the scientists themselves have actually proposed, defined, identified, and delimited in their hypotheses, predictions, etc.

Quote

What would happen if I answered all of them? Nothing, you'd still be in denial. 

Specifically what are you accusing me of denying?

Anyway, what would happen if you, or Billy, were to provide actual answers to all of my questions would be that we would then apply the identified criteria to reality. Not just to a portion of it here or there, and not while selectively omitting falsifiability on this section or repeatability on that section.

Quote

So in regards to the falsifiable hypothesis, with dates, what issue do you have with the list I linked you to?

The issue that I have is that you haven't answered the questions, but, once again, have only answered your own substitute questions which you seem to think are going to fool us into believing that you've actually answered the questions that I asked.

J

2 hours ago, bradschrag said:

That's a conspiracy theory.

22 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

More conspiracy. That's yours to deal with, not mine. Bring evidence next time.

Douschrag thinks that accusing others of being conspiracy theorists is a very powerful weapon. He does it often, even when it's clearly not applicable. One of us might even specifically note that we're having a bit of fun speculating, but, no matter, Douschrag has already been triggered, and cannot prevent himself from running to fetch and use his magic weapon. Devastating.

41 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

Most would consider a mad extinction bad. There previous mad extinction...

Mad extinction is a conspiracy theory.

3 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

Mad extinction is a conspiracy theory.

Mass extinction. Apologies for lack of proof reading and auto correct.

2 hours ago, bradschrag said:

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

They don't think they are human.

That's a straw man, unless of course you can back it up with evidence of a pro AGW individual claiming to be God.

LOL...

Very interesting case study...

Unbelievable...

The pain, the pain...

Michael

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Only gods like themselves with their non-human perception can save the world.

My thinking exactly, Michael.

Brad wrote: Humans perception isn't the best tool to pick up a signal like climate change that occurs so gradually, relative to our lifespans.

Too bad we don’t have climate glasses to enhance our vision of yesterday, today, and tomorrow. I am not discounting “weather history,” just conclusions that conflate a political agenda with science. It has been going on since the 1970’s: how to destroy Capitalism and set up a Bloomberg (or Gloomberg) nanny or totalitarian state? After all “the deep state” knows best and they will lead you to a better tomorrow.

I remember when it was hotter. I remember when it was colder. I can read books and evaluate data. My point, is that geological records estimating climate change throughout the ages excluded mankind because we weren’t here yet, as Brad mentioned above, but the climate changed anyway, with or without us. Our contributions are significant locally but not worldwide. I am thinking of LA or Chinese big city smog which is better without higher emission cars.  

Lately they have been tying tree cutting, to rainforest deforestation in the Amazon, which could lead to a lack of oxygen in the atmosphere.  I just stepped outside to feed the birds and it was drizzling. The air was pure and sweet. That means the planet humans evolved on is much the same today as it was 100,000 years ago.

And we are observing the effects of population density in China, where the weak and elderly are being culled from the herd, which sounds horrible, but it is happening. Pollution. Contaminated water and trash-filled, land. Pennsylvanian, Amish cows are polluting the Chesapeake Bay but they are working to stop direct runoff up there. I am not against that. But I am against the initiation of force and coercion to push a political agenda. Say “Amen!” brothers and sisters.        

Oh. I heard they are going to use a concoction of HIV serum and flu shots to help stem the coronavisus. I hope it works.

47 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

but that the hypothesis must be that mankind is the primary driver of global warming, and that the people who proposed the hypothesis specifically identified it as such. Understand?

Arrhenius hypothesized early on (1895) that changes in co2 was a linked to global temperatures. He hypothesized that increasing co2 would warm the planet. His sensitivity parameter was on the high side. Given the resources he had, I think his number is remarkable. He also stated that the industrial revolution would drive co2 levels up. But I think you know this already. So how does this not fit the criteria of your question?

48 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

Arrhenius hypothesized early on (1895) that changes in co2 was a linked to global temperatures. He hypothesized that increasing co2 would warm the planet. His sensitivity parameter was on the high side. Given the resources he had, I think his number is remarkable. He also stated that the industrial revolution would drive co2 levels up. But I think you know this already. So how does this not fit the criteria of your question?

Did you answer my questions? Have you identified all of the information?

You're an amazingly slow learner.

J

32 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

Did you answer my questions? Have you identified all of the information?

You're an amazingly slow learner.

J

 

You too have failed to answer. How does Arrhenius hypothesis fail your criteria for a falsifiable hypothesis that increasing co2 would cause warming?

1 hour ago, bradschrag said:

Arrhenius hypothesized early on (1895) ...

Arrhenius hypothesized as a musing maybe, a "what if," and he wrote a second paper with caveats pertaining to the effects of water vapor.  Humans-are-doing-it advocates who cite Arrhenius generally don't know (or, in some cases, deliberately misrepresent) what Arrhenius really said.

Also:  Calling a liar a liar does not a conspiracy theory make.

Ellen

27 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

You too have failed to answer. How does Arrhenius hypothesis fail your criteria for a falsifiable hypothesis that increasing co2 would cause warming?

Is that the hypothesis? Is that the extent of it? Isn't there more involved, like how much warming, etc.?

This is why we need a precise identification of the hypothesis in question, because douchebags like you will switch back and forth between several, all while treating them as if they are the same one.

J

16 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Arrhenius hypothesized as a musing maybe, a "what if," and he wrote a second paper with caveats pertaining to the effects of water vapor.  Humans-are-doing-it advocates who cite Arrhenius generally don't know (or, in some cases, deliberately misrepresent) what Arrhenius really said.

Also:  Calling a liar a liar does not a conspiracy theory make.

Ellen

The above is all just conspiracy theories.

Just now, Jonathan said:

The above is all just conspiracy theories.

And the above is too.

23 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Arrhenius hypothesized as a musing maybe, a "what if," and he wrote a second paper with caveats pertaining to the effects of water vapor.  Humans-are-doing-it advocates who cite Arrhenius generally don't know (or, in some cases, deliberately misrepresent) what Arrhenius really said.

Also:  Calling a liar a liar does not a conspiracy theory make.

Ellen

Did he or didn't he claim increasing co2 would increase temperature? Page 16, if you want to check your answer before responding.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjNiciivbjnAhUH7awKHTVnCdoQFjAFegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw1Cm1sb1Pjyd2Sph86m9hd0

8 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

And the above is too.

I'll address her conspiracies when she finds Russell's teapot.

4 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

Did he or didn't he claim increasing co2 would increase temperature? Page 16, if you want to check your answer before responding.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjNiciivbjnAhUH7awKHTVnCdoQFjAFegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw1Cm1sb1Pjyd2Sph86m9hd0

Um, there is no page 16 at the link you posted, dicknibbler, but there is this statement on the first page:

Contrary to some misunderstandings, Arrhenius does not explicitly suggest in this paper that the burning of fossil fuels will cause global warming, though it is clear that he is aware that fossil fuels are a potentially significant source of carbon dioxide (page 270), and he does explicitly suggest this outcome in later work.