7 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

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

You don't understand the burden of proof. Not even slightly.

43 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

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.

Apologies, page 14 of the pdf or page 266 as it's labeled in the paper. 

And I'd suggest taking your focus off  the red herring and stick to the simple question. Did he or did he not claim rising co2 would cause the planet to warm?

23 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

Apologies, page 14 of the pdf or page 266 as it's labeled in the paper. 

 

And I'd suggest taking your focus off  the red herring and stick to the simple question. Did he or did he not claim rising co2 would cause the planet to warm?

Indeed he did.

Now, answer the questions. If you want to go with Arrhenius, plug in the answers to the questions.

3 hours ago, Jonathan said:

You don't understand the burden of proof. Not even slightly.

When spouting government conspiracies of control, the burden of proof is on the spouter.

2 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Indeed he did.

Now, answer the questions. If you want to go with Arrhenius, plug in the answers to the questions.

Is or isn't the burning of fossil fuels driving up co2 concentrations in the atmosphere?

29 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

When spouting government conspiracies of control, the burden of proof is on the spouter.

Who  "spouted" a "government conspiracy"?

J

10 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

Who  "spouted" a "government conspiracy"?

J

You are correct, her's wasn't aimed at government. Let me rephrase:

When spouting conspiracies, the burden of proof is on the spouter. That's why I asked her to bring evidence to support her assertions.

8 hours ago, Jonathan said:

 

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.

Yes, it's interesting how "conspiracy theory" has become an immediate code-language dismissal and equivalent to the accusation "You're a kook."

Ellen

2 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Yes, it's interesting how "conspiracy theory" has become an immediate code-language dismissal and equivalent to the accusation "You're a kook."

Ellen

Perhaps time for self reflection if these are common responses to statements you make. Still waiting on evidence of your assertions, by the way.

6 hours ago, bradschrag said:

You too have failed to answer.

Notice that this guy has no trouble admitting that he doesn't answer Jonathan's questions.

This dude reminds me of CNN.

Michael

20 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

Perhaps time for self reflection if these are common responses to statements you make. Still waiting on evidence of your assertions, by the way.

Re the first sentence, I think you're probably the first person who's ever accused me of being a "conspiracy theorist" - and there was nothing in what I said which gave any plausible basis for the charge.  You might engage in self-reflection about why you promptly leveled it.

Re the second sentence, you'll have to go on waiting, since I'm not getting into a discussion of it here.  You could find plenty of comment on climate-related sites if you wanted to go looking.

I was doing two things with what I said: (1) giving you a bit of an alert if you were receptive, and (2) tangentially warning Jonathan against accepting your description of material you linked.  (J, "97%"  Similarities.)

Ellen

8 hours ago, Peter said:

11 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

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

My thinking exactly, Michael.

Peter,

Just to be precise, this guy obviously meant using eyesight without instruments. But the contempt these climate change fanatics have for human beings leads him to call this "human perception." Read this again and see if you can detect the contempt while exempting himself.

11 hours 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.

I don't think it even occurred to him that he, as a human, needs human perception to read his little computer screen. And this leads to my god comment.

Q: What did the 3 say to the 5?
A: I never met a 4 I didn't like.

Not everyone understands this. Especially little gods. That's why this dude called my comment a straw man and asked for evidence as if I were being literal. (Hmmm... straw god?)

Early in reading Rand's work, I became aware of a cognitive blindness on the part of many philosophers and scientists. They consistently forget that they, as humans, are subject to their criticisms of humans. It's like the snake eating it's own tail.

They go into a mindset where their own voice comes from a God's eye view and they are no longer subject to human limitations. On the science side, they speak as if they are able to see the beginning of the universe or hundreds, thousand, millions of years into the future. And they are not talking science fiction. This mindset leads them to treat suppositions, guesses, predictions based on extrapolations from limited inputs, etc. as hard facts after repeating them a lot.

Note, this last is different than predicting behavior based on essential qualities of entities. We know that dogs will bark in the future because that's what dogs do, not because we have measured the tone and frequency of barkness in chihuahuas.

But if this god comment seems confusing to the metaphorically challenged and makes them ask for evidence, let's change the metaphor to superheroes with superpowers.

The climate change fanatic sees himself as a superhero because his superpower, science, is infallible. And, like any superhero worth his salt, he uses his superpower to save the world. 

Is it any wonder that Marvel movies are so popular these days?

This metaphor isn't as useful, though, because it does not cover the contempt for humanity these people display (while forgetting they are humans themselves). They could ask: where is the goddam gratitude from those pesky little humans? But it doesn't ring right for convincing self-deception.

The slave-master metaphor is accurate, but doesn't work as well, either, because the master does not have to deal with nature like our little gods do. Masters only deal with chains and whips. But make no mistake about it. Every goddam one of these climate change fanatics are master-wannabees at root with mankind their slaves--or worse, their livestock. 

Thus, this dude thinking he's a god illustrates this mindset best of all. A god is automatically superior to humans. A god rules over humans and dispenses punishment to them as he sees fit. And a god can think of himself as an entity that is benevolently saving mankind from himself. Hell, a god can save the entire goddam earth.

This mindset is quite an ego-bump, which is one reason I think it is so popular in the climate change world.

I know you understood I was using a metaphor part when you agreed with me, but I just now explained it anyway. It occurred to me, some reader or other skimming this discussion might get it at first if they were zoned out during part of the skim (like online bickering induces so often). Or worse, some reader or other might not get it at all if they were a little god looking down on a shallow hypocritical human.

Michael

32 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

I was doing two things with what I said: (1) giving you a bit of an alert if you were receptive, and (2) tangentially warning Jonathan against accepting your description of material you linked.  (J, "97%"  Similarities.)

Ellen,

Your good will is showing, but I fear you are wasting your breath on this guy.

He's not here to discuss or exchange information. He's here to convert the heathen and slay the resistant.

You are resistant to his instruction, so obviously you are a conspiracy theorist. Boom. Take that. He slayed you.

(Poor thing, that's all he's got.  )

Michael

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Notice that this guy has no trouble admitting that he doesn't answer Jonathan's questions.

This dude reminds me of CNN.

Michael

I'm trying to start at the beginning so we can pinpoint a specific disagreement. And I've already stated, I'm not going to attempt to address all at once as it would be pointless. But thanks for acting as if I hadn't already stated that.

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

This metaphor isn't as useful, though, because it does not cover the contempt for humanity these people display (while forgetting they are humans themselves). They could ask: where is the goddam gratitude from those pesky little humans? But it doesn't ring right for convincing self-deception.

Throughout your ramblings and diatribe above, you often refer to "these peoples" thoughts, motivations, intentions, etc. I'm curious, why do you think you know my thoughts, motivations, and intentions? 

Jon is asking for science and Brad is countering with opinions, his and sundry.

--Brant

12 hours ago, Jonathan said:

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.

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.

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

I think this best sum up this thread.

--Brant

13 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Jon is asking for science and Brad is countering with opinions, his and sundry.

--Brant

Maybe you missed the paper and the direct questions of whether or not burning fossil fuels is increasing atmospheric co2 concentrations. Do you care to insert your thoughts or just sit on the sidelines making accusations?

11 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

Maybe you missed the paper and the direct questions of whether or not burning fossil fuels is increasing atmospheric co2 concentrations. Do you care to insert your thoughts or just sit on the sidelines making accusations?

Who is disputing that? Of course burning fossil fuels is increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. As the astro-physicist from Spitsbergen told me several days ago, that means we aren't going to have a new ice age. That would be wonderful if true. However, I don't know that. That was just his opinion.

--Brant

if you can't deal with me you've no chance with Jonathan

Suddenly, the thread has gone boring. Sorry  guys (and gal).

--Brant

Fight the next ice age! Burn fossil fuels!

--Brant

I don't think that will work, BTW

Shooting Fish in a barrel.

--Brant

time for another drink

1 hour ago, bradschrag said:

Throughout your ramblings and diatribe above, you often refer to "these peoples" thoughts, motivations, intentions, etc.

Oh don't mind me. I just a rube.

I'm one of "those people."

Livestock.

1 hour ago, bradschrag said:

I'm curious...

Nah...

Going by what you've written, you're not curious at all.

Michael

34 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Who is disputing that? Of course burning fossil fuels is increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. As the astro-physicist from Spitsbergen told me several days ago, that means we aren't going to have a new ice age. That would be wonderful if true. However, I don't know that. That was just his opinion.

--Brant

if you can't deal with me you've no chance with Jonathan

Well if you want now than opinions, there are papers discussing such topics. 

Glacial/interglacials follow the Milakovitch Cycles quite well. MC if simply a formula approximating insolation at 60N. The choice behind 60N is that Milakovitch hypothesized that because 60N has a relatively large portion of glaciers, it might influence the climate on long, gradual timescale. The reason for the change is a change in Earth's albedo, as 60N receives more sunlight, glaciers recede, albedo drops, system warms. The warming system has a positive feedback due to the release of co2 from the oceans, triggering more water vapor, which further warms the system. Keep in mind, these are quite gradual, with ice ages/thermal maximums occurring approx every 100k years. He hypothesized the cycle to be 40k. While the his frequency seems to be incorrect, the glacial cycles do still follow his mechanism, and it is the current accepted theory for how Earth's ice age cycle occurs.

I'm wondering, did you question him in the same way you question science behind AGW? After all, they are fully intertwined. If you think he's right (hint: he is), then you don't have any room to deny humans are impacting the climate currently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

11 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Going by what you've written, you're not curious at all

The omniscient one has spoken.