1 minute ago, Atomsk's Sanakan said:

And that's about as far as you can go.

More bickering.

Michael

I'm getting very tempted to shut this one down and let these geniuses crow that they won something or the other.

I don't want them in my life. Not because of the issue (which still interests me to a small extent), but because of their snottiness.

There are far better people to learn from and discuss with.

Michael

1 minute ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

 

See what I mean?

That's obviously bickering to anyone except this genius here.

For any reader interested in changing the minds of people, this is a perfect example of how not to do it.

Michael

Some people are beyond having their minds changed by evidence, since they're too busy with personal attacks, saying everything is "bullshit", talking about people instead of addressing scientific evidence, tone trolling, etc. That's why, for example, there are still flat Earthers and anti-vaxxers. Enjoy your corner of the Internet where you can have like-minded folks ignore the scientific evidence with you. Other folks will be off actually reading about, and understanding, the science.

See ya. 

5 minutes ago, Atomsk's Sanakan said:

See ya. 

Good riddance.

Please keep it that way.

Michael

Just now, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Good riddance.

Please keep it that way.

Michael

Oh, and just to be transparent:

I've posted about this on Twitter, just so people who understand and are genuinely interested in the science, can see the sorts of people we're dealing with and some of the ways they will likely evade evidence.

9 minutes ago, Atomsk's Sanakan said:

Oh, and just to be transparent:

I've posted about this on Twitter, just so people who understand and are genuinely interested in the science, can see the sorts of people we're dealing with and some of the ways they will likely evade evidence.

Just look at the low quality of the people William is bringing to OL.

I banned this one.

I just don't have to time...

22 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

LOCK THE DOORS!!!!

I did on your friend.

Michael

I'm open to being convinced by evidence.

I've asked questions several times here, and they remain unanswered, questions about the specific details of models, predictions, repeatability, clearly identified criteria of falsifiability, etc.

I thought that Billy's first Meatpuppet might take a shot at it, but, no, he decided to die on the hill of denying the pause/hiatus. It wasn't predicted, so it's easier to deal with, I guess, if it didn't happen.

How about you, Meatpuppet2? I'd be very interest in hearing you answer my questions.

Basically (as I've posted many, many times before):

Show me the repeatable, successful predictions. Identify specifically what was the hypothesis, precisely what predictions were made, when were they made, what potential results were identified ahead of time as falsifying or invalidating the hypothesis, what the start and finish dates of the experiment were, provide the unmolested data, the untainted control, and the unmanipulated historical record.

J

P.S. Billy, my dad can beat up your dad. Nyuuh!

4 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

How about you, Meatpuppet2? I'd be very interest in hearing you answer my questions.

Jonathan,

You're going to have to do that over on Twitter or wherever the hell he posts.

Sorry (and I mean that.) I don't like to do what I just did, but this guy isn't a regular. He doesn't get to show up out of nowhere, call me and OL names on OL, and I get to pay for it.

May he have a long and healthy life, but not one around me. I can't stand people like that.

Michael

aw fuck.. he told twitter, fuck

Just now, tmj said:

aw fuck.. he told twitter, fuck

LOL...

Michael

6 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

He doesn't get to show up out of nowhere, call me and OL names on OL

Interesting. You have no issue with OL readers treating newcomers this way. Why isn't this a 2-way street?

Nevermind that, where are you at on the effective planet temperature Michael. Are you ready to move onto the greenhouse effect yet or still clinging to why all of it is relevant?

4 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

... where are you at on the effective planet temperature Michael. Are you ready to move onto the greenhouse effect yet or still clinging to why all of it is relevant?

Brad,

Still clinging...

Michael

16 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Still clinging...

Well when you're done staring at a single puzzle piece, wondering out it might relate to the whole puzzle, let me know. Not going to try to convince it's part of a bigger picture.

Meatball2 is boasting to his Twitter buds that he beat up a bunch of "right-wing Objectivists." Heh.

Still no answers to my questions here. Billy, c'mon, you've got to be able to find someone who can answer them for you.

J

1 hour ago, bradschrag said:

Well when you're done staring at a single puzzle piece, wondering out it might relate to the whole puzzle, let me know. Not going to try to convince it's part of a bigger picture.

Brad,

Actually, staring at a single puzzle piece is the impression I have of your explanations. I don't know what you think the big picture is.

From my big picture viewpoint, I see a lot of angry snarky people wanting to get rid of fossil fuel use based on manmade planetary warming (or climate change crisis or whatever term in vogue is at the time--it keeps changing). There are gobs and gobs of money and power involved. That's the big picture I see. But the climate change crisis predictions keep going haywire, the people behind them keep getting caught at cheating and fudging on their science, and the money and power grabs keep occurring.

Then they want me and everybody else to submit to governance by the technocrats and restrictions chosen by them, yet they can't explain why in plain English. And, man, do they get snotty about it.

In your case, you have shown a lot better manners (despite some spirited exchanges). But, for the record, I'm not staring at a single puzzle piece. I imagine you are talking about one big picture and I another. 

2 hours ago, bradschrag said:

Interesting. You have no issue with OL readers treating newcomers this way. Why isn't this a 2-way street?

Since you asked this in good faith and with good manners (that I presume are sincere), you deserve a polite explanation.

There is a lot of history on this site before you showed up and one of our members (William) has been doing a lot of activity to damage the forum. I have a rule of thumb that I cut regulars a lot of slack. That includes him since he's been a regular for a long time, one I used to prize. But he's been toxic for quite some time and his current activities are in such bad faith in general, I, myself have lost interest in interacting with him.

These days, he works to damage OL so I don't know why he sticks around, but there it is. His account of my goodwill is not a blank check, but it hasn't run out of funds yet. It may not seem like it because of what just happened, but generally I have a high tolerance and flexibility level. 

Still, after a long, long build-up of pure crap from William, other OL regulars finally blew their stacks and it's gotten ugly. Because of this history, I'm letting it play out even though I don't normally encourage this kind of demeanor. 

You (and the genius dude) came over here at the prompting of William. I have no doubt about this because I am pretty sure you are not much interested in Ayn Rand. At least you (and the genius dude) haven't mentioned her. I imagine William wanted you to come here so you can trounce us rubes or whatever about climate change. But he's created such hostility in other OL members, unfortunately, you got caught in the crossfire. You were seen as one more of his efforts to demean this forum and the people who post here.

After all the hostility settles down, all the oneupmanship crap goes away, and if you are as good a person as I imagine you are (that's the vibe I get, although I don't have a crystal ball), I would be willing to discuss this climate change stuff further. This event hasn't been the first rodeo over here about this topic. One of our members, for example, Ellen Stuttle is personal friends with Richard Lindzen and her husband is a scientist who works in the field. She doesn't post much anymore, though. She's been suffering from an illness that precludes her looking long hours at a computer screen.

I, for one, am interested in getting this stuff into plain English with easy to understand things to point to where there is no need for long convoluted explanations, posturing or yelling. Al Gore had the right approach in the beginning with the polar bears, the hockey stick chart, the floods, the icebergs breaking, etc., but he blew it by too much fudging and outright lying.

For today, I kinda like Scott Adams's approach, but his project has dragged on so long, I haven't kept up with his more recent installments. (Like I said, I'm up to my eyeballs in creative writing--and just look at how much time this little flare-up has consumed. This topic in itself is mostly a time sucker of no value other than to get people mad at each other and piss away their days unproductively.) Up to where I stopped with Scott, I think he's trying to find a solution to all the fighting. I don't give him good chances.

Anyway, you were initially perceived as a little warrior in William's little raid. I bet you did not vest this role because you weren't even aware of it, albeit genius dude did with gusto. He's hot to SAVE THE WORLD against stupid people like me.  

Had you come on your own without this baggage, I am pretty sure your reception would have been quite cordial. 

So that's why the different treatment.

OL people are good people. I hope you are, too. You seem to be.

Michael

25 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

Meatball2 is boasting to his Twitter buds that he beat up a bunch of "right-wing Objectivists." Heh.

Jonathan,

I took a peek and it's a very small group. Even if it were a large group, who cares? 

However, this, I believe, is how it started.

(Here's a screenshot in case it ever gets deleted.)

How does it feel to be a No Nothing? Have you squirmed yet?

btw - Believe it or not, William set up, on his own, an Objectivist Living twitter account. So he's squatting on the name.

I let him know back when he did it, I was not happy about it.

Had I embraced it, imagine the mess that would have ensued with him in the driver's seat.

Michael

16 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Actually, staring at a single puzzle piece is the impression I have of your explanations. I don't know what you think the big picture is.

You asked for repeatable science won't acknowledge the basics. I provided a plot of radiative transfer models that you said you don't understand. I get that and sounds like to help you understand what it represents. After all, it's repeatable. Let me know when you are interested in learning.

9 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

You asked for repeatable science won't acknowledge the basics.

Brad,

If we are going to do this, you are going to have to stop with the presuppositions and mind reading. How do you know I "won't acknowledge the basics"?

I've merely told you how to communicate the basics to a retard like me.

Are you not up to the task?

If not, I understand. Simplicity is hard to do correctly.

From Blaise Pascal, "Provincial Letter 16" (1656):

Quote

I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time.

Michael

33 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

If we are going to do this, you are going to have to stop with the presuppositions and mind reading. How do you know I "won't acknowledge the basics"?

5 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Well, here's one question, the most basic of all. Why should I care about effective temperature?

If I don't care about it, nothing you say will register

Ring a bell yet? You asked for basic explanation. I've given a simple explanation with link to back up what I've communicated. I've asked for open ended questions and all you bring are criticisms. If you are only in this to tone troll you are doing a find job of it. If you are in this to get an answer to your answer of repeatable science you are taking the wrong path. If something about my explanation of effective temperature is unclear, simply ask me to explain with a probing questions. Will get you much further than criticisms.

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

btw - Believe it or not, William set up, on his own, an Objectivist Living twitter account. So he's squatting on the name.

I let him know back when he did it, I was not happy about it.

He has the soul of a rapist. And, with respect, you are earning every negative consequence of continuing to welcome him.

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

[....]

Michael, you wrote, in the linked post:

"This event hasn't been the first rodeo over here about this topic. One of our members, for example, Ellen Stuttle is personal friends with Richard Lindzen and her husband is a scientist who works in the field. She doesn't post much anymore, though. She's been suffering from an illness that precludes her looking long hours at a computer screen. "

Rats.  I'm going to have to break down and post something on William's blog, which I'm very reluctant to do.  But, Michael, since you made that statement publicly, I think I'd best publicly correct an implication and a fact.

I'm not "personal friends with Richard Lindzen" in the way your statement might sound - the kind of relationship where one chats about personal things, etc.  I know him, through my husband.  I've had conversations with him a number of times at conferences, sat with him, and his wife if she was attending, at the dinners, been to his home in Boston once for a climatology-conversation-geared get-together.  I like him and I think he's enjoyed his exchanges with me.  I respect him enormously as a scientist.  He has a mind for physics, he could have gone into one of the prestige fields and been a big name.  Instead, he went into climatology, from love of the subject.  It was not a prestige subject when Dick went into it, and he never had any expectation of ending up a limelight person in a battle against scientific corruption.

Larry, my husband, is not "a scientist in the field," i.e., climatology.  He's a full professor of physics, with special interests in mathematical physics, symmetry, and relativity.  He started studying climate issues in 2004, out of concern about the scare prognostications.  He didn't need long to discover how shoddily-based those were.  He's become a minor expert on climatology, just through his own studies, but he isn't "in the field."  The main draw for him, which keeps him involved in climate disputes, is hatred for the scientific corruption and the creeping erosion of scientific honor.  (The selling out on scientific integrity spreads to other fields, even to unrelated fields where researchers look the other way and give lip service to climate alarm because their universities are getting climate-related research funding, also from PC motives which can affect scientists like other people.)

As to the physical problem which keeps me from spending long hours at a computer, that's correct, I do have such a problem, but it isn't the only reason I hardly post these days.  There are also some nefarious doings I'm involved in helping with trying to counter (things related to reducing human population).  I'm kept busy with explorings - which I don't want to talk about publicly.

As to the rest of your post:  Bravo!  I think you did a really good job of explaining to Brad the situation regarding William's OL activities.

Cheers,

Ellen

20 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

You asked for basic explanation. I've given a simple explanation...

Brad,

No you didn't.

But I'm not going to argue it other than to say, I don't think you want to communicate information, but instead play the role of instructing from on high according to some inner script of your own.

But let's give it a rest for now. At least for today.

All these mind games have already interfered in my other work.

For what? Nothing.

You were unable to impart your awesome wisdom to me and I was unable to worship at your feet.

Here's a suggestion that you might like. Go to your buds on twitter and tell them how you totally trounced me. You wiped the floor with me. You helped save the universe. You fought the good fight and slayed the dragon. They'll like it and you'll like it.

Go feel good and have one on me.

Later, if you are interested in actually communicating instead of playing these games and roles, we can do something. 

Michael

10 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Michael, you wrote, in the linked post:

"This event hasn't been the first rodeo over here about this topic. One of our members, for example, Ellen Stuttle is personal friends with Richard Lindzen and her husband is a scientist who works in the field. She doesn't post much anymore, though. She's been suffering from an illness that precludes her looking long hours at a computer screen. "

Rats.  I'm going to have to break down and post something on William's blog, which I'm very reluctant to do.  But, Michael, since you made that statement publicly, I think I'd best publicly correct an implication and a fact.

I'm not "personal friends with Richard Lindzen" in the way your statement might sound - the kind of relationship where one chats about personal things, etc.  I know him, through my husband.  I've had conversations with him a number of times at conferences, sat with him, and his wife if she was attending, at the dinners, been to his home in Boston once for a climatology-conversation-geared get-together.  I like him and I think he's enjoyed his exchanges with me.  I respect him enormously as a scientist.  He has a mind for physics, he could have gone into one of the prestige fields and been a big name.  Instead, he went into climatology, from love of the subject.  It was not a prestige subject when Dick went into it, and he never had any expectation of ending up a limelight person in a battle against scientific corruption.

Larry, my husband, is not "a scientist in the field," i.e., climatology.  He's a full professor of physics, with special interests in mathematical physics, symmetry, and relativity.  He started studying climate issues in 2004, out of concern about the scare prognostications.  He didn't need long to discover how shoddily-based those were.  He's become a minor expert on climatology, just through his own studies, but he isn't "in the field."  The main draw for him, which keeps him involved in climate disputes, is hatred for the scientific corruption and the creeping erosion of scientific honor.  (The selling out on scientific integrity spreads to other fields, even to unrelated fields where researchers look the other way and give lip service to climate alarm because their universities are getting climate-related research funding, also from PC motives which can affect scientists like other people.)

As to the physical problem which keeps me from spending long hours at a computer, that's correct, I do have such a problem, but it isn't the only reason I hardly post these days.  There are also some nefarious doings I'm involved in helping with trying to counter (things related to reducing human population).  I'm kept busy with explorings - which I don't want to talk about publicly.

As to the rest of your post:  Bravo!  I think you did a really good job of explaining to Brad the situation regarding William's OL activities.

Cheers,

Ellen

Ellen,

Great to see you again.

I'm glad you fixed my observations about you and Larry to your liking. Now they are fully accurate.

I hope your ailment abates and you are successful in that other thing.

Michael

26 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

And, with respect, you are earning every negative consequence of continuing to welcome him.

Jon,

Guilty as charged.

And this is not--by far--the worst case of my hardheadedness. Imagine the other shit I've gotten into in the past. (Man, do I have stories and scars...)

Some people have to learn things the hard way...

Me, for example...

Michael

2 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Later, if you are interested in actually communicating instead of playing these games and roles, we can do something. 

I've communicated and am awaiting a response from you. People who are eager to learn don't put the piece before the puzzle, the value the piece for what it is and take delight when they see the final product. Let me know what questions you have about effective planetary temperature.

3 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Here's a suggestion that you might like. Go to your buds on twitter and tell them how you totally trounced me. You wiped the floor with me. You helped save the universe. You fought the good fight and slayed the dragon. They'll like it and you'll like it.

How about I'll do what I do. I'm not here looking for acceptance or permission from you or anyone else.

4 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

For what? Nothing.

Correct, you haven't acknowledged anything. That's not any fault of mine however.

When you are interested in having your questions answered we can go back to the basics.

If you must know, the repeatable science that I like to focus on are atmospheric radiative transfer models. Observations of outgoing radiation from the planet demonstrate that these models are highly accurate. As a consequence of the models being validated, we can vary the initial conditions to see how the planets radiative balance changes. Using paleoclimatology data and reconstructions we can get a very reasonable idea of what kind of temperature impact that has on the system. I promise, that's where all of this is heading, but it has to start at understanding and acceptance of the GHE.

I'm curious now though, if Ellen Stuttle's aquiantance, Richard Lindzen, came in here and gave a primer on the GHE if you'd be more accepting. After all, he's a skeptic of AGW and could give you plenty of details about the GHE.

Anyway, have a good one.