14 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Your entire premise is that humans, not nature, are changing the climate within the extremely limited inputs being measured. So in effect, you actually are claiming that nature requires humans to change the climate--for those limited cases.

That humans are changing the climate is a very different claim from only humans can change the climate. Is this dishonesty or ignorance on your part causing you to not see the logical difference between those two statements?

41 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

Asshole, how to many times do you have to be told? Answer my questions, or fuck off. I’m not doing it your way. I’m not going to play your games. 

You agreed that Arrhenius hypothesized increasing co2 would cause warming. You bucked at the question of whether it not humans were driving up emissions, along for clarity on "driving up". That's what I'm doing now, clarifying.

Yes or no, fossil fuel emissions have driven atm co2 from preindustrial levels to their current levels?

5 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

That humans are changing the climate is a very different claim from only humans can change the climate.

So you mean that humans might not be increasing the co2 levels and changing the climate?

If you do not mean that, you are saying humans ARE causing the change in climate.

And I say nature can also be the cause of that particular change.

Boom. Falsified.

What's your next attempt to worm your way out of this?

Michael

9 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

Is this dishonesty or ignorance on your part causing you to not see the logical difference between those two statements?

btw - This is a picture-perfect example of an ad hominem argument, not what you assumed earlier.

With time, I have faith you will learn the difference.

Michael

1 hour ago, bradschrag said:

You bucked at the question of whether it not humans were driving up emissions...

I didn't "buck" at all. I asked you to define your terms.

Quote

...along for clarity on "driving up". That's what I'm doing now, clarifying.

No, that's not what you're doing. You're asking questions about what I think. Game playing. You were asked to define your terms, and instead turned it into a question of what I think.

Slither, slither, slither. I'm not going to play. Answer the questions, or fuck off.

Heh. You've already invested much more time slithering than it would have taken to answer the questions.

J

2 hours ago, bradschrag said:

Yes or no, fossil fuel emissions have driven atm co2 from preindustrial levels to their current levels?

If the answer is yes, the person who says that says humans, not nature, in this instance, are the cause of the resulting climate change. Not could be (after all, this is yes or no).

Are.

If one admits nature could be the cause without human activity, that absolute-level proposition becomes falsified. (All you need is one black swan, etc.)

Just to be clear, it is possible nature alone could be the cause, albeit not likely. But for the purposes of falsification, "not likely" is not a magic fudge of the rule.

Like I keep saying, boom. Falsified.

Michael

1 hour ago, Jonathan said:

Answer the questions, or fuck off.

For the edification of Brad, this statement is not a case of ad hominem.

Just trying to be helpful...

Michael

55 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

For the edification of Brad, this statement is not a case of ad hominem.

Just trying to be helpful...

Michael

Nor is a conspiracy theory.

J

4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

So you mean that humans might not be increasing the co2 levels and changing the climate?

If you do not mean that, you are saying humans ARE causing the change in climate.

And I say nature can also be the cause of that particular change.

Be clear in your answer:

Is claiming that only humans can change climate the same as claiming humans are currently changing the climate?

2 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

Be clear in your answer:

Learn English.

And stop mischaracterizing the words of others.

And maybe answer the goddam questions in good faith.

Michael

2 hours ago, Jonathan said:

No, that's not what you're doing. You're asking questions about what I think. Game playing. You were asked to define your terms, and instead turned it into a question of what I think.

And I did define them. Are or are not humans responsible for increase in atm co2 from preindustrial levels to current levels? You still haven't answered.

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

For the edification of Brad, this statement is not a case of ad hominem.

Thanks, but I'm aware of what is and isn't ad hom. 

2 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

Thanks, but I'm aware of what is and isn't ad hom. 

Nah... but I have faith you will learn eventually. Who knows? Maybe you are starting to. 

Michael

6 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Actually it does.

Nature can change co2 levels all by itself. It can change radiative properties of the planet all by itself. Nature does not need humans to change the climate. In fact, it constantly does so.

Once again, boom. Falsified.

Michael

Here, you state that nature does not need humans to change climate (your words, not mine). The implied assertion here is that you are stating my claim to be that nature requires humans to change climate.

9 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Learn English.

And stop mischaracterizing the words of others.

And maybe answer the goddam questions in good faith.

Michael

Here, you tell me to not mischaracterize your assertion that I claimed only humans can change climate. They are your words, not mine.

4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

btw - This is a picture-perfect example of an ad hominem argument, not what you assumed earlier.

With time, I have faith you will learn the difference.

Michael

No, I'm not dismissing your argument based on who you are. I'm pointing out the logical fallacy and inconsistency you are drawing between my statement (humans are changing the climate) and your response (nature doesn't need humans to change the climate). If I said your argument is invalid because you aren't a scientist - that would be ad hom. As it is, you aren't making an argument for or against anything - you are conflating my statement to be something that I didn't say. You are the one putting words in other's mouths.

18 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Learn English.

And stop mischaracterizing the words of others.

And maybe answer the goddam questions in good faith.

Michael

And you didn't answer the question.

Did I strike a nerve, kiddie?

You really should learn English.

After you do that, you might want to learn what knowledge is. From your posts, you show no signs of knowing it. You parrot well and act like a pissed parrot at times. But conceptually, your processing is flawed.

I suggest learning for real instead of mimicry and letting the one-upmanship slide for a time. Besides, the way you do it makes people laugh at you.

Seriously, you've got a good mind. You just haven't learned how to use it with any effectiveness or discipline.

But it's your life...

Michael

9 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

The article is a bunch of opinions with a whopper that if humans just stop putting CO2 into the atmosphere everything will be hunky dory. Billions dying of starvation while the ruling elites "protect" the planet is not mentioned.

The only significant alternative to fossil fuels for life sustaining energy production is nuclear.

--Brant

It’s great that we have centuries of proven coal. All sources should be explored and exploited. We could do uranium based nuke technology for many thousands of years. Thorium appears safer and even more abundant. There is actually no impending energy crisis at all.

3 hours ago, Jonathan said:

I didn't "buck" at all. I asked you to define your terms.

 

No, that's not what you're doing. You're asking questions about what I think. Game playing. You were asked to define your terms, and instead turned it into a question of what I think.

Slither, slither, slither. I'm not going to play. Answer the questions, or fuck off.

Heh. You've already invested much more time slithering than it would have taken to answer the questions.

J

They like slithering. It’s what they are. It’s why they got behind a movement that rewards those who nourish a refined skill at it. Most punish it, call it out for what it is, push it away. But not their pet movement. Everyone else hates them. Everyone in their pet movement accepts them, even admires them.

1 hour ago, bradschrag said:

You still haven't answered.

That's right, dumbass! Did you read the posts where I've told you that I'm not going to play your games? Yeah? But that fact still hasn't sunken in? Still not grasping it?

J

10 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Actually it does.

Nature can change co2 levels all by itself. It can change radiative properties of the planet all by itself. Nature does not need humans to change the climate. In fact, it constantly does so.

Once again, boom. Falsified.

Michael

CO2 has pre-humans fluctuated.

--Brant

pretty sure the Martians didn't do it

9 hours ago, bradschrag said:

Ok, so let's keep working through this 1 step at a time. Yes or no, burning fossil fuels has driven atm co2 from 280-~415 currently?

We don't know. We don't know the ratio of human to nature injection. Or influence.

--Brant

11 hours ago, bradschrag said:

Not quite, the article is peer reviewed literature that is based on established theories and mechanisms. If you have something better to put forward, b please do so. It supports exactly what this individual told you. Why didn't you raise concerns with his comment but you insist this article is only "opinions".

Your second statement (billions dying) is an opinion, unless you of course have something more to back it up.

Most peer reviewed literature isn't worth the paper it's printed on. We found that out by all the non-repricatable experiments found therein. Regardless, the accumulator obviously went article shopping.

Yes, it's my  opinion. But I'm not going deeper into politics on this thread.

--Brant

3 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

CO2 has pre-humans fluctuated.

Brant,

I heard a rumor somewhere that co2 was good for forests.

And that makes me ponder. If a tree eats co2 in the middle of a rainforest and no government-funded climate scientist saw it and published a peer-reviewed paper about it, did it happen?

Michael

2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Most peer reviewed literature isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

Brant,

Not to you.

But to the insider club members, boy does it open the gates to government funding...

I done writ a diddly. It's called:

Pining for a Climate Change Check

Walk with me and be mature,
Let's sing to climate creed's allure.
Let's swear an oath to green manure
And reap our prize, a sinecure.

Michael

I want more CO2, taller forests, longer growing seasons, more people, less ice more bikinis, "Lost Venice" traveling collections at my local art museums, bikinis.