23 hours ago, bradschrag said:

Mankind's contribution to warming is considered to be 100%. Actually higher by some because without increased co2 all indications are we would have cooled, so we've offset the cooling plus added warming.

I'm reposting the  above quote because I want to make sure that everyone catches the significance of it.

First, as I mentioned earlier, Brad is not going with a single answer here, but with more than one, and perhaps leaving the door open for several. It leaves Brad room to slither, but it also inadvertently reveals disagreement among whomever Brad thinks he's citing. They can't even settle amongst themselves on what they think that the temperature would be without mankind's input.

Second, it's a demonstration of the absence of falsifiability and of well-defined terms and conditions prior to testing. Any and all possible outcomes could be taken as proof of any hypothesis, and no possible outcome could falsify it, since whatever outcome happens, Brad and his sources will say that, no, no, no, right now the cooling is supposed to be much, much greater, even greater than we had originally thought, so the global cooling that we're seeing is actually 7 degrees warmer than it should be due to mankind's production of co2!

Thanks for returning, Brad, and delivering this demonstration of technique.

J

19 hours ago, bradschrag said:

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.

 

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

 

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.

The above his actually worse than trying to follow the nutty inferences that Tony makes. I didn't think it possible that there could be someone even more wrongheaded than Tony.

Congratulations, Tony, Brad has outTonyed you!

Damn, I wonder what the straw man version of me who lives in Tony's head thinks of that!

J

Tony gets deeply confused but it usually feels to me like standard confusion. He doesn’t  look you in the eye and say up is down.

1 minute ago, Jon Letendre said:

Tony gets deeply confused but it usually feels to me like standard confusion. He doesn’t  look you in the eye and say up is down.

True, but he does argue that the imaginary people who live in his head, including the imaginary me, argue that up is down, and that they got the notion from Kant's aesthetics, 'cuz Rand said so.

J

4 hours ago, Jonathan said:

They can't even settle amongst themselves on what they think that the temperature would be without mankind's input.

Jonathan,

I saw that, but there's this little thing that bothers me that I didn't mention directly before because of the constant topic shift.

On 2/5/2020 at 7:21 AM, bradschrag said:

Mankind's contribution to warming is considered to be 100%.

That's one hell of a proposition when you think about it.

That's why I focused only on that concept, not the statement as worded or the subterfuge.

If I wanted to go full-on Rand, I would have asked, Considered by whom? The 100% of scientists who are in agreement about Global Warming that Al Gore cited back in the day?

The capacity to blank out large swaths of humanity (and scientists for that matter) by people with Brad's type of epistemology is stunning. I think there is a part of him that knows he's not accurate when he says that, but another faith-based part of him that slams the mental door shut on the thought and goes off into 100%-Land.

Take a look at the Climate Change fanatics when they preach (even in their peer reviewed preaching  ). You will see the cipher of 100% a lot.

This reminds me of what I call "rhetorical statistics" in advertising and self-help literature (for example: 95% of all males suffer from anxiety about their body odor  ). Nobody ever knows where these stats come from, but when something does get nailed down as the source, it's always a small little outfit put together by the very people who want to use these stats for selling or propaganda.

The thing I like to notice about people with Brad's type of epistemology is their constant use of weasel-words (CYA qualifiers) and presuppositions based on using the passive voice (i.e., "mankind's contribution to warming is considered (yada yada yada)" rather than "Scientists X, Y and Z consider mankind's contribution to warming (yada yada yada)"). 

The passive voice is great when you want to sound like you know what you are talking about, you want to posture that you are such an authority you can make broad statements as fact, but you don't want to single out anything that can be debunked or contested. 

Look at Brad's posts and you will see them peppered in abundance with this stuff.

I bet he's perplexed about why he can't make a dent with people on this thread. There will come a moment when he will say we are stupid or something like that and move on. Should he ever wish to improve his communication, persuasion, and frankly, himself as a person, he will do a deep dive on how he assimilates and organizes his knowledge, then how he communicates it. All I see right now is a pretentious parrot with sporadic glimmers of attempts at something more rational.

Michael

On February 4, 2020 at 7:39 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

[Brad's] here to convert the heathen and slay the resistant.

But why here?  A minor blog on a very small discussion forum?  My hunch is that it's personal - he's a friend of William's and is trying to rescue William from Jonathan's clutches.

Ellen

10 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

But why here?  A minor blog on a very small discussion forum?  My hunch is that it's personal - he's a friend of William's and is trying to rescue William from Jonathan's clutches.

Ellen

Ellen,

Of course he came here by invitation of William.

But a missionary preaches to whoever is in front of him. He doesn't change his missionary zeal or habits because of the size of his target group.

I think he tries to convert the heathen and slay the resistant wherever he goes except whenever he is within the bubble of his insider tribe and getting validation from the members.

We just happen to be tough heathens to convert. And that has kept him coming back. We're his failure, after all.

Michael

Inept, incompetent, ignorant losers like Brad and Billyboy are so cute in their felt superiority.

Not bad entertainment.

Thanks, boys.

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Of course [Brad] came here by invitation of Williiam.

Yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he's a personal friend of William's.  He could be just someone William encountered on the web.  I'm thinking that the relationship is closer than web acquaintances and that there's a Sir Galahad aspect in Brad's efforts.

Ellen

7 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he's a personal friend of William's.  He could be just someone William encountered on the web.  I'm thinking that the relationship is closer than web acquaintances and that there's a Sir Galahad aspect in Brad's efforts.

Ellen,

LOL...

I'm slow at times...

May I always stay on your good side.

Michael

Actually, if this is the case and I had known or suspected it earlier, I would have been gentler.

Michael

Well, it looks like Snuggletits decided to fuck off rather than deliver "the science,'" (tee hee hee). My, what lengths these superior beings go to avoid taking and defining a position!

J

9 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

Well, it looks like Snuggletits decided to fuck off rather than deliver "the science,'" (tee hee hee). My, what lengths these superior beings go to avoid taking and defining a position!

J

Jonathan,

LOL...

I suppose it's sad and frustrating to see one's religion dying.

Imagine believing in a Global Doomsday for real and finding out intelligent people who were willing to entertain the idea for a bit just don't find it relevant.

To use the Judeo-Christian archetype, I don't believe these guys have the fortitude of Noah, who built his boat anyway. They might do their boat, but only if we build if for them and pay for it.

It's one hell of a religion.

Michael

On 2/5/2020 at 8:33 PM, Brant Gaede said:

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

--Brant

We do actually. Because nature has actually been absorbing some of our emissions from the atm. We have emitted far more co2 than how much co2 has actually risen. We are responsible for the full increase.

On 2/5/2020 at 5:18 PM, Jonathan said:

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

So just to be clear, you can't answer whether or not human emissions have increased atm co2? Do you think that might be a requisite for moving forward in the discussion in determining whether or not humans are responsible for warming? This is why it's pointless for me to address all your questions.

2 hours ago, bradschrag said:

So just to be clear, you can't answer whether or not human emissions have increased atm co2?

I'm not going to play your games.

Quote

Do you think that might be a requisite for moving forward in the discussion in determining whether or not humans are responsible for warming?

No, it's not requisite. Your attempts to test me, and determine that I'm not up to speed and that I'm a lesser being and therefore unworthy of having my questions answered, is nothing but a distraction.

My questions cut through all of the bullshit. They simply and clearly represent the requirements of the scientific method. That's all that is requisite. Why are you so upset by the scientific method, and so resistant to its requirements? Why are you working so hard to find away around it?

Quote

This is why it's pointless for me to address all your questions.

Bullshit. You don't have the answers. And you're not even interested in looking for them. You resent the questions, and want them to go away. In contrast to the precision that they require, you prefer lots of slither room, and the ability to hold several contradictory positions at the same time, to cherry pick, and to lie and pretend.

You're nothing but copouts and bullshit.

J

3 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Your attempts to test me, and determine that I'm not up to speed and that I'm a lesser being and therefore unworthy of having my questions answered, is nothing but a distraction.

It's not a test. It's about whether or not there is agreement. Have human emissions caused atm co2 to rise from 280-~415ppm?

39 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

It's not a test. It's about whether or not there is agreement.

In other words, it's a test. You're testing whether or not there is agreement. Which means you're testing whether or not I'm worthy of having my questions answered. You're trying to make it about me. You're doing so because you have nothing. You can't answer the questions, and you don't want to try because the actual answers don't back up your opinions. Answering the questions would box you in, and take away your means of deception.

J

59 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

In other words, it's a test.

J,

I'm starting to wonder if we're wrong in thinking that Brad's maneuverings are designed to deceive. Maybe he's as clueless as he acts.  Like William's "Then it's fraud?" about the Arctic sea ice (however exactly William worded the question - I didn't check).

Ellen

Equal parts dumb and insincere. The first sabotages any lapses of the second. It is cruel, really, to engage them. So please continue! Best entertainment here in years.

On 2/4/2020 at 7:27 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

But the contempt these climate change fanatics have for human beings 

Trump says 'nothing's a hoax' about climate change

A few days later https://www.socotoday.com/blog/2020/01/21/davos-2020-trump-says-us-will-join-1-trillion-tree-planting-scheme-day-one-live-business/

He even signs legislation that gives subsidies to companies to mitigate climate change by sequestering or reducing carbon dioxide.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2020/02/05/new-carbon-capture-technologies-just-waiting-for-irs-green-light/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2018/07/08/how-trump-signed-something-that-could-actually-mitigate-climate-change/#5049dcfe428c

Did I say equal parts dumb and insincere? Three here now! Holy shit this is the best.

7 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

Three here now!

Jon,

I couldn't figure out the message of that post.

But let me take a swing anyway.

He doesn't like President Trump?

Michael

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

He doesn't like President Trump?

Dayaamm!

Merlin put the cross-eyed dude on me.

I guess that wasn't it.

That means Merlin likes President Trump.

So let me take another swing.

He thinks President Trump is a climate change fanatic?

Questions, questions...

It's so damn hard to get a handle on Merlin...

Michael

14 hours ago, Jonathan said:

In other words, it's a test. You're testing whether or not there is agreement. Which means you're testing whether or not I'm worthy of having my questions answered. You're trying to make it about me. You're doing so because you have nothing. You can't answer the questions, and you don't want to try because the actual answers don't back up your opinions. Answering the questions would box you in, and take away your means of deception.

J

It's not about being "worthy". If there's disagreement then we can focus on that point of disagreement to try to better understand the arguments involved in each side. 

Have humans driven concentrations from 285-~415?