2 hours ago, bradschrag said:

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?

Maybe. Maybe probably. But we just don't if not can't KNOW.

Science is a slow path to some certainty. Certainty is a fast path to ignorance, for that's where most of it starts. For instance, bleeding as a cure for a multiplicity of ills.

"Arguments involved in each side." Brad, qua science you don't have a side. You've refused to argue that. Or know that. When the proponents of AGW ran out of pseudo science they bait and switched to CC. 

--Brant

1 hour ago, bradschrag said:

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. 

I'm not interested in that type of exchange and distraction from my questions.

Im not interested in your ploys to avoid my questions and substitute them with your method of controlling the conversation so that my question can be dodged.

During your first appearance here, you claimed that the questions could be answered easily. Not so anymore.

So more Tasty Steamed Octopus it is!

J

15 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

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

I think it's a bit of both.

J

The cry of the climate change fanatic:

My kingdom for a climate computer model that works!

One that I can call fact.

I never let on, but these constant failures are embarrassing, Fucking irritating...

Michael

12 hours ago, bradschrag said:

Have humans driven concentrations from 285-~415?

The "Ergo" I think you're after doesn't follow.

Ellen

On 2/7/2020 at 10:17 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

So let me take another swing.

He thinks President Trump is a climate change fanatic?

Questions, questions...

Strike two. Here comes a change-up pitch. Maybe.  Why does President Trump seem concerned enough about climate change to say "nothing's a hoax" and do the two things I referenced to fight it? Are they mere vote chasing? 

2 hours ago, merjet said:

Are they mere vote chasing?

Merlin,

Nope.

I'll say it, but I'm not sure you'll get it.

The big moment in President Trump's life every day is not when he finds a gotcha. It's when he builds something. He likes to produce, look at it and tell himself and others he did that, often with help from others who wanted to build it, too. Sometimes he slaps his name on it.

A massive number of Trump voters and supporters know that and love it. They couldn't give a crap about word games. When they have to interact with word-only warriors, they vastly prefer professional wrestling smack talk over gotchas.

When compared to actually building something, word jousting with gotchas is just not serious enough to bother with.

Michael

34 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Nope.

My other question was: Why does President Trump seem concerned enough about climate change to say "nothing's a hoax" and do the two things I referenced to fight it?  

5 hours ago, merjet said:

My other question was: Why does President Trump seem concerned enough about climate change to say "nothing's a hoax" and do the two things I referenced to fight it?

Merlin,

I will look into it if you like, but my guess off the top of my head is that he is fixing a specific problem or other. Since he is saying so, I presume the problem he is targeting is not a hoax. (He's probably cleaning up some mess or other people caused.) So he says that is not a hoax when prompted.

At other times, you will see President Trump refer to manmade climate change as a hoax. In those instances, he is referring to the Obama form of extrapolating a doomsday scenario based on "settled science" so he can help degrade the US on the world stage, enter the US into a more global form of government, and make a killing from his carbon credits scam that tanked.

Now why would President Trump use the same expression, climate change, to mean two different things?

Open any dictionary and you will find there is more than one definition for almost every word in the English language. President Trump speaks English.

There is a difference between being a blatant hypocrite (outright lying) and simply using the meanings of words that best fit the context at the time one is speaking, even when such meanings clash with other meanings for the same words when used in other contexts.

Michael

EDIT: I was just watching a video by Scott Adams and learned that this whole narrative that Trump thinks climate change is not a hoax is a Bloomberg talking point, context-dropping and all. As this came out of nowhere, I wondered what was really going on. Now it makes sense. Money buys a lot, two billion dollars is a lot of money, and the fake news media is nothing but sell-outs...

Here's the video for those interested.

So, anyway, clearly Billy’s savior has nothing.

Do you have anyone better, Billy?

C’mon. There has to be someone who will actually try to answer the questions instead of running away from them, someone bright enough to come up with something other the stupidity of believing that we’re going to fall for the Tasty Stramed Octopus menu substitution.

You can’t all be that incompetent. Seriously, Billy, bring someone with a brain.

J

Billyboy is, cognitively,  a cripple.

Many tasks that seem simple are actually way beyond his capacities.

For example, he cannot reliably judge who does and who does not have a brain.

If he ever sounds intelligent, just notice the links attending the post in which you think he sounds intelligent. He has spent  the last few hours reading people who can think. Then he composes his post. Notice that he can never address follow-ups, never answers questions in his own voice. Instead, more links. He hides it well.

15 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I will look into it if you like, but my guess ...

You failed to answer my question.

I’m not interested in your word games or your ploys to avoid my question.  I’m not interested in your method of trying to control the conversation so that you can dodge my question. Does that sound familiar? 

3 hours ago, merjet said:

You failed to answer my question.

I’m not interested in your word games or your ploys to avoid my question.  I’m not interested in your method of trying to control the conversation so that you can dodge my question. Does that sound familiar? 

It's familiar to me. Why are you throwing my words in MSK's face? Are you confusing the two of us, gramps?

J

44 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

Are you confusing the two of us, gramps?

No, idiot. The difference between a junkyard dog and a human being is stark.

Heh. Take your meds, gramps.

J

The original MSK classic, along with my addition of Brad at the end:

Quote

It's like going into a small eatery and saying, "Do you have an ice cream cone?"

And the person says, "Here's some tasty steamed octopus."

You ask, "What about an ice cream cone?"

The person says, "Look at these green beans and mashed potatoes. How big a portion do you want?"

"But I want an ice cream cone."

"Well, you've come to the right place. Our mac and cheese is amazing."

"Don't you have ice cream cones?"

"Only stupid people think we don't have hamburgers."

"You really don't have ice cream cones?"

"True believer idiot. The dinner rolls are right in front of you. God, some people..." He throws a stack of menus in your face--ones that do not list ice cream cones...

And on it goes. It's amazing to watch.

Enter Brad:

"I apologize for my waiter’s temper, sir. Hi. I’m Brad. I’m the owner and cook here. Now, if I overheard correctly, you would like an ice cream cone. Is that correct? Yes? Well, I don’t want to go though the trouble of making one for you, only to then discover that I’ve wasted my time because it’s not what you really want. So, let’s first explore any grounds for disagreement that we might have. Please answer this question: Octopus is the primary ingredient in Tasty Steamed Octopus, yes or no?

J

4 hours ago, merjet said:

No, idiot. The difference between a junkyard dog and a human being is stark.

An OL member, TurkeyBrain, was hoping you would give this a shot ... 

https://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/topic/16588-747-on-conveyer/?tab=comments#comment-291455

On 2/9/2020 at 7:46 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I'll say it, but I'm not sure you'll get it.

10 hours ago, merjet said:

You failed to answer my question.

Merlin,

I did.

You didn't get it.

10 hours ago, merjet said:

I’m not interested in your word games or your ploys to avoid my question.  I’m not interested in your method of trying to control the conversation so that you can dodge my question.

Fine by me.

Michael

4 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Enter Brad:

"I apologize for my waiter’s temper, sir. Hi. I’m Brad. I’m the owner and cook here. Now, if I overheard correctly, you would like an ice cream cone. Is that correct? Yes? Well, I don’t want to go though the trouble of making one for you, only to then discover that I’ve wasted my time because it’s not what you really want. So, let’s first explore any grounds for disagreement that we might have. Please answer this question: Octopus is the primary ingredient in Tasty Steamed Octopus, yes or no?

Jonathan,

LOL...

That is a perfect analogy to Brad's contribution to the discussion in this thread.

Michael

On 2/8/2020 at 8:48 AM, Jonathan said:

I'm not interested in that type of exchange and distraction from my questions.

Im not interested in your ploys to avoid my questions and substitute them with your method of controlling the conversation so that my question can be dodged.

Not avoiding or dodging, it's about establishing a conversation based on understood and agreed upon points. You agreed Arrhenius hypothesized increasing co2 would cause warming. Do you agree that humans have increased co2 from 280-~415? There's no point in discussing things any further unless you can answer the question. After all, if you say they haven't, it's on you to offer a source of co2 that is causing levels to rise and let us know where fossil fuel emissions have gone. Or cry conspiracy that co2 levels aren't actually rising. So which is it?

1.Rising caused by humans

2.Rising caused by unknowns

3.All a conspiracy

11 hours ago, Jonathan said:

 

The original MSK classic, along with my addition of Brad at the end:

 

 

Enter Brad:

"I apologize for my waiter’s temper, sir. Hi. I’m Brad. I’m the owner and cook here. Now, if I overheard correctly, you would like an ice cream cone. Is that correct? Yes? Well, I don’t want to go though the trouble of making one for you, only to then discover that I’ve wasted my time because it’s not what you really want. So, let’s first explore any grounds for disagreement that we might have. Please answer this question: Octopus is the primary ingredient in Tasty Steamed Octopus, yes or no?

J

 

 

This analogy really demonstrates either

1. Your lack of understanding the subject in the least bit or

2. That you are a completely dishonest broker in this conversation.

Based on your tone, reliance on name calling, and complete refusal to answer a simple question that is very relevant to establish humans as the driver of the current climate, I'm going with #2.

2 hours ago, bradschrag said:

You agreed Arrhenius hypothesized increasing co2 would cause warming. Do you agree that humans have increased co2 from 280-~415?

As I thought about the "Ergo" you're trying for.

Your trap has no teeth - but I think you don't know that.

Ellen

I love filling up my Expedition. 30 gallons. Gas is cheaper in town, but up in the mountains I can spend over $100. It makes me feel good. Doing my part.

Last week I noticed two of my bikes had older—smelling fuel in them. Can’t have that. So I drained about five gallons of gasoline from them and left it out to evaporate. I wish I had more time to ride that out of them instead, but it’s ok, gasoline is cheap and hopefully a very good greenhouse vapor until it breaks down. People talk a lot. I’m doing real things to save us all from the coming ice age. Raise your hand if you enjoy sleeping in wool.

In fact, Brad, if you won’t answer whether you enjoy sleeping in wool I don’t see how this conversation can proceed.

On 2/8/2020 at 6:39 PM, Ellen Stuttle said:

The "Ergo" I think you're after doesn't follow.

Ellen

Brad didn’t have any reaction to that.