1 hour ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

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

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

Ellen

Brad is avoiding you.

5 hours ago, bradschrag said:

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.

Brad,

That's a false dichotomy.

Off the top of my head, I can think of a third thing this demonstrates. Jonathan doesn't take you seriously.

In fact, there are plenty of other potential demonstrations of Jonathan's character in making that analogy that can be suggested, some good, some bad, and some neutral.

So why do you propose two and only two? Do you have any evidence that there are only two? When you make it "either-or" like you just did, there must be some evidence this dichotomy is true. So what's the evidence?

I can give you a hint at what's going on if you are interested, though. It has nothing to do with disagreeing on an issue. Jonathan is intelligent in the extreme and has disagreed often with plenty of other highly intelligent people, right here on OL. For years. 

It has more to do with crap. Jonathan's style is to hand back the same crap that is dished out to him, but in a slightly different form. He's done this for years, too. 

And the difference? Whereas the disher of crap always says his crap in a more polite tone like (to paraphrase some of your own statements), "You don't get it," or, "It's pointless for me to explain this to you,"  or "Are you dishonest or ignorant?," or "When you spout government conspiracies," and so on, while refusing to deal with the point in a topic at hand, Jonathan takes if for a while, then a moment arrives when he's had enough. That's when hands back the underlying true meaning of the crap, but in more honest rhetoric. He'll preface his comments with the hand-back, or he'll put the hand-back it in a corresponding place where the disher of crap normally does in the disher's own posts. But instead of veiled snark (the crap), Jonathan comes out with things like, "Hey fuck-head. You're a stupid asshole." (Or he'll aim the same words of the disher of crap's crap at the disher himself.)

Note that both the disher of crap and Jonathan say the same thing--identical in conceptual terms--in different manners. But for some reason the disher of crap always thinks his manner should be respected and held up as civil as he gets bent out of shape at Jonathan's manner.

This lack of self-awareness always makes me stare in awe and wonder at the follies and petty vanities of elitists...

Michael

14 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

You didn't get it.  Fine by me.

Heh. I get it fine. You either can't or don't want to explain:
- why Trump declared that the U.S. will join the pledge to plant a trillion trees that intake carbon dioxide, and
- why Trump signed legislation to hand out much bigger subsidies to companies for sequestering carbon dioxide, increasing one subsidy from $10 per ton to $35 per ton and another subsidy from $20 per ton to $50 per ton.

Maybe Trump succumbed to little Greta at Davos.  

The video of Scott Adams you posted was mostly a big waste of time. The part you alleged as relevant turned out to be a smoke screen. I’m not interested in your word games or your ploys to dodge my question. 

10 hours ago, bradschrag said:

There's no point in discussing things any further unless you can answer the question.

Is that part of the scientific method? "I'm not going to present any details of the term and conditions of the hypothesis and its predictions and testing until any potential reviewers or critics answer questions that I've come up with!"

Quote

3.All a conspiracy

hahaha!!!

Youre missing a few options. Which is not surprising.

J

3 hours ago, merjet said:

Maybe Trump succumbed to little Greta at Davos.  

Merlin,

But obviously that's what happened. Man did you get it. I was a wrong as wrong can be.

I am totally gobsmacked by your astuteness.

You have shown me the light. I was blind, but now I see.

President Trump is a fool and you are not.

President Trump is a coward and you are not.

President Trump is a hypocrite and you are not.

President Trump is stupid and you are not.

ergo...

Trump supporters are all that and you are not.

ergo...

You are superior to President Trump and his supporters.

Thank God I have lived to witness this on this day. 

My life is fulfilled.

Michael

10 hours ago, bradschrag said:

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.

Okie dokie.

Still no answers to my questions. Still no demonstration of the scientific method being followed. Still no details of the terms and conditions of a single hypothesis and its predictions, falsifiability, testing, results, and conclusions. 

Instead od wasting his time answering my questions, Brad put his efforts toward what he thinks is better use of time: inventing grounds to believe that I'm lacking in understanding the subject or completely dishonest.

There! That showed me! And, yet, still no answers.

One nice thing about Brad's return visit is that he did I demonstrate the importance of my unanswered questions by trying to take two separate positions at the same time, thus eliminating falsifiability, and therefore turning his positions into pseudoscience.

Send someone who is competent, Billy. Tee hee hee!

J

5 hours ago, merjet said:

Heh. I get it fine. You either can't or don't want to explain:
- why Trump declared that the U.S. will join the pledge to plant a trillion trees that intake carbon dioxide, and
- why Trump signed legislation to hand out much bigger subsidies to companies for sequestering carbon dioxide, increasing one subsidy from $10 per ton to $35 per ton and another subsidy from $20 per ton to $50 per ton.

Maybe Trump succumbed to little Greta at Davos.  

The video of Scott Adams you posted was mostly a big waste of time. The part you alleged as relevant turned out to be a smoke screen. I’m not interested in your word games or your ploys to dodge my question. 

Yeah, Orange Man and MSK bad.

Gramps, do you have any insights as to why Trump has changed his position? Or is it just Gotcha-MSK?

J

3 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Still no demonstration of the scientific method being followed. Still no details of the terms and conditions of a single hypothesis and its predictions, falsifiability, testing, results, and conclusions.

Jonathan,

One form of anti-scientific method permeates his latest questioning. He wants the conclusion accepted BEFORE looking at any data with any critical eye.

How many times has he asked about whether you believe humans are the cause of co2 blah blah blah? He even says it's pointless to talk about this stuff with you until you admit humans are the cause.

The process works like this. An evangelist preaches a presupposed outcome or conclusion as fact, then seeks out facts to support it while ignoring and belittling all facts that go against it. This includes the evangelist snarking against people who ask questions that do not embed the core faith as fact, while simultaneously demanding the questioner disprove this or that minor point the evangelist uses to support his belief. That is not how I learned the scientific method, but it is how they are teaching it these days.

Brad's posts on this thread are a very good example of what this looks like in practice.

The weird part is that he posts like he thinks this is what you are doing.  I bet he doesn't realize you just got fed up with his missionary bullshit.

Michael

1 hour ago, Jonathan said:

Yeah, Orange Man and MSK bad.

Gramps, do you have any insights as to why Trump has changed his position? Or is it just Gotcha-MSK?

Jonathan,

Not just Orange Man and MSK bad. You left out Scott Adams. Very important. Scott Adams bad.

Also, Merlin doesn't need insights. He doesn't even need gotchas. His entire purpose was to provide me with the transcendent spiritual state I just experienced from being in the presence of his superlative soul and prodigious intellect.

Michael

14 hours ago, bradschrag said:

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

On 2/8/2020 at 7:23 AM, Brant Gaede said:

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

I'm ego driven to quote myself. The first sentence is my response to Brad's CO2 question.

--Brant

Here's a thought for people who don't think like President Trump.

He makes deals.

He even wrote a book about it.

It's a producer thing.

Michael

When science becomes a religion the likes of Brad teaches it to the correct conclusions. It's hard to find students in a place like this. Try college.

--Brant

20 hours ago, Jonathan said:

do you have any insights as to why Trump has changed his position?

Do you? Ask MSK, moron. Maybe he'll tell you what he pretends to know about what's on Trump's mind.  He didn't or wouldn't tell me anything relevant. Mere word games and smoke screens. Nothing about planting trees or bigger subsidies.

12 minutes ago, merjet said:

Ask MSK...

Jonathan,

I explained it to Merlin, I tried. But as I also explained to Merlin, I didn't think he would get it.

He said he did, but then he wrote it up all wrong. And keeps doing it wrong.

So I bet he didn't get it.

Michael

I hope that Jonathan’s anger and misplaced.obstinance hasn’t derailed the conversation.

Brad, I need to know if we can build a discussion on common grounds of agreement: would the extinction of all tropical birds and fish be a good thing? Do you have a penguin fetish?

I often wonder if cutting down old growth rainforest and planting grazing grasses for cattle and dairy would make for more carbon capture , by acre , over just leaving the old growth in place.

And an added question , would it be less or more greenhouse gassy to combust the cattle flatulence, would burning the farts be ,on net balance, more or less warmy ? Burnt methane or raw which is worse greenhouse gas wise?

We get cow farts in Denver. Seriously. It is from Greeley, a town about 60 mikes away which hosts a million head of cattle in its feed lots. The prevailing winds are almost always the other way, but once or twice a month your back yard smells like a cow is there, and it is farting. We call it Eau de Greeley.

I do think we should leave the poor things alone, though, and not teach them to ignite their farts.

Yeah we should leave them alone but if scientists say otherwise , I’d guess we would have to or at least I’m pretty sure that’s what’s expected.

1 minute ago, tmj said:

... if scientists say otherwise , I’d guess we would have to or at least I’m pretty sure that’s what’s expected.

T,

Only if such scientists have been peer reviewed by our betters.

Moo...

Michael

Yep our betters and their peers.

9 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

How many times has he asked about whether you believe humans are the cause of co2 blah blah blah? He even says it's pointless to talk about this stuff with you until you admit humans are the cause.

There's no sense in moving on unless there is agreement because if he stated that humans aren't the cause of increasing co2 then we would need to address that first. It's unsurprising that this logical process eludes you.

2 hours ago, tmj said:

often wonder if cutting down old growth rainforest and planting grazing grasses for cattle and dairy would make for more carbon capture , by acre , over just leaving the old growth in place.

Old growth sequesters at a much lower rate than new growth trees. However, if comparing trees to something cyclic like crops, they inevitably don't sequester much since their carbon is released annually.

2 hours ago, tmj said:

an added question , would it be less or more greenhouse gassy to combust the cattle flatulence, would burning the farts be ,on net balance, more or less warmy ? Burnt methane or raw which is worse greenhouse gas wise?

Since methane breaks down into co2 eventually in the atmosphere it's actually more beneficial to burn it immediately. Methane is a much more potent ghg than co2. This is in no way advocating lighting cow farts on fire, however there are gas flare stacks used in various places and refineries.

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

If it’s released annually ,isn’t also resequestered annually ?

If the grasses are eaten by cattle isn’t there some lockup?

Brushing up on your ad hom, eh

Plants grow really well in a higher CO2 environment. Higher yields. But we have to get CO2 concentrations much higher. China builds a lot of coal burning stations and that is an important positive contribution.

11 minutes ago, tmj said:

Brushing up on your ad hom, eh

T,

Brad doesn't perceive he does it.

He's blinded by the neurochemical kick of feeling entitled and that informs his rhetoric.

Michael