Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 02/17/2019 in Blog Comments

  1. 2 points
    My thought wasn’t directed solely at Brad and not necessarily only about money. Gore and Gore-like people do it to fleece money from the ‘system’ , Hollywood type virtue-signalers are probably motivated by an inherent narcissism. And they need their parrots to help move masses to accept the building of the ‘system’ or even to just be complacent enough to not fight back against the building .
  2. 2 points
    Sorry, I guess I'm not understanding the issue in regards to falsifiability. Once again, falsifiable hypothesis and their approx date: And their conclusions:
  3. 2 points
    Jonathan, I looked. Nothing but retweets. Lot's of 'em. (burp...) Michael
  4. 2 points
    It's true that the strategy isn't going to work, but "dealing with climate change" isn't what it's aimed at. Ruling the world is. Ellen
  5. 2 points
    So does William discuss? No, he posts a link: Slide, slip, slither, avoid - and then whine if you're called dishonest And what the linked-to list is about, as Michael points out, isn't how to have a discussion but how to indoctrinate. Ellen
  6. 2 points
  7. 2 points
    Jonathan, It's funny. When you ask for repeatable scientific results re Climate Change, you always get blah blah blah and they never use the term "repeatable results." 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. Michael
  8. 1 point
    Atmosphere won't hold much water vapor without non condensing greenhouse gases since the saturation pressure is highly temperature dependent. Remove the non condensing ghg and h2o would condense, rain out, surface would freeze, increasing albedo, reducing the insolation. https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-vapor-saturation-pressure-d_599.html
  9. 1 point
    That's become painfully obvious. What science education is coming to that we get something like Brad thinking he's being scientific. Also: Greenhouse gases don't "impede" energy transfer. They act by re-radiation, not by interfering with convection. Also: MSK, I think that TMJ was being facetious. Ellen
  10. 1 point
    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
  11. 1 point
    No, idiot. The difference between a junkyard dog and a human being is stark.
  12. 1 point
    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
  13. 1 point
    Oh, brother. You aren't addressing what I said. You just shifted the discussion. I really thought you were a lot smarter. Let's just say you are, but you aren't using your smarts. Looking for smarts. --Brant
  14. 1 point
    When spouting government conspiracies of control, the burden of proof is on the spouter.
  15. 1 point
    You too have failed to answer. How does Arrhenius hypothesis fail your criteria for a falsifiable hypothesis that increasing co2 would cause warming?
  16. 1 point
    As I've said before somewhere, William's bringing Brad aboard, apparently thinking that Brad could handle Jonathan's questions, is itself an example of William's incompetence. Short form: Willism didn't know better. Ellen
  17. 1 point
    I'll answer one at a time, there's no need to spam answers to all your questions if you won't accept a single answer. So again, falsifiable predictions, I've given a list, it has the years they were made. Are you still questioning this?
  18. 1 point
    Jonathan, That's a very interesting question. I don't think he's expressing anything at all. I think he's collecting specimens and sorting them according to a custom-made taxonomy embedded in his vanity. There's a story at the end, I'm sure, and William is the hero of that story. That is, he's a flawed hero, but mucho hero-level heroic nevertheless, striking blows for truth and social justice where ever an oppressed victim may be found, and saving the planet for The Children and whales and shit. That's for later. For now, I feel he is in list compiling mode most of the time. There's a catch I think he doesn't see, too. Lists get awfully boring unless you do them right. ABT works really well on lists. See here: Narrative Is Everything: The ABT Framework and Narrative Evolution by Randy Olson. ABT means And, But and Therefore. A quick example: Here is List Item 1, and List Item 2, and List Item 3, and List Item 4, and List Item 5, and List Item 6, and List Item 7, etc. Boring boring boring.. BUT Try this: List Item 1, and List Item 2, and List Item 3, BUT Opinion or Conclusion or Other List Item 1, and Other List Item 2, and Other List Item 3, and Other List Item 4, but Opinion or Conclusion, THEREFORE list items with but and therefore are far more interesting than those with just and. Once William gets the hang of it, he might start peeping his head out again from his clam shell and showing he exists as a person. For now, though, adding to lists is all he's got, poor thing. (Believe it or not, Olson came up with this trying to sell climate change. However, it works like gangbusters for selling the opposite. If the climate change people won't pick up this tool made by one of their own and use it, I sure will. It's a great tool. ) Michael
  19. 1 point
    Deleted. Gone. No longer here, departed. Gone up country to a good home. It was an unfinished blog entry that I failed to detect & delete during the earlier ruckus. If only you could communicate without loaded language and personal insults ... [Edited to add in a '&']
  20. 1 point
    Q sez not a lot, but has some Twitter suggestions in five new drops ... "Everything's Coming Up Roses ...!"
  21. 1 point
    Whoever or whatever "Q" is, he or she or they are probably enjoying the break, not having posted since December 29 2019. This break has had zero effect on propagation of the 'cleaned-up' version of the mighty conspiracy-of-all-conspiracies ... from Mike Rothschild: The article is here. As "Q" might say, The 'silent' war continues.
  22. 1 point
    Superlatives! Oceans were hottest on record in 2019 "That's a lot of zeroes."
  23. 1 point
    "Q" is on a tear about supposed shenanigans in the March primary elections in California ... "Q" is not a top-level analyst.
  24. 1 point
  25. 1 point
    Millerism and the Great Disappointment. For Patreon supporters ...
  26. 1 point
    The President has things to say about Roger Stone and justice. Something something "planted into Team Trump" in 1999 by mumble mumble ... Stone is a plant of the Kabbal woop woop.
  27. 1 point
  28. 1 point
  29. 1 point
    It looks like today is Syria Day in the White House ... Grand Supreme Hoopla!
  30. 1 point
    Skeptic editor Michael Shermer in conversation with Peter Boghossian:
  31. 1 point
    She's better than Billy at serving up tasty steamed octopus! Dayyam! People are DYING!!!! Fuckers need to be punished right goddamned now for future catastrophes! We can't wait. Immediate pain to the grups for what they done to Greta's childhood and her future of doom. J
  32. 1 point
    Exclusive: Russia Carried Out A 'Stunning' Breach Of FBI Communications System, Escalating The Spy Game On U.S. Soil
  33. 1 point
    Michael, OK, we weren't on the same "religionist"-meaning wavelength. I definitely see William as scientistic. Very much so, and I've seen him that way practically from my earliest acquaintance with his posts on the old SoloHQ. I think that he gets major self-esteem boost from considering himself fighting for Science-Good against Religion-Bad. And he constantly preaches scientism in his indirect fashion. So, agreed about his being religionist in the sense you've been meaning. All the same, scientistic as I think William is, I nonetheless don't see him believing specifically in AGW because "scientists say." He is aware that there are a lot of good scientists who say nay. I think he mistakenly believes - because of developments in the Arctic - that the yay-sayers have been vindicated. But fine with me not arguing about that. I wouldn't want to get into the details in any case since I don't consider educating William worth the time and trouble. Ellen
  34. 1 point
    The big demonstration at the monument has attracted at least a couple of hundred people. The live Periscope feed has no sound, which is kind of sad for the producers. New beginnings and ... wrath. Which makes me think of the lust for a purge, and the Committee of Public Safety.
  35. 1 point
  36. 1 point
    Bullshit. Cirrus clouds persist for hours on end. The water trail from a jet is made of the same stuff as Cirrus Clouds. H2O in a solid state which occurs shortly after gaseous H2O condenses into liquid H2O. All the nasty gasses are invisible. SO2, NOx CO2.
  37. 1 point
  38. 1 point
    Any "scientific consensus" is bogus, politicalized science. Its first cousin is "climate change." A family of lying liars. --Brant the real message is "Shut up, fool!"
  39. 1 point
    That's some mighty fine tasty steamed octopus! I've heard that Manhattan is 5 feet underwater. Is that true, Billy? Who should be punished first? How exciting! Anyway, do you have any answers to my questions yet? No? Still hoping that we'll forget what actual science is? J
  40. 1 point
    12. Ignore their questions. 13. Do not acknowledge any gaps in your kowledge, or any inability of yours to address their questions or challenges. 14. Serve tasty steamed octopus. 15. Avoid their questions. Act as if they haven't been asked, even if they've been asking them for years. 16. When you don't have answers to their questions, change the subject. 17. Serve more tasty steamed octopus. Smile. 18. Give them information and advice on how to be polite, and how to influence people. Don't follow the advice yourself. Offer hugs. 19. Reward them with tasty steamed octopus, and a handjob if you're comfortable doing that. 20. Bring in meatpuppets who you think are ringers. Display gleeful anticipation. 21. More TSO. 22. Ignore the fact that your meatpuppets didn't do any better than you've done in addressing any substance. 23. Randomly choose one of the steps above and repeat. Then repeat it again. 24. Tee hee hee. Never forget to tee hee hee during any of the above steps! 25. All they can eat TSO, 24/7.
  41. 1 point
    I like this woman's poise. Anybody put money on Harris win place or show? Even if the steely grace is a false front, there is a certain gravity in her performance. Will the presidential nickname stick?
  42. 1 point
    We need to take action now. And by "we," I mean Others™. In the short mean time, Billy, I know that you're not going to (can't) answer any of my previous questions about "the science" (tee hee hee), but might you have enough intellectual curiosity to offer up some thoughts on what "the science" should consist of? What are the ground rules? What is the methodology? Can you give some idea of how you think it should work, and maybe show that proposed method successfully applied to phenomena other than or in addition to climate? No? More steamed octopus? M-Kay. J
  43. 1 point
    Jon, Because you don't win culture wars with bans. I'm playing the long game. You seem to prefer short term gratification. I won't be doing any podcasts with any leftie authoritarians, though. They went for the short term gratification and bans (social media and elsewhere). Now they're losing the culture war big time as they sell out to crony corporations just to stay relevant and they are too hate-filled to see it. Once their idiocy stops making money and/or power for the elitist establishment, they will go the way of Avenatti. Slower than him, granted, but the path is the same. Michael
  44. 1 point
    I'll do my best. In regards to who and when, Joseph Fourier first hypothesized about the greenhouse effect. He noted that the atmosphere must in some way be absorbing, or inhibiiting, invisible light (IR) from leaving the planet (approx 1820's): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier Arrhennius in 1896 would be the first to hypothesize that changing co2, including by burning fossil fuels, could enhance the GHE. He also estimated that doubling co2 might lead to approx 5C change in temps! This is seeming a bit high with current research, but I find how close his number is to out estimates to be truly remarkable. https://www.lenntech.com/greenhouse-effect/global-warming-history.htm In regards to your comments about changes in the experiment (changes in equipment and observational biases), Zeke has a great writeup here in regards to they why, where, when, who of adjustments. The end result: adjustments don't impact the overall global trend in any significant way. https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adjustments-affect-global-temperature-records I can't say for certain that all algorithms are publicly available for download, but some are for sure. For example, here is NOAA PHA algorithm. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ushcn/pairwise-homogeneity-adjustment-software Whether the algorithm is publicly available or not, I can say with a greater degree of certainty the they provide literature explaining their methodlogy: http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-summary.pdf Raw and adjusted data are also available through NOAA and other collection agencies. Some people have gone so far as to create their own individual algorithms from scratch: @caerbannog666 has tons of plots on his page and his algorithm is available for anyone to download, go through, and compile on their own. Or if using other's work isn't your thing, come up with your own methodology. As another example of individual analysis, @BubbasRanch has done his own work, and is most definitely on the skeptic side of the debate. However, his results, albeit he doesn't communicate it well in my opinion, agree rather well with NASA results. He also never explicitly compares his results in a side-by-side fashion as @caerbanogg666 does, but I would still personally vouch for his work, just not the implications of what he says it means 😉 That's all I have time for at the moment. Let me know if you have questions about any of this content, or where which questions I can focus my next responses on. 1-2 direct questions at a time is much easier to field and respond to than 5-6 huge open ended questions. Thanks.
  45. 1 point
    C'mon. What else is he gonna call it? My blog/Your blog? My Notablog? --Brant
  46. 1 point
    I can't say precisely when all of these hypothesis were made, but these are the staple hypothesis of AGW: (https://scied.ucar.edu/longcontent/predictions-future-global-climate) 1. First and foremost - burning fossil fuels increases atmospheric concentrations of co2. Seems like a no-brainer but I've crossed paths with individuals who dispute that the current rise in atm co2 is not due to human burning of fossil fuels. 2. As a consequence of #1, Increasing non-condensing greenhouse gas concentrations will cause the system to warm 3. As a consequence of #1, pH of the ocean will shift to a more acidic pH as they absorb more co2 4. Along with #2, increasing ghg will simultaneously cause the stratosphere and on up to cool 5. As a consequence of #2, there will be some positive feedbacks triggered, ie reduced albedo due to loss of sea ice, increased water vapor in the atm 6. As a consequence of #2, there will be sea level rise (SLR). There are 2 reasons for this. 1 - warmer water takes up more volume and 2 - melting glaciers To me, those are the key hypothses of AGW, each of which has now been observed. See below for simple responses to each point, starting with #2. If I need to cover my bases on #1, let me know: 2. https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/ 3. http://www.whoi.edu/OCB-OA/page.do?pid=112157 4. https://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/strato_cooling.asp (contains links to supporting papers) 5. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature06207 6. https://www.pnas.org/content/115/9/2022 For those wanting to read papers that might be behind a paywall, there is a chrome (maybe firefox as well) extension called unpaywallme. It will give you a lock icon that changes to color when you reach a paywalled paper that has a free version available. It's not 100%, but it will get you most papers for free.
  47. 1 point
    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
  48. 1 point
    Newcomers, please, take a minute to read and respect the basic guidelines that rule on this site (at least in the abstract, since old-timers generally get a break). I was a moderator on an insanely-combative site, Syria Comment, back a few years. My main take-away from those forum rules boils down to one thing: do not needlessly personalize discussion. See the present SC guidelines in the peekaboo at bottom. Objectivist Living Guidelines:
  49. 1 point
    Sorry, you don't know me and you really shouldn't try speaking for me. I don't really don't care if you are impressed by me or anything I have to say. My intent isn't to garner followers. I'm only trying to illustrate, currently, what the greenhouse effect is so we can move forward in the conversation. No point in jumping to radiative transfer models when there is ignorance on what they represent.
  50. 1 point
    Hell, I don't mind if all the people in the entire country become supporters of President Trump. That would stop all the ills of partisan prejudice as warned in the article. Michael