Leaderboard

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 .

Sorry, I guess I'm not understanding the issue in regards to falsifiability. Once again, falsifiable hypothesis and their approx date: And their conclusions:

NOTE FROM MSK: Trolling text removed. Would anybody be concerned if an unseen hand began to remove 'trolling text' ... or 'inappropriate' bits of commentary going forward? The invisible hand guide would be the Objectivist Living rules. Personally, I think such an invisible hand would be wise to "mark" the inappropriate material rather than delete it. Perhaps a spoiler ...

Billy? Are you okay? Still alive? I see that your Twitter account is suspended. What is up with that? J

Still no answers.

Well, as part of a debate, it is necessary to see where each party doesn't agree. Cause of increasing atmospheric co2 is what?

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

To call it facts requires you to provide evidence of such happening. I'll wait.

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

I'm not sure about fraction. After all, climate change is supported by numerous overcome from different disciplines -conscilience. Scientists that study the sun have gone on record plenty of times starting that it is not the sun. The rate of warming does not match any changes in output of the sun. For a period, cosmic rays were being thrown around as a possible controller of cloud cover. That has since been debunked. And again, what causes a change in temperature in a system is either changes to the incoming energy or changes to the outgoing energy. You can warm yourself by throwing an extra blanket on you, for example.

How do you know so much while scientists know so little? --Brant

Energy balance of the planet has to do with how well heat moves from source (the sun in this case) to the sink (space). Greenhouse gases impede that movement.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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. You can falsify that humans are the cause of warming by delivering us a mechanism to explain the warming.

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

When you are incapable of discussing science and incapable of even discussing your favorite nature.com article, just tell your interlocutor he is confused. Billy, I really can see now what you see in Brad.

You said that someone mentioned to you the next ice age has been put on hold. I agreed with that statement, trying to give a bit of insight as to why. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Read the paper if you are still confused: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature16494

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

Maybe you missed the paper and the direct questions of whether or not burning fossil fuels is increasing atmospheric co2 concentrations. Do you care to insert your thoughts or just sit on the sidelines making accusations?

Is or isn't the burning of fossil fuels driving up co2 concentrations in the atmosphere?

When spouting government conspiracies of control, the burden of proof is on the spouter.

Apologies, page 14 of the pdf or page 266 as it's labeled in the paper. And I'd suggest taking your focus off the red herring and stick to the simple question. Did he or did he not claim rising co2 would cause the planet to warm?

I'll address her conspiracies when she finds Russell's teapot.

Did he or didn't he claim increasing co2 would increase temperature? Page 16, if you want to check your answer before responding. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjNiciivbjnAhUH7awKHTVnCdoQFjAFegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw1Cm1sb1Pjyd2Sph86m9hd0

You too have failed to answer. How does Arrhenius hypothesis fail your criteria for a falsifiable hypothesis that increasing co2 would cause warming?

Arrhenius hypothesized early on (1895) that changes in co2 was a linked to global temperatures. He hypothesized that increasing co2 would warm the planet. His sensitivity parameter was on the high side. Given the resources he had, I think his number is remarkable. He also stated that the industrial revolution would drive co2 levels up. But I think you know this already. So how does this not fit the criteria of your question?

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

14 of 17 climate models published between 1970 and 2001 accurately projected future warming. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00243-w

A bit more information about the basis for the Six Americas ... from the gang at Yale Climate Communications.

I lose sight of the essential disagreement(s) ... amid the scorn-storms and psychological/character assessments. I think sometimes that 'What Could Persuade You to Change Your Mind?" is the right way to go, but that question doesn't reveal what a particular person believes. I don't -- after all this time -- know which beliefs are held by who, not in detail (except for Bob/Ba'al). It might be best answered by the Yale Climate Communications survey questions as revised. (or by a simple set of questions which answers reflect relative adhesion to so-called 'Consensus Statements**). The results of answering the Yale 'SASSY' survey questions assign a person's position among the "Six Americas" ... My assignment: Brief video that outlines the distinctions between the six 'buckets' ... _____________________ ** Eg, Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate is Warming from NASA

From 'Big Think': Original essay at PaulGraham.com: How to Disagree.

No content. Try rephrasing as a reasonable question.

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

Jonathan, The answer is social and pure value judgment, not rational. They'll kick his ass right out of the Chosen People club if he treats this issue with true intellectual seriousness. The club is more important than the truth. That's why the intellectual arguments from these people consistently sound good, but when examined are not good. Once in the club, one does not need to make sense. One merely needs to dazzle with bullshit and snark a little for proof. In fact, making sense is the surest way of getting thrown out. The storyline abides... Michael

My favorite thing in all of this was Brad's original acceptance of my questions about following the requirements of the scientific method. Initially, he had no problems understanding my questions and their relevance, because, at the time, he believed that the climate alarmists must have been complying with true science, and that the answers could be easily found. He has since discovered otherwise, and is therefore now dodging the questions, and trying to treat them as if the don't exist, or are not worthy of consideration, while offering no explanation of why the are suddenly not worthy. So, as is true with Billy, open honest discussion is to be avoided, and all that's on the menu is mound after mound of Tasty Steamed Octopus.

I’m not living in 1995, douchebag. I’m simply recognizing the reality that there was a hiatus. I haven’t claimed that its currently happening, so don’t try to assign me that position, you dishonest twat. And I didn’t invent the term “hiatus.” It was a term used by the alleged “consensus” scientists and their governmental organizations during the many years that they were fretting about it and panicking about not being able to explain or account for it. Your attempts to downplay it or erase it won’t change the fact that it was a significant worry to the governmental climate organizations, and that a great deal of effort went into damage control. Perhaps you don’t remember all of that because you were like twelve at the time? Well, we remember it, and it wasn’t resolved just because a couple of government spokespersons announced that, hey, how about we were all mistaken, it never happened even though it was official consensus science, so now the new official position is that it wasn’t a big deal at all, even though the scientists aren’t going along with that? Yeah, that’s the ticket!

Government job? Or government-tied? (I couldn't resist. ) Michael

Brad is on Twitter, doing Brad Schrag activities: https://twitter.com/BradSchrag/with_replies Of course. Are you hoping to have him return for a talking-to? That may not be the most alluring prospect for him ... but in any case, here's a recent comment retweeted by Brad Schrag, in which pioneers of climatological inquiry are noted. The names may mean nothing to a reader if the reader hasn't cracked open The Discovery of Global Warming.

The jottings you deleted yesterday were titled "The #QAnon phenomena, as explained by various outlets and commenters". Did you mean the plural, or do you not know that "phenomena" is plural? Many phenomena attend the Q phenomenon. To my mind, Q is the ultimate boondoggle for rational inquiry. I've been directed a few times to separate "Q" from "QAnon," and I will probably make the same kind of differentiation errors. Are you taking questions about "Q" and/or "QAnon"?

Qanon.pub has less editorial whoopee added than Qmap.pub.

Pithy. If you are a fan of skeptical inquiry, Poker & Politics should be in your Twitter feed. Glory, glory, Halleluja ...

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 '&']

The "Greenhouse Effect" (GHE) has been discussed a lot on this site -- at various times and various places. Ba'al Chatzaf (aka Bob Kolker) has been relatively constant in explaining it to readers¹, eg: Brant is on record as accepting the GHE, with caveats. My total impression is that Brant is more concerned with the 'green religion' extremism ... Jonathan hasn't stated his opinions or particular take in his own words (acceptance/rejection/skepticism) on the GHE explicitly -- at least not in so many words. Jon Letendre hasn't, as far as I know, ever discussed the GHE in this thread or any other. Michael hasn't explicitly explored the GHE in earlier discussions. I think his note serves as an open door to re-explore the concept ... In the opening topic post I quoted Bob giving a brief further explanation -- re-introducing the concepts of radiation: Tyndall, Arrhenius ... Ellen Stuttle accepts the Greenhouse Effect, but not any 'alarmist' claims that knock on from it: The Sun is the primary driver of global temperatures. CO2, water vapor and other trace "greenhouse" gases modulate (in some cases) or amplify (in other cases) the Sun's effect on the atmosphere. The other modulator of the Sun's effects are the seas and oceans. Water has a very high heat capacity which means it can absorb a lot of heat with only small temperature increases. My goal in establishing this topic here at Friends and Foes came a few years ago. Approaching difficult issues in an 'objective' manner, per Ayn Rand's Objectivism, means identifying concepts and then integrating them in a hierarchy². Despite the bad blood and personal invective and general agitation we might feel the need to express, I do believe that 'starting at the beginning' with the concept Greenhouse Effect will pay dividends to everyone who seeks reliable knowledge of the key concepts underlying. I also ask that folks contributing to this discussion leave off the personal insults and mind-reading and ascribing disgusting moral failures or 'tribal evil' ... or at least consider editing their contributions to lessen the effect of personalizing discussion. This is my blog, Friends and Foes. Appreciate that a highly-contested issue can trigger emotion. Try to reduce the temperature of the discussion by removing needlessly personal remarks and abusive terms from points made in argument. I have finished my own "cooling off period," and will strive going forward to edit out any "you people" and "your morality" and "your ugly motives" from my own contributions. Just a thought. I won't be moderating any additions to the discussion in the coming days, and probably won't ever. I respect Michael's ban-hammer, and his sensitivities given the recent ruckus between me and "you are a boyfucker" Jon Letendre. Brad, please respect that some folks here will consider you an "invader" and perhaps not be interested in anything you have to contribute. There are a lot of "silent readers" here who can be reached, however. If anyone wants to rag on and become insulting, consider using Dissenter. Otherwise, re-read materials here on The Principle of Charity ... and 'Be Best' ... I will briefly lock this thread as I edit this post (I use a text-to-speech app to check for errors in spelling and grammar). __________ 1. Bob had a small excursion into acceptance of the Gerlich-Tseuschner proposition. 2. “Since the definition of a concept is formulated in terms of other concepts, it enables man, not only to identify and retain a concept, but also to establish the relationships, the hierarchy, the integration of all his concepts and thus the integration of his knowledge. Definitions preserve, not the chronological order in which a given man may have learned concepts, but the logical order of their hierarchical interdependence.” (See “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology”, Rand, Page 40, Kindle Edition, https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Objectivist-Epistemology-Expanded-Second-ebook/dp/B002OSXD8C/ )

There's never a bad time to think about atmospheric physics. "How does it work?"