Ellen Stuttle

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Blog Comments posted by Ellen Stuttle

  1. 1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

    I've been wondering if whoever started "Q" was taking a page from L. Ron Hubbard's book and setting out to found a religion.


    PS:  I haven't read the article yet.  I anticipate that it will be sneery and "sophisticated"-superior in tone.  I'm simply reacting to the article's title, which echoes my own question regarding "Q's" long-range intent.

  2. 1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    I have great affection for Bob. Even at his most Aspie. (He could be trying, though. :) 

    Ditto.  And for the rest of your post, too.

    I'll add that, frustrating though Bob can be to try to have a conversation with, he's contributed many little vignettes about scientific history and substance which I've found interesting to read for themselves.


  3. 15 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

    I hope [Bob's] ok.

    Bob was exhibiting signs of Alzheimer's along with his characteristic Aspie obliviousness.  I started to wonder toward the end of last year if he'd died, and I took to periodically checking his User Profile to see if he'd signed in.  He did sign in on Thanksgiving Day, November 28, and then again on February 6.


    • Like 1
  4. 6 hours ago, Jonathan said:

    You'd think that people who love science as much as Brad and Billy claim to...

    Neither one of them has displayed an understanding of what science is and how it's done.  When Brad first showed up, I thought that he was engaging in a semi-sophisticated snow job effort with his lengthy, non-pertinent responses to your questions.  Now I think that he thought he was answering you.  The method of the response is something he could have mimicked from more skilled examples.  It's a common type of ploy which maybe he's too ignorant to realize is a ploy.  He's subsequently shown himself to be completely at a loss how to converse with you if he can't get you to agree on a particular declaration of fact from which he seems to think (wrongly) the conclusion that humans are driving climate with CO2 emissions follows.  And his describing science as "a set of observations":  A person with even minimal understanding of science isn't going to say that even writing in careless haste.

    And William... forget about it.  He's shown himself for years to be so defective at scientific reasoning (since back when he was engaged in some discussion with Dennis May), I think there isn't a chance of his learning what testing an hypothesis requires.



    Even if we - unreasonably - suppose that humans are responsible for the entire post-industrial increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, and even if we - unreasonably - suppose that the post-industrial increase in "global mean surface temperature" is entirely caused by increased atmospheric CO2 concentration, there isn't any good reason to worry about the burning of fossil fuels, since the temperature increase has been small (at most about .8 Celsius degrees [1.5 Fahrenheit degrees]), increasing the temperature by the same amount again would require doubling the atmospheric CO2 concentration (which would need burning an awful lot of fossil fuels to accomplish), and meanwhile the increased atmospheric CO2 is beneficial to the plant life on which our lives ultimately depend.  In short, atmospheric CO2 alarm is misguided.

    Now, the warming specifically of the Arctic might be cause for worry.  However, the details of CO2-as-driver theory don't do the job of explaining what's happening in the Arctic.  The anomaly distribution and warming patterns are discrepant with the theory - giving alarmists another headache (like "the hiatus") to scrabble to find ways to fit into their paradigm.


  6. 17 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    Anyway, it's easy to see number of points per poster over time, although I'm not sure what these points are (maybe likes).

    The "Laugh" reaction counts as a point, since apparently it's meant by the web designers to indicate an approving, laughing-with laugh, not a derisive, laughing-at laugh.  By virtue of using the "Laugh" icon to indicate derision, Jon manages to make Brad look on the "Leaderboard" as if he has a high approval rating.


  7. 14 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    btw - Fewer than 20 reads per post? Where did you get that stat? Educated guess? I don't know how to get views per post. I don't even get views per thread, although I might be able to find out where to turn that on in the backoffice. (For the record, your guess sounds good to me, maybe even a little high since this thread is in William's blog and, from a general impression I have garnered over time, blog threads on OL don't seem to get the same luv from the search engines that normal threads do.

    Jon already answered how to get the views-per-post figure for this thread (for blog threads generally).

    For threads on the main board, click on the forum heading. Views and number of posts are listed for each thread in a column to the right of the thread titles.

    For instance, for the "McAfee" thread, click on "Stumping in the Backyard."  In the column to the right it says at this moment: 

    21 replies, 194 views.


  8. 3 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

    You really don’t understand the requirements of science at all, do you?

    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.


    • Like 1
  9. 20 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

    Perhaps time for self reflection if these are common responses to statements you make. Still waiting on evidence of your assertions, by the way.

    Re the first sentence, I think you're probably the first person who's ever accused me of being a "conspiracy theorist" - and there was nothing in what I said which gave any plausible basis for the charge.  You might engage in self-reflection about why you promptly leveled it.

    Re the second sentence, you'll have to go on waiting, since I'm not getting into a discussion of it here.  You could find plenty of comment on climate-related sites if you wanted to go looking.

    I was doing two things with what I said: (1) giving you a bit of an alert if you were receptive, and (2) tangentially warning Jonathan against accepting your description of material you linked.  (J, "97%"  Similarities.)


  10. 8 hours ago, Jonathan said:


    Douschrag thinks that accusing others of being conspiracy theorists is a very powerful weapon. He does it often, even when it's clearly not applicable. One of us might even specifically note that we're having a bit of fun speculating, but, no matter, Douschrag has already been triggered, and cannot prevent himself from running to fetch and use his magic weapon. Devastating.

    Yes, it's interesting how "conspiracy theory" has become an immediate code-language dismissal and equivalent to the accusation "You're a kook."


  11. 1 hour ago, bradschrag said:

    Arrhenius hypothesized early on (1895) ...

    Arrhenius hypothesized as a musing maybe, a "what if," and he wrote a second paper with caveats pertaining to the effects of water vapor.  Humans-are-doing-it advocates who cite Arrhenius generally don't know (or, in some cases, deliberately misrepresent) what Arrhenius really said.

    Also:  Calling a liar a liar does not a conspiracy theory make.


  12. 1 hour ago, bradschrag said:


    Humans perception isn't the best tool to pick up a signal like climate change that occurs so gradually, relative to our lifespans.

    The original claim was catastrophic climate change which would be plenty obvious to everyone.  The Statue of Liberty in water up to her neck, the Houses of Parliament awash, etc.

    Possibly unbeknownst to you, sources you're citing use jiggered stuff.  You seem to place much reliance on Gavin Schmidtt as a source.  Bad mistake.  He's one if the biggest cheaters-in-chief - and very skilled at his maneuvers.


  13. 1 hour ago, bradschrag said:

    You aren't getting it. To know if humans are the primary contributions to climate change doesn't require a specific timeframe, it requires us to have a grasp on how the forcings impact the system. Climate is generally considered time period of at least 15 years, but that doesn't mean that is there were a 15 year cooling streak humans aren't still contributing to warming, it would just mean other forcings had more influence during that timeframe.

    Now that is bold and blatant.  We just decree the answer we want as unfalsifiably true no matter what actually happens.

  14. On January 30, 2020 at 4:44 PM, william.scherk said:

    The names may mean nothing to a reader if the reader hasn't cracked open The Discovery of Global Warming.


    On January 30, 2020 at 7:39 PM, Jonathan said:

    Which "a reader" are you looking down your nose upon? Making assumptions about "the readers'" intellectual inferiority? Oh, dear, a reader can't understand anything unless he has read all of the books that Billy has assigned.

    The only book I recall William's assigning is The Discovery of Global Warming.  His statement that "the names may mean nothing" to someone who hasn't read that book is indicative of his ignorance, not that of "the reader."