• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Jonathan last won the day on August 19

Jonathan had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

258 Excellent

1 Follower

About Jonathan

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Jonathan Smith
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. What happened to Denmark? Trump made a suggestion. Mette Frederiksen responded publicly with snarky anger, snooty superiority, and delved into imagining the evil of unwashed monster parvenu Trump's motivations. Trump described her response as "nasty." Rather understated, I'd say. Then he postponed his visit to Denmark. So, what's the tee hee hee that I'm missing? Denmark is somehow now a massive pile of bloody victims in this? Oh, my Lord Jesus, look what happened to Denmark! J
  2. So, below I offer my first 'finding' for our platform on the foundation on the boulevard of agreement. I've posted this previously here on OL, back when it first came out. Billy, you had asked if there is an agreed-upon set of 'findings,' even for people who may disagree mightily on entailments. Do you agree that the article below offers an argument that is devastating to the falsehood that it refutes? Do you agree that the article is correct that the method used to arrive at the 97% conclusion is fatally flawed? Libertarian Group Demands NASA Remove False '97 Percent Consensus' Global Warming Claim BY TYLER O'NEIL JULY 10, 2019 CHAT 302 COMMENTS (Shutterstock) On Tuesday, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) sent NASA a formal complaint, asking the agency to withdraw the false claim that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that humans are the primary cause of global warming and climate change. The 2013 study purporting to demonstrate that number was fatally flawed and proved no such thing. "The claim that 97% of climate scientists believe humans are the primary cause of global warming is simply false," CEI attorney Devin Watkins said in a statement. "That figure was created only by ignoring many climate scientists’ views, including those of undecided scientists. It is time that NASA correct the record and present unbiased figures to the public." According to the CEI complaint, NASA's decision to repeat the false claim violated the Information Quality Act (IQA). Specifically, NASA claimed that "[n]inety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities." The claim appears on the NASA website on the page "Climate Change: How Do We Know?" The claim traces back to a study led by John Cook entitled "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature" and published in the journal Environmental Research Letters in 2013. The study is fundamentally dishonest, as the CEI complaint explains. The study analyzed all published peer-reviewed academic research papers from 1991 to 2011 that use the terms "global warming" or "global climate change." The study placed the papers into seven categories: explicit endorsement with quantification, saying humans are responsible for 50+ percent of climate change; explicit endorsement without quantification; implicit endorsement; no position or uncertain; implicit rejection; explicit rejection with qualification; and explicit rejection without qualification. The study found: 64 papers had explicitly endorsed anthropogenic global warming (AGW) with quantification (attributing at least half of climate change to humans); 922 papers had explicitly endorsed AGW without quantifying how much humans contribute; 2,910 papers had implicitly endorsed AGW; 7,930 papers did not state a position and 40 papers were uncertain; 54 papers implicitly rejected AGW by affirming the possibility that natural causes explain climate change; 15 papers explicitly rejected AGW without qualification; and 9 papers explicitly rejected AGW with quantification, saying human contributions to global warming are negligible. So how did Cook and his team come up with the 97 percent number? They added up the first three categories (3,896 papers), compared them to the last three categories (78 papers) and the papers expressing uncertainty (40 papers), and completely ignored the nearly 8,000 papers that did not state a position. Of the papers Cook's team characterized as stating a position, 97 percent (3,896 of the 4,014 papers) favored the idea of man-made global warming. See the problem? The study completely discounted the majority of the papers it analyzed (66.4 percent — 7,930 of the 11,944 papers analyzed). With those papers included, only 32.6 percent of the papers explicitly or implicitly endorsed AGW (3,896 of 11,944 papers). But it gets worse. Many of the scientists who wrote the original papers Cooks' team analyzed complained that this study mischaracterized their research. The survey "included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral," complained Dr. Richard Tol, professor of the economics of climate change at Vrije Universiteit. He argued that of the 112 omitted papers, only 1 strongly endorses man-made global warming. "That is not an accurate representation of my paper," wrote geography Ph.D. Craig Idso. "Nope ... it is not an accurate representation," Nir Shaviv, associate professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, wrote. Ph.D. physicist Nicola Scafetta complained that "Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AAGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission." Cook's team categorized his paper as one that "explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%." Scafetta countered, "What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun." Even including Scafetta's incorrectly categorized study, Cook's team only found 64 papers that explicitly endorsed man-made global warming and attributed more than 50 percent of it to human activity. That represents a minuscule 0.5 percent of the 11,944 papers. Even excluding the 66.4 percent of the papers that did not take a position, the 50 percent plus approach only accounts for 1.6 percent of all papers in the Cook study. The study — and the 97 percent figure that depends on it — is fatally flawed, and NASA has 120 days to respond to the CEI complaint. It is far past time people reject this false claim.
  3. We need to find pathways that indicate possible corridors that might lead toward avenues which will take us to the boulevard of agreement. Let’s see if we can find a foundation near that boulevard on which to establish a platform where we can place our gathered findings to discover if we all agree that they are indeed findings. But first, let’s make more hoops. We need many more hoops to jump through. Place them between us and the questions that Jonathan has asked. Hoops of every size and color. Line them on the pathways, corridors, and avenues. Hoops and more hoops, everywhere! Then let’s hypothesize about the hoops, and research everything about them. What’s the best material out of which to make hoops? Can we find a pathway to a corridor that leads to an avenue which will take us to the boulevard of agreement about the best material for hoops? I’m certain that we can.
  4. Hello? Billy? Are you pouting? You really, really badly want to pontificate on John Tyndall, but your glorious parade was rained upon? I'm sorry, pumpkin. So, let's have your little Tyndall party!!! Yay!!! Happy Tyndall Day, Billy! Tell us all about him! Did he make any predictions about global warming? Did those predictions come true in reality? Did he take a position on man-made climate change, hypothesize that man's activities would result in certain specific temperature increases, and then successfully predict future outcomes in reality? I know, I know. Predictions are icky. But they're a part of grownup science, Billy. You can't have your exciting doom and your controlling other people if you don't have successful predictions first. Okay, so can we get past Tyndall now? What's next? Let's pick up the pace, okay? What's the next very important non-answer to my questions that we need to explore in-depth? J
  5. I think Trump's probably been reading too much Clive Cussler, and is hoping to find ancient shipwrecks there. J
  6. The questions of mine that you’ve been dodging address all of that, Billy. Drop the professor pose and the discussion leader/moderator ploy. You don’t want a discussion. You can’t handle a discussion. Buh, buh, but, perhaps we can find an avenue forward in which Billy instructs us what to do and how to think, and we can find common ground agreement in avoiding those icky questions that Jonathan asked and that Billy can’t answer? Billy, what is it about my questions that makes you think that we need instruction in climatological superstructure, radiative physics, etc.? I’ve simply asked you to demonstrate successful predictions via the scientific method. And somehow my doing so suggests to you that you need to give us a presumptuous little course on Tyndall rather than demonstrating the successful predictions? Hahaha!
  8. And? When do we get the part where my questions are answered? How about you just skip ahead to that part? Heh. No? Still not able to answer the questions, so you're back to the game of posing as professor who is going to instruct the rubes about everything except the questions they've asked? Rather pathetic, Billy. J
  9. What usually begins with John Tyndall? Is it the answers to my questions? If so, cool! Let's hear them. J
  10. 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
  11. Heh. "“You’re a much more reasonable guy in person than you seem to be on television.” Lol. J
  12. Yes, Tony, I already knew that my applying Rand's method of judging art and artists to her and her own work upsets you. And, yes, her method is indeed sourpussery at its sourest. J
  13. No, he knew and cared. Re-read the novel. He knows exactly what a rip-off and fuck-over the project is. He is morally opposed to it, at least in thought. In action, he decides that the thrill of working on the project is worth joining in on ripping off and fucking over those who are being forced to pay for it. Yeah, he adopted the principle of the ends justifying the means. That's just wrong-headed typical Tonyism. And you'll be extending that generous attitude to all other artists and works of art, right? Just like Rand did? Heh. J
  14. Is Wilder-Lane's review available anywhere that you know of? I'd like to read it. J Poetry, Wilder style: Old Dan Tucker was a fine old man Washed his face with a fryin' pan Combed his hair with a wagon wheel And died with a toothache in his heel...
  15. Thanks for the link. An additional ploy us the erasing of Dayton. El Paso is being cited constantly by the press, but Dayton not so much. The shooter doesn't fit the Narrative. So, Dayton needs to be forgotten while El Paso gets hyped.