• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Jonathan

  1. What is tasty steamed octopus, and why is it the ideal substitute for ice cream cones? J
  2. What are you trying to hide, MSK? What don't you want the people to see? Collusion? Racism? Racist collusion? J
  3. It really is fucking weird. It's like, "Isn't it funny that we're saying that this fucker we hate is motivated by what we just made up, and therefore he's so petty and small so let's sneer at him, tee hee hee?" They're all acting like it's just the funniest shit ever. J
  4. Ya think Brad's having any luck chasing down 'the science'? It's weird how he went from 2,000 miles per hour to zero in half a second. J
  5. Right back atcha. So true on the issue of disabusing people of fake news. I've experienced the exact same example -- the claim that Trump called neo-nazis and white supremacists good people -- many times, including here on OL. Another favorite is the fake news that Trump mocked a person's physical disability. Here are the facts. "Yabut he did make the grabmbythepussy comment." Then, a week later, we're back to the lie that he mocked a person's physical disability. J
  6. I think that the core issue is Section 230 exemption. Ted brought it up back when he grilled Zuck. Zuck stiffened. A few of his circuits popped. He and da rest of da boyz want to keep their 230. They also want to be political and put their dirty thumbs on the scale. Nunes is the first step in finding out which they want the most. J
  7. Yeah, and which politician doesn't have a massive ego, and issues with narcissism? Um, did Savior Obama abhor the spotlight? Heh. Well, we don't really know much about Trump's alleged "temper." I can't count the number of times that I've watched Trump deliver a message in a happy, confident tone, or even a tone of laughing at the opposition, only to see the left and its press report it as having been a temper tantrum, meltdown tirade, wig-flipping, enraged freakout. I've never seen Trump displaying "his temper." J
  8. Do you not understand words? I can't help you with that. You're going to have to work on that yourself. Once you understand words and sentences and stuff, come on back, read what I wrote, comprehend it, and then we'll finish our conversation. J
  9. Kellyanne's husband, whom know one had heard of prior to hearing of Kellyanne, and who is regularly latching onto his wife's fame in order to get media attention, has diagnosed Trump as having narcissistic personality disorder: Conway's husband suggests Trump has narcissistic personality disorder Mr. Conway seems to have some serious problems with his wife's success. It's actually really sad how frequently he feels the need to use her to get into the spotlight and piss on her boss, and her work. J
  10. Well, damn it, there was, like, 99.9% consensus on this one, but they're overturning the settled science now: Don't take an aspirin a day to prevent heart attacks and strokes: Doctors reverse recommendation ...A large clinical trial found a daily low-dose aspirin had no effect on prolonging life in healthy, elderly people and actually suggested the pills could be linked to major hemorrhages... ----- Buh, buh, but, muh settled science! But, muh conspiracy kooks! J
  11. Personally, I've never seen any alarmists acting in accordance with their stated beliefs about man-made global warming. Actions versus words. I see their actions as revealing their true beliefs. I'll believe that they believe it when they behave accordingly. J
  12. You're really into using conspiracy as a weapon. I've already explained that I don't t think there's a conspiracy, and that one isn't needed to explain motivations. Additionally, I've personally observed the incentives and pressures that scientists face. I just recently witnessed an overnight political 180 that just happened to occur with a great new job opportunity. I am certain that no one told this friend of mine what is expected of him. No threats or promises, no one conspiring. It's very much like public teachers. They don't need to conspire to arrive at the same political positions, the same educational theories, and the same rhetorical devices. So, no, we're not limited to the choices that you want to limit the conversation to. And you're off and running, assigning me arguments, and arguing against them, playing professor, condescending... Great. Let's start with time and falsifiability. How long of a time period must we observe temperatures rising, without leveling off or falling, in order to conclude not only that temperatures are indeed rising enough so as to be considered climactic change, but also primarily caused by human activities? Which models/experiments have identified this timeframe prior to the models' predictions being made, and prior to reality then being observed? Where may I find the details of these types of ground rules? We already know that some scientists are asserting that a 12 to 15 year "pause/hiatus," or even a 15 to 18 year one, is not sufficient to falsify their favorite models. With such assertions, determining exactly when the ground rules were established becomes very important. Without these details, it can seem that people are just making it up as they go along. What are the specific conditions of falsifiability? What results in reality would invalidate the hypothesis? And why? And let's add just one more question. Which single model is the settled science model? I've seen a range of models with a range of predictions. Some have fallen by the wayside over the decades, and we don't hear about them anymore, but, anyway, which of the differing and competing current models settled it once and for all, and what date was it officially determined by the consensus scientists that that single model nailed it? Thanks, J
  13. And Billy loves the brand of snake oil that his Meatpuppet is hawking. Trophies for Brad! Yay! Thanks for signaling to us that you love your Meatpuppet, Billy. We wouldn't have picked up on it without the trophies. J
  14. I'm looking forward to seeing how Brad will slither in regard to certain subjects. I have my own little predictions of how I think he'll mutilate the concepts of, say, repeatability/reproducabilty or falsifiability. What twists will he put on those terms, what will he leave out and hope that we don't notice? He's already given us some pretty good looks at his style and preferences of dishonest tactics, and I think he'll follow the same. He's not very agile or adaptive. The snake won't change his stripes is my prediction. J
  15. He slithers, but is he really all that slick? No. He's been caught being a zealot many times on this thread already, but hasn't learned anything yet. He still leaps before he looks. Rookie stuff. He hears a few familiar words in others' questions or arguments which remind him of a stock, prepackaged refutation that he has ready to use, and he jumps to use it prior to considering if it's actually appropriate and applicable. He's not really paying attention to what's being said, but is kind of selectively hearing and forcing others' arguments into the shape of a straw man which he has practiced knocking down. But you're right that he has put a lot of effort into it. He's focused on pivots, spins, twists and all of the other snakey maneuvers. J
  16. Are you suggesting that the adjustments referred to above are the only adjustments or modifications that have ever been made by any and all scientists and scientific organizations in regard to the issue of climate change??? No, its observation, and also a prediction, which could turn out to be wrong, but I doubt that it will. And I haven't suggested a conspiracy. One's not needed to explain the behavior of alarmist zealots. They don't need to organize, and I don't believe that they do, at least not often. It's probably pretty rare. No, they're motivated and rewarded more than sufficiently without any conspiracy behind it. i've seen the treatment of dissenters. It's exactly as I described. J
  17. Great. I'm looking forward to it. Please remember the entire context of what I'm asking. What Zeke is doing is excusing more than explaining. And, bullshit, adjustments have been significant toward arriving at the predetermined outcome. They're bullied into place. I've watched it happen over and over again. A perfect current example is the erasing of the pause/hiatus, which you've jumped onboard. You've joined very early. Most others have not. "Consensus" scientists have serious problems with the adjustment/modification games that have been proposed by the pause/hiatus erasure activists. What'll happen is that they'll be worked on, ignored and isolated, some may even be ridiculed, the erasure Narrative will continue to be pushed, and, in a relatively short time, it'll gain momentum. Objections will be silenced, dissenters will weigh their integrity against their dependence and their position in the structure and will learn to keep their mouths shut, and we'll be hearing you citing Zeke explaining that it's become completely uncontroversial settled science with 97% consensus agreement that a pause/hiatus never happened, that no one ever believed it, that the adjustments really didn't have much of an effect or change anything at all, and that only conspiracy kooks and denier betrayer whores would disagree. J
  18. Clouds are one of the phenomena on which modern science does not yet have a handle. It's an issue which even the IPCC rates as scientifically uncertain and weak. J
  19. Please let us know when you can say, and when you can address all of the questions that I asked. One of the requirements that I've insisted on repeatedly here is that all information be disclosed, and that would include all of the relevant dates. And keep in mind that it would also include any modifications which were made mid-experiment to, say, instruments, methods of collecting and handling data, etc. -- you know, the type of things that actual real true scientists, as opposed to activists, would be eager to know about and to consider critically, and which, in many cases, should properly be considered the marking of the end of the experiment and beginning of a new one. One thing that I've found both amusing and disturbing during my decades of observing the climate scares is how often I've seen predictions not working out, and then, all of a sudden, mid-experiment, voilà, hey, we just realized that we need to apply a new method and equipment, and, whaddayaknow, look what happens when we apply it: our predictions just happen to work out perfectly now! And a month from now, there will no longer be any reference to our predictions not having worked out prior to our adopting the new method and equipment, and, in fact, there will be no reference to the changes in method and equipment, or at least not any that are easy to find. Erased. Forgotten. The graphs will be redrawn to represent the new, refined and enhanced predictions and results. Yay! Let's dispense with that kind of bullshit, please. Bring everything out into the sunlight. J
  20. It's "Meatpuppets" in general, but our specific special guests are "Meatballs," just out of endearment. J
  21. They're operating under the assumption that, since you disagree with them, you are therefore retarded. So, when you ask them what GHE stands for (or any other TLA -- three letter acronym), it doesn't occur to them that you're simply asking what the letters stand for. The only thought in their pompous twat heads is that you've never heard of the greenhouse effect, which confirms their view that you're retarded, and why you disagree with them. This is how their minds work. And it spills over into their approach to science. J
  22. And some folks will consider you a douchebag, but will nevertheless be interested in anything that you have to contribute, especially anything that is actually relevant. Answer my questions, and I will be happy to consider very carefully what you have to say. Please, pretty please, answer the questions. Billy invited you here because he couldn't answer them. I hope that you can do better. J
  23. Oh, okay, well then let's talk about the repeatable science of making vinegar and baking soda volcanoes! Douchebag. J
  24. What Brad is doing is trying to bog down the discussion by overwhelming it with minutiae. The game is that we asked for repeatable, so Brad is going to pretend to not understand the context, and give all sorts of examples of repeatable in regard to noncontroversial pieces of the puzzle, while hoping that we didn't notice that he switched to talking about pieces when we were specifically asking for repeatable entire picture. It's like someone saying that granite floats on air. You ask for proof via repeatable experiments, and douchebag then goes into the repeatable science of the mineralogical composition of granite, and what evidence there is to label it felsic. Do you know what felsic means? Huh, stupid? No? But yet you have your big important opinions about rocks not floating! Science denier! That, and another tack is bickering about how badly Brad's being treated, and who said what. Boo hoo hoo. Brad has lots of time for all of that, but no time for answering my questions. That's fanboy/activist stuff, not science. Science is actually the mindset that the alarmist fanboy/activists ridicule: critical thinking, skepticism, caution, testing, etc. A truly scientific mindset is that of trying as hard as one can to find flaws in any theory. I don't get the impression that Brad, Meatball2, or Billy have ever taken that approach. Their mindset seems to be that of confirmation bias, heroically fighting the silly "denier" rubes, tee hee heeing, and high-fiving. But maybe I'm wrong. I guess Meatball2 is gone, but I'd like to ask Brad and Billy to tell us about their critical examination of the idea of anthropogenic climate change. What are your biggest criticisms? Do you have any? What holes have you found in the theory? What are the biggest weaknesses in whatever theory you have the most confidence? Do you feel that you have to hide them? Show us your critical scientific side rather than just the fanboy side. After all, even the IPCC identifies severe weaknesses. It admits to significant limitations. Anyway, there's no need for the trick of trying to obscure the forest with leaves. It's really as simple as X amount of CO2 over time period Y should equal temperature Z. Sounding like a broken record: In regard to the big picture issue of anthropogenic climate change (and not isolated, smaller pieces of the picture), show us the repeatable, successful predictions. Identify specifically what was the hypothesis, precisely what predictions were made, when were they made, what potential results were identified ahead of time as falsifying or invalidating the hypothesis, what the start and finish dates of the experiment were, provide the unmolested data, the untainted control, and the unmanipulated historical record. J