• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Blog Comments posted by Jonathan


    The original MSK classic, along with my addition of Brad at the end:



    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.


    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?




    • Like 1
  2. 3 hours ago, merjet said:

    You failed to answer my question.

    I’m not interested in your word games or your ploys to avoid my question.  I’m not interested in your method of trying to control the conversation so that you can dodge my question. Does that sound familiar? 

    It's familiar to me. Why are you throwing my words in MSK's face? Are you confusing the two of us, gramps?


  3. So, anyway, clearly Billy’s savior has nothing.

    Do you have anyone better, Billy?

    C’mon. There has to be someone who will actually try to answer the questions instead of running away from them, someone bright enough to come up with something other the stupidity of believing that we’re going to fall for the Tasty Stramed Octopus menu substitution.

    You can’t all be that incompetent. Seriously, Billy, bring someone with a brain.


  4. 1 hour ago, bradschrag said:

    It's not about being "worthy". If there's disagreement then we can focus on that point of disagreement to try to better understand the arguments involved in each side. 

    I'm not interested in that type of exchange and distraction from my questions.

    Im not interested in your ploys to avoid my questions and substitute them with your method of controlling the conversation so that my question can be dodged.

    During your first appearance here, you claimed that the questions could be answered easily. Not so anymore.

    So more Tasty Steamed Octopus it is!


  5. 39 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

    It's not a test. It's about whether or not there is agreement.

    In other words, it's a test. You're testing whether or not there is agreement. Which means you're testing whether or not I'm worthy of having my questions answered. You're trying to make it about me. You're doing so because you have nothing. You can't answer the questions, and you don't want to try because the actual answers don't back up your opinions. Answering the questions would box you in, and take away your means of deception.


  6. 2 hours ago, bradschrag said:

    So just to be clear, you can't answer whether or not human emissions have increased atm co2?

    I'm not going to play your games.


    Do you think that might be a requisite for moving forward in the discussion in determining whether or not humans are responsible for warming?

    No, it's not requisite. Your attempts to test me, and determine that I'm not up to speed and that I'm a lesser being and therefore unworthy of having my questions answered, is nothing but a distraction.

    My questions cut through all of the bullshit. They simply and clearly represent the requirements of the scientific method. That's all that is requisite. Why are you so upset by the scientific method, and so resistant to its requirements? Why are you working so hard to find away around it?


    This is why it's pointless for me to address all your questions.

    Bullshit. You don't have the answers. And you're not even interested in looking for them. You resent the questions, and want them to go away. In contrast to the precision that they require, you prefer lots of slither room, and the ability to hold several contradictory positions at the same time, to cherry pick, and to lie and pretend.

    You're nothing but copouts and bullshit.


  7. 19 hours ago, bradschrag said:

    Here, you state that nature does not need humans to change climate (your words, not mine). The implied assertion here is that you are stating my claim to be that nature requires humans to change climate.


    Here, you tell me to not mischaracterize your assertion that I claimed only humans can change climate. They are your words, not mine.


    No, I'm not dismissing your argument based on who you are. I'm pointing out the logical fallacy and inconsistency you are drawing between my statement (humans are changing the climate) and your response (nature doesn't need humans to change the climate). If I said your argument is invalid because you aren't a scientist - that would be ad hom. As it is, you aren't making an argument for or against anything - you are conflating my statement to be something that I didn't say. You are the one putting words in other's mouths.

    The above his actually worse than trying to follow the nutty inferences that Tony makes. I didn't think it possible that there could be someone even more wrongheaded than Tony.

    Congratulations, Tony, Brad has outTonyed you!

    Damn, I wonder what the straw man version of me who lives in Tony's head thinks of that!


  8. 23 hours ago, bradschrag said:

    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.

    I'm reposting the  above quote because I want to make sure that everyone catches the significance of it.

    First, as I mentioned earlier, Brad is not going with a single answer here, but with more than one, and perhaps leaving the door open for several. It leaves Brad room to slither, but it also inadvertently reveals disagreement among whomever Brad thinks he's citing. They can't even settle amongst themselves on what they think that the temperature would be without mankind's input.

    Second, it's a demonstration of the absence of falsifiability and of well-defined terms and conditions prior to testing. Any and all possible outcomes could be taken as proof of any hypothesis, and no possible outcome could falsify it, since whatever outcome happens, Brad and his sources will say that, no, no, no, right now the cooling is supposed to be much, much greater, even greater than we had originally thought, so the global cooling that we're seeing is actually 7 degrees warmer than it should be due to mankind's production of co2!

    Thanks for returning, Brad, and delivering this demonstration of technique.


  9. 1 hour ago, bradschrag said:

    You bucked at the question of whether it not humans were driving up emissions...

    I didn't "buck" at all. I asked you to define your terms.



    ...along for clarity on "driving up". That's what I'm doing now, clarifying.

    No, that's not what you're doing. You're asking questions about what I think. Game playing. You were asked to define your terms, and instead turned it into a question of what I think.

    Slither, slither, slither. I'm not going to play. Answer the questions, or fuck off.

    Heh. You've already invested much more time slithering than it would have taken to answer the questions.


  10. 3 hours ago, bradschrag said:

    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.

    Considered by whom? And which one is it? 100%, or more than 100%? They both can’t be right. Which one is the “settled science”?

    See, you’re switching between hypotheses at will. This is why we need you to answer the questions and limit yourself to a non contradictory position, to define the terms and conditions minus all of the slither room that you’re trying to leave for yourself.


  11. 3 hours ago, bradschrag said:

    Because dismissal/disagreement somewhere early in the chain of logic throws out tall other answers.

    Bullshit. I’ve given no indication that I’m closed minded and would refuse to consider answers to my questions. Your false assumptions aren’t warranted, and are a copout. It really is amusing how upsetting my insistence on following the scientific method is to you, and the shit that you’ll invent in order to excuse yourself from complying with it.

    3 hours ago, bradschrag said:

    As it is, I have trouble parsing what exactly you are asking for given the nature of your responses. 

    I’ve simply been asking that you demonstrate conformity to the scientific method. It doesn’t surprise me that you’re having trouble parsing it.

  12. 10 hours ago, bradschrag said:

    And I've already stated, I'm not going to attempt to address all at once as it would be pointless.

    How have you concluded that it would be pointless? By assigning to me traits that I don't possess?

    Long ago, Billy asked what it would take to change one's mind. I answered. I identified what it would take. Like you, Billy doesnt like my answer. After hearing it, he decided that he wanted to convince me to accept a different method of changing my mind.

    What is actually pointless is your constant attempted workarounds, and your shitty projections of yourself on to me (or us). Fuck you and your excuses and your baseless presumptions about what would or would not be "pointless." 


  13. 12 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

    (2) tangentially warning Jonathan against accepting your description of material you linked.  (J, "97%"  Similarities.)


    Yeah, thanks. I know that everything must be taken with a grain of salt with this dude. Conversationally, I'm willing to momentarily entertain, for the sake of argument, some of Brad's assertions or sources, but I am aware that in the event that if he ever does attempt to answer my question, I'll have to go over his answers with a fine tooth comb. His game is what can he sneak past 'em. 

  14. 13 hours ago, bradschrag said:

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

    Define "driving up."

    Or better yet, just answer the questions instead of working so hard to avoid them. How is it not clear to you yet that I'm not going to settle for your attempts at a workaround? 

    Which single hypothesis, and it's resulting predictions and testing, do you want to discuss? That mankinds activities are responsible for 1.6 percent of warming that has been reported? Or 32 percent. Or 68? 97? Or that mankind's contributions are causing a catastrophe, an existential threat? The Statue of Liberty will be up to her chin in ocean by 2004 2028? Sharknadoes galore? What?

    All that I'm asking for is that you define your terms and to then stick to them, instead of pulling all of the slippery shit of shifting between different hypotheses, predictions, cooditions of falsifiability, etc.


  15. 23 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

    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?

    Indeed he did.

    Now, answer the questions. If you want to go with Arrhenius, plug in the answers to the questions.

  16. 4 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

    Did he or didn't he claim increasing co2 would increase temperature? Page 16, if you want to check your answer before responding.

    Um, there is no page 16 at the link you posted, dicknibbler, but there is this statement on the first page:

    Contrary to some misunderstandings, Arrhenius does not explicitly suggest in this paper that the burning of fossil fuels will cause global warming, though it is clear that he is aware that fossil fuels are a potentially significant source of carbon dioxide (page 270), and he does explicitly suggest this outcome in later work.