Jonathan

Members
  • Content Count

    7,211
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    56

Blog Comments posted by Jonathan

  1. 16 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

    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.

    Ellen

    The above is all just conspiracy theories.

  2. 27 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

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

    Is that the hypothesis? Is that the extent of it? Isn't there more involved, like how much warming, etc.?

    This is why we need a precise identification of the hypothesis in question, because douchebags like you will switch back and forth between several, all while treating them as if they are the same one.

    J

  3. 48 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

    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?

    Did you answer my questions? Have you identified all of the information?

    You're an amazingly slow learner.

    J

     

  4. 2 hours ago, bradschrag said:

    That's a conspiracy theory.

     

    22 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

    More conspiracy. That's yours to deal with, not mine. Bring evidence next time.

    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.

  5. 1 hour ago, bradschrag said:

    I didn't say it answered all the questions, and I explicitly stated I want going to answer all of them at once. As I said, there's no point in wasting time answering all questions when there is disagreement on a single one.

     

    See, the reason that all of the questions go together is because they apply to the same specific single hypothesis, and only to it.

    Your trick of answering one bit at a time has the purpose of shifting between different hypotheses while hoping that no one notices. A good example would be one of the items on the list that you posted on the issue of falsifiability was a hypothesis about Pinatubo. The subject at hand is the hypothesis that mankind is the primary driver of global warming, and has been for a long time. The subject is not the predictions of the effects of the eruption of Pinatubo. The subject at hand is not the other isolated items on the list.

    Perhaps you're confused due to the inclusion of one of the questions on my list. That question asks that you specifically identify the hypothesis that was proposed prior to predictions and testing. In case you're confused (or, more likely, in case you're hoping to cause confusion), that doesn't mean that I'm asking you to provide any hypothesis that pops into your head -- say, about Pinatubo, for example -- but that the hypothesis must be that mankind is the primary driver of global warming, and that the people who proposed the hypothesis specifically identified it as such. Understand?

    Earlier in this discussion, Billy clipped and pressed a floret of mine: "Oh, okay, well then let's talk about the repeatable science of making vinegar and baking soda volcanoes! Douchebag." That was in response to your douchebag maneuver of switching hypotheses and hoping that we didn't notice. The idea behind the comment is that you will look for any and every opportunity to slither and stray from the actual subject in order to attempt to pass off something that doesn't actually address the subject at hand, but which you only hope appears to do so.

    If I demand falsifiability and repeatability, you will cite falsifiable and repeatable experiments, but ones which do not pertain to the subject at hand. The same is true of predictions and experiment dates and durations, and the choice of definitions: I ask that you identify the terms and conditions of the specific hypothesis and experiments, and instead you substitute your own idiotic pondering about how long of a time period you personally want as the defining aspect of "climate," and therefore how long of a time period that you feel should be required to be tested. Numbnuts, the questions are not about you and your moronic opinions, but about what the scientists themselves have actually proposed, defined, identified, and delimited in their hypotheses, predictions, etc.

    Quote

    What would happen if I answered all of them? Nothing, you'd still be in denial. 

    Specifically what are you accusing me of denying?

    Anyway, what would happen if you, or Billy, were to provide actual answers to all of my questions would be that we would then apply the identified criteria to reality. Not just to a portion of it here or there, and not while selectively omitting falsifiability on this section or repeatability on that section.

    Quote

    So in regards to the falsifiable hypothesis, with dates, what issue do you have with the list I linked you to?

    The issue that I have is that you haven't answered the questions, but, once again, have only answered your own substitute questions which you seem to think are going to fool us into believing that you've actually answered the questions that I asked.

    J

  6. 13 hours ago, bradschrag said:

    These are your words.

    I have you a list of hypothesis.

    They have the years the predictions were made.

    The would be falsified had they not come true.

    What else is there to answer in regards to your question?

    No, your list doesn't answer all of the questions.

    And you know that it doesn’t. You’re knowingly lying again.

    Heh.Tell us what you think would happen if you were to actually answer the questions. Do you know? What am I going to do with that information?

     

  7. 3 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

    I lose sight of the essential disagreement(s) ... amid the scorn-storms and psychological/character assessments. 

    Oh, no!

    If you can't pay attention, little buddy, no worries! Here's the essential questions once again:

    Quote

     

    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.

    And here, again, are the questions that your surrogate/ringer-wannabe, disappearing Brad, couldn't answer:

    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?

     

     

  8. 17 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

    I'll answer one at a time, there's no need to spam answers to all your questions if you won't accept a single answer.

    Did you not read and comprehend my questions? In the very first sentence I knew that you would pull the moronic tactic of trying to disconnect the questions from their context of referring to the same hypothesis and its resulting predictions and testing, which is why I parenthetically included the comment "and not isolated, smaller pieces of the picture." And here you are being moronic enough to do exactly what I predicted you would, and asked you not to.

     

    Quote

    So again, falsifiable predictions, I've given a list, it has the years they were made. Are you still questioning this?

    I didn't ask you to tell me anything that you felt like saying in regard to falsifiability.

    I asked specific questions. Read them again.

    The questions all go together, and apply to the exact same hypothesis, predictions and testing. They do not apply whatever random phenomena you wish to substitute.

    In regard to the issue of falsifiability, my question is what are the specific conditions of falsifiability in relation to the single hypothesis and its climate model which settled the science once and for all.

    Honestly, you are working way too hard to try to not understand questions which are so very easy to grasp. 

    J

  9.  

    8 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

    What is one legitimate question on the table?

    Here are several, douchebag:

    Quote

     

    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.

    And here, again, are the questions that your surrogate/ringer-wannabe, disappearing Brad, couldn't answer:

    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?

     

    But, let me guess: It has just occurred to you to use the tactic that any question that you can't answer is now illegitimate?

  10. 1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    From reading him over time, I'm confident that he came here in an attitude to instruct what Rubes were salvageable and slay the others with dismissal and so on.

    Yeah, to me, that's one of the more amusing aspects of his behavior. He's been challenged to defend a position and answer questions. He doesn't have the answers. So his ploy is to pretend that he is being asked the questions not because his position is stupid and unsupported, but because we adore his brilliance and wish to absorb his wisdom.

    I don't think that he's succeeding in fooling himself.

    J

  11. 38 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

    From 'Big Think':

    707px-Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement

    Original essay at PaulGraham.com: How to Disagree.

    Yeah, thanks, Billy.

    Do you have any top-of-the-pyramid responses to my questions?

    Heh. Just kidding. I know that you don't. You have nothing but just more of the yellow section, complaining about how the icky Others™ aren't using the proper tone, and are derailing fruitful discussion by being so gauche as to ask relevant and substantive questions that you and your idiot meat puppets can't answer. The yellow or green sections are as high as you are capable of going.

    J

  12. 24 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

    Again, that's the kind of argument that takes place at the bottom of the pyramid. Dismissing a point based on the character, rather than the argument is ad hom. 

    Yeah, douchebag, let's look at that chart of yours.

    First, you indulged in the lame attempt at insult by claiming that I was living in 1995 simply by identifying the reality that there had been a "hiatus." Is that not adhominem?

    Rather than addressing the substance of the questions that I've asked, you've dodged it, and have whined about the tone. Look at your chart again, hypocrite douchebag.

    Finally, I have not offered name-calling as a substitute for argument. I have offered it as accompaniment to my argument, and as a criticism of your refusing to address the specific questions at hand.

    So, enough with the whining and hypocritical distractions, asshole.

    You have all of the time in the world for everything but addressing the questions.

    Go to the top of the pyramid. Address my questions. Focus on my central point. Answer the questions, or fuck off.

    J

  13. 5 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

    The question then might be properly reductive to whether you are working off a theory or hypothesis. I'm not competent to address this issue with you further. I cannot evaluate your ideas about falsifiability.

    --Brant

    Douchebrad was asked to identify the specific conditions of falsifiability employed -- and identified prior to predictions an testing taking place -- by the one model which settled the science once and for all.

    He opted to dodge the question and post something else which he felt was kind of somewhat related and might make us forget what the actual questions was.

    J

  14. 14 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

    It looks like a civil debate with you will be impossible, afterall.

    If only you could communicate without insults and loaded language.

    Indeed. The most common ploy in forums like this is probably that of suddenly placing respect and civility above all else.

    "It's not that I can't answer your questions, it's that I value civility so much that I won't dignify your icky meanness with a response."

    Then the next step is for a surrogate to step forward and ask the same questions politely. And then new excuses are made, such as that the questions, despite being asked politely, came from the meanie, so they need to be put into the surrogate's own words before being acceptable. And then new demands are imposed, followed by people being banned if possible.

    Heh. Billy once played the role of surrogate for me over on SLOP. Remember? I had criticized Pigero's attempt at pretending that his personal, consumer musical taste were "objectively superior." I posted my criticism there, but he wouldn't answer due to the lack of respect and civility that it contained. Boo-hoo-hoo. But then Billy stripped my criticisms of their ickiness, yet Pigero still found excuses for not answering, including eventually banning me.

    Billy has since adopted Pigero's sniveling style of dealing with criticism. Billy has become the Pigero of OL.

    J

  15. 18 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    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

    It really is interesting to watch. While we're pointing out to DoucheBrad that he's not answering the questions, and that we are not being fooled by his inventing alternate questions to answer while pretending that they're the questions that we asked, he continues to believe that he's going to fool us into believing that he has answered the questions.

    J

  16. 10 hours ago, bradschrag said:

    So anyway, back at the top of the pyramid, the only thing you stated I'm going to spend time responding to is your comment about length of climate. 30 is a common baseline, but that isn't what's required to determine whether or not humans are having an impact. That's why I said it requires understanding oh the various forcings on the system and the roles they play. You could have 10000 years of data but without any context you can't make any determination as to what was driving the changes for that period. Likewise, with as little as 10-15 years, the warming signal can be picked up in the data quite readily. But again, you need the context of the other variables in the system to determine the primary driver of change.

    So, are you claiming that the above is the position that was identified as part of the "settled science" hypothesis prior to its predictions being made and then being tested?

    Or is it it just your personal opinion?

    Do you remember the questions that I asked? They're specific questions. I didn't ask for your opinions as a substitute to the actual answers to the questions.

    Um, perhaps you don't realize this, but the questions are not being asked because we revere you and hope that you can share your wisdom with little us. We're not lost souls looking for your guidance. The questions are being asked because they cut through the bullshit. You are not a respected sage, but a bullshitter.

    Your bluff has been called over and over again, shitbag. When will it sink in that you should stop trying to bluff?

    J

  17. 8 hours ago, bradschrag said:

    Any remarks coming from bottom of the permit will be ignored. Rephrase as a reasonable and respectable question is you want a response.

    Oh, darn! So, you were going to answer my questions, and, in fact, you were just on the verge of doing so, but now you won’t because I accepted your invitation to join you in snark? Yeah, okay then, we’re all buying that. As earlier, you could easily answer the questions, but you just don’t want to right now? Because you’re having feelings? Because demanding that being treated in a way better than the way that you treat people is more important than scientifically nailing down the climate issue once and for all? Heh. Fuck off, pretender.

  18. 2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    Jonathan,

    Do you mean you are not satisfied with the insinuation that your questions are non-questions, you are not satisfied with being instructed in the fact that you don't get it? After all, the guy said it. You don't get it. He put it in writing right there. Under his name and all. So it has to be true.

    Come on, man. Get with the program. At your rate, you're not in the game. Hell, you'll never even get close to an important ass to kiss.

    :)

    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.

    • Like 1