• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Jonathan

  1. 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
  2. That's right, dumbass! Did you read the posts where I've told you that I'm not going to play your games? Yeah? But that fact still hasn't sunken in? Still not grasping it? J
  3. I didn't "buck" at all. I asked you to define your terms. 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. J
  4. Asshole, how to many times do you have to be told? Answer my questions, or fuck off. I’m not doing it your way. I’m not going to play your games.
  5. 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. J
  6. 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. 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. J
  7. 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." J
  8. 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.
  9. 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?
  10. Indeed he did. Now, answer the questions. If you want to go with Arrhenius, plug in the answers to the questions.
  11. 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.
  12. 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
  13. Did you answer my questions? Have you identified all of the information? You're an amazingly slow learner. J
  14. 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.
  15. 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 Pinatu
  16. 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?
  17. Oh, no! If you can't pay attention, little buddy, no worries! Here's the essential questions once again:
  18. 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. I didn't ask you to tell me anything that you felt like saying in regard to falsifiability. I asked specific questions.
  19. Here are several, douchebag: 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?