Jonathan

Members
  • Content Count

    7,211
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    56

Blog Comments posted by Jonathan

  1. 22 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

    How long since the first derail?

    Time is relative to motion?

    Salt and Popper

    May the harpies feast!

    Are you trying to express something, Billy? Searching for some way of continuing to avoid real science while still believing that science is on your side? Which tenets might be jettisoned, and how might we justify doing so, but only in regard to climate? Tee hee hee?

    Oh dear, oh dear, our discussion has gone off the rails. How might we get it back? Please don't suggest that Billy might help get it back on the rails by answering the questions which have been asked of him repeatedly, or by explaining why he thinks that the questions are not valid or pertinent. No. Billy is not the problem. The problem is the lesser Others. They must be fixed.

    Billy, I know you're very upset about the requirements of science. You seem to be taking it personally, and it's almost as if you feel that I invented them, and that I did so just to spite you. The truth is that I'm just the messenger. You're really not angry with me, but with the idea of science not conforming to your feelings and wishes.

    J

     

  2. 9 hours ago, bradschrag said:

    No, you just have to take into account all factors. For example, if there are several large volcanic eruptions within a short time frame - let's say a decade, we'd expect cooling from it. It might even extend past 15 years. That doesn't mean humans aren't the primary drivers of climate change since the beginning of the industrial age.

    What the Douche is saying is that regardless of the predictions matching or not matching the outcomes in reality, all possible outcomes mean that human activity is the primary driver. Such a position is the definition of unfalsifiability and pseudoscience.

  3. 15 hours ago, bradschrag said:

    To know if humans are the primary contributions to climate change doesn't require a specific timeframe, it requires us to have a grasp on how the forcings impact the system.

    Dipshit, were discussing climate, which, by definition, includes time as a factor.

    Quote

    Climate is generally considered time period of at least 15 years...

    False. It's generally considered to be 30 years.

    Quote

    ...but that doesn't mean that is there were a 15 year cooling streak humans aren't still contributing to warming...

    For someone who is claiming to have science on his side, you sure are sloppy and imprecise in your use of words, and in your misunderstandings and misrepresentations of your opponents' positions. No one has claimed, fuckhead, that a 15 year cooling streak would mean that humans are not contributing to warming. Rather, it would mean that any hypothesis which predicted warming during that timeframe had been falsified.

    Youre playing the standard stupid fucking games of equivocation. See, this is why I asked the specific questions that I asked -- so that dishonest assholes like you can't switch between hypotheses and evidence at will.

    Your dishonesty is the reason that you won't answer the questions, but keep hoping that you'll be able to make us forget what the questions were. You're attempting to bypass the scientific requirements. You're attempting to substitute pseudoscience for actual science.

    J

  4. 12 hours ago, bradschrag said:

    You aren't getting it. To know if humans are the primary contributions to climate change doesn't require a specific timeframe, it requires us to have a grasp on how the forcings impact the system. Climate is generally considered time period of at least 15 years, but that doesn't mean that is there were a 15 year cooling streak humans aren't still contributing to warming, it would just mean other forcings had more influence during that timeframe.

    So you don’t have answers to my questions which you had early stated with supreme confidence would be super easy to find the answers to,

     

  5. On 1/30/2020 at 10:16 PM, bradschrag said:

    And again, in regards to your hosting comment, that really isn't one when you look at the data. A minor slow down in warming is not a hiatus. Hindsight is 20/20. Maybe you should step into the 21st century and look at the temperature record rather than living in 1995.

     

    I’m not living in 1995, douchebag. I’m simply recognizing the reality that there was a hiatus. I haven’t claimed that its currently happening, so don’t try to assign me that position, you dishonest twat. And I didn’t invent the term “hiatus.” It was a term used by the alleged “consensus” scientists and their governmental organizations during the many years that they were fretting about it and panicking about not being able to explain or account for it. Your attempts to downplay it or erase it won’t change the fact that it was a significant worry to the governmental climate organizations, and that a great deal of effort went into damage control. Perhaps you don’t remember all of that because you were like twelve at the time? Well, we remember it, and it wasn’t resolved just because a couple of government spokespersons announced that, hey, how about we were all mistaken, it never happened even though it was official consensus science, so now the new official position is that it wasn’t a big deal at all, even though the scientists aren’t going along with that? Yeah, that’s the ticket!

    • Like 1
  6. On 1/30/2020 at 10:16 PM, bradschrag said:

    Let's see if we can touch on some of these other questions. 

    How long must we observe temperatures to rise before we can attend then to humans?

    We need to be considerate of all the forcing on the system (see a few tweets into Gavin's thread where he links to a bloomberg article). Using various methods/models observations we can estimate the forcing of the individual components. Then construct a model based on these forcings and hindcast to test it.

    The above is not an answer. It’s a bunch of words related to the subject, minus an actual answer.

    Quote

    Future projections will never be perfect, because we ultimately don't know what all the future inputs will be.

    We don’t need to know future inputs while making predictions. We can plug in the future data when we have it. X amount of mankind’s emissions during duration Y must result in global temperature Z.  Reliably and repeatably. Everything clearly defined ahead of time. No after-the-fact fixes or exceptions or erasures of things like unpredicted hiatuses.

    J

  7. On 1/30/2020 at 10:16 PM, bradschrag said:

    Here's a good list a... 

    Appaently you haven't grasped the questions. Please, slow down and try to read them more carefully. Here they are 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?

    Thanks,

    J

     

     
    Please, don't give me more of what I didn't ask for. Answer the questions rather than inventing your own substitute questions to answer.
    J
     
     
  8. Billy, do you remember ever having heard of the scientific method?

    Do you know what it is? Can you explain what it is? Can you describe how it works?

    What is the difference between a hypothesis and a conclusion? Can a hypothesis magically transform into a conclusion if you just refuse to answer questions and keep on posting items about Arrhenius?

    What roles do predictions and testing play in the scientific method? Can those steps be discarded if you don't like them?

    J

  9. On 1/30/2020 at 3:44 PM, william.scherk said:

    The names may mean nothing to a reader if the reader hasn't cracked open The Discovery of Global Warming.

     

    Which "a reader" are you looking down your nose upon? Making assumptions about "the reader’s'" intellectual inferiority? Oh, dear, a reader can't understand anything unless he has read all of the books that Billy has assigned. Heh. Are you turning into Phil, Billy? 

    You've been told many times, but you still haven't grasped that your presenting of Arrhenius et al doesn't answer the questions that I've asked. It's been explained to you carefully and in different ways. You've been given more than the benefit of the doubt. I have to conclude now that you're deliberately trying your hardest not to grasp it.

    J

  10. 2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

    Of course.  Are you hoping to have him return for a talking-to?

    I was hoping that he might return to answer the question that I asked him, and which he figured would be a breeze.

    I doubt he'll be back, and I suspect that he gave up on answering, and pushed the questions out of his mind (probably while making Sally Field "Sybil" noises) never to go near them again.

    J

  11. Well, it's a new year, and time once again to remind Billy of the unanswered questions:

    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?

    Thanks,

    J

     

    What ever happened to Brad? Are you still in touch with him, Billy? He had promised to find answers to these questions, and he even implied that doing so would be pretty easy. Do you think that he ever found them? Heh. Or is it more likely that instead he put his efforts toward blocking them from his mind and pretending that he was never asked them?

    J

  12. 3 hours ago, william.scherk said:

    Putin, however, has repeatedly denied the scientific consensus that climate change is primarily caused by emissions deriving from human activity, blaming it last month on some “processes in the universe”.

    About the report:

     

    Oh, no! Putin denies the pretend consensus? The one which I've posted proof that it has been demonstrated as being false, and which Billy has refused to address? Heh.

    J

     

    • Like 1
  13. Hypothesis falsified:

     

    The signs at Glacier National Park warning that its signature glaciers would be gone by 2020 are being changed...

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/08/us/glaciers-national-park-2020-trnd/index.html

    But it's still gonna happen, and we need to stop freedom cuz the scientists have made new predictions which are less specific and even more certain. Forget about those past predictions. Just go by how much confidence we're expressing right now.

    J

    • Like 1
  14. 19 hours ago, Peter said:

    Al Gore has said his last words because in 2020 we will all die.

    The way that modern "science" works is that you make extreme and scary predictions based on your hypothesis, and then, when they don't come true, you do not conclude that your hypothesis has been falsified, but that new predictions, which are even scarier, need to be made and publicly promoted as being logically justified following he failure of the last predictions.

  15. It's cute that climate fools are attempting to match their little actions to their words, but they miss the point entirely. We need punishments now. Voluntarism? Choosing to make one's deeds consistent with one's professed beliefs? Heh. Silly children. No. Michael Mann needs to be put in charge. He's the left's most expert expert on climate, and therefore also an expert on politics, economics, philosophy and every fucking thing else. Climate knowledge trumps all other knowledge.

    Your freedom needs to end. You need to experience pain. You need to obey.

    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/nov/09/doomism-new-tactic-fossil-fuel-lobby

  16. 17 hours ago, william.scherk said:

     

      Reveal hidden contents

     

     

    Billy,

    You've got a pretty good handle on your new vid toys there. Fun stuff.

    But, ugh, please explore lighting. And you don't need to invest in soft boxes or umbrellas with modeling lights. Just consider turning your current light so that it's facing the other way (away from you), and not shining on you directly. Bounce the light off of a wall in front of you to diffuse and soften it. Wall not close enough? Then clamp a foam board to an old mic stand from back in your band days, and bounce the light off of it.

    You're welcome.

    • Thanks 1
  17. Man-made climate change dunnit, it's settled science, 97% of climate scientists agree, you need to be punished, here's some tasty steamed octopus...

    Venice ‘on its knees’ after second-worst flood ever recorded

    By COLLEEN BARRY and LUCA BRUNO9 minutes ago
     
     
    800.jpegVENICE, Italy (AP) — The worst flooding in Venice in more than 50 years prompted calls Wednesday to better protect the historic city from rising sea levels as officials calculated hundreds of millions of euros in damage...
     

     

  18. Little brainwashed Greta has turned down an award from leftists because they're not being leftist enough for her.

    Billy, you ought to enjoy this: She demands that the leftists act in accordance with what "the science" says is needed to combat global warming. Tee hee hee! She actually said "the science."

    "The science" says that we need socialism, and we need it now, or we're all going to die in 27 days. "The science" said so! Don't be a science denier.

    Tee hee heeeeeeee!!!!

     

    Greta Thunberg Rejects Climate Award, Rips Countries That Gave It To Her

    DailyWire.com
    Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg takes to the podium to address young activists and their supporters during the rally for action on climate change on September 27, 2019 in Montreal, Canada. Hundreds of thousands of people are expected to take part in what could be the city's largest climate march. (Photo by Minas Panagiotakis/Getty Images)  
    Facebook
    Twitter
    Mail

    Teen climate change activist Greta Thunberg, who dominated headlines last month after her speech to the U.N. declaring that we are “in the beginning of a mass extinction,” was offered an award this week from the Nordic Council for “breathing new life into the debate surrounding the environment and climate at a critical moment in world history.”

     

    But on Tuesday, the 16-year-old told the council that they could keep their climate prize and issued an ultimatum: she will not accept an award from them until they move on from “bragging” and using “beautiful words” to acting “in accordance with what the science says is needed” to combat global warming.

    Thunberg issued her official rejection of the award and rebuke of the council via an Instagram post Tuesday. The council has since confirmed that she indeed turned down their prize, which is worth a little over $50,000.

    “I have received the Nordic Council’s environmental award 2019. I have decided to decline this prize,” wrote Thunberg. Noting that she’s  traveling through California and thus unable to deliver her message in person, the celebrity activist wrote out her rejection speech.

    “I want to thank the Nordic Council for this award. It is a huge honour,” she wrote. “But the climate movement does not need any more awards. What we need is for our politicians and the people in power start to listen to the current, best available science.”

    Thunberg then specifically called out the Nordic countries for what she characterized as their self-congratulatory hypocrisy.

    “The Nordic countries have a great reputation around the world when it comes to climate and environmental issues,” she said. “There is no lack of bragging about this. There is no lack of beautiful words. But when it comes to our actual emissions and our ecological footprints per capita — if we include our consumption, our imports as well as aviation and shipping — then it’s a whole other story.”

    She then got more specific, hitting the Nordic nations for not doing enough to eliminate fossil fuels: “In Sweden we live as if we had about 4 planets according to WWF and Global Footprint Network. And roughly the same goes for the entire Nordic region. In Norway for instance, the government recently gave a record number of permits to look for new oil and gas. The newly opened oil and natural gas-field, ‘Johan Sverdrup’ is expected to produce oil and natural gas for 50 years; oil and gas that would generate global CO2 emissions of 1,3 tonnes.”

    “The gap between what the science says is needed to limit the increase of global temperature rise to below 1,5 or even 2 degrees — and politics that run the Nordic countries is gigantic. And there are still no signs whatsoever of the changes required,” she continued. “The Paris Agreement, which all of the Nordic countries have signed, is based on the aspect of equity, which means that richer countries must lead the way. We belong to the countries that have the possibility to do the most. And yet our countries still basically do nothing.”

    She closed with one of her trademark ultimatums. “So until you start to act in accordance with what the science says is needed to limit the global temperature rise below 1,5 degrees or even 2 degrees celsius, I — and Fridays For Future in Sweden — choose not to accept the Nordic Councils environmental award nor the prize money of 500 000 Swedish kronor,” she concluded.

    As reported by CNN, the Nordic Council confirmed in a news release Tuesday that Thunberg did indeed reject their award.

    Dressing down world leaders has become Thunberg’s modus operandi. In late September, the climate alarmist issued a similar statement to the United Nations which painted an apocalyptic picture of the world and included digs about the leaders being “not mature enough” to be honest about the dire situation.

    “My message is that we’ll be watching you,” she said in a speech that went viral, in part due to critics pointing to its hyperbolic claims. “This is all wrong, I shouldn’t be up here, I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean. Yet, you all come to us young people for hope, how dare you. You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words, and yet I’m one of the lucky ones. People are suffering, people are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairytales of eternal economic growth.”