• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Jonathan

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. Do you possess the capacity to recognize that you've failed to answer the questions?! Is there nothing about your failing to answer the questions that piques your curiosity? Has your failure to answer had no effect on you? Has it stimulated no thoughts? J
  4. 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 questi
  5. No, it really doesn't matter how the questions are phrased, nor how politely they're asked. You won't be answering them. You have nothing but bullshit. If you could answer the questions, you would do so, and so would Billy. Neither of you has the honesty to address the questions directly.
  6. 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
  7. 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 p
  8. 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
  9. 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 questio
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. Dipshit, were discussing climate, which, by definition, includes time as a factor. False. It's generally considered to be 30 years. 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
  15. 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,
  16. 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 t
  17. The above is not an answer. It’s a bunch of words related to the subject, minus an actual answer. 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
  18. Appaently you haven't grasped the questions. Please, slow down and try to read them more carefully. Here they are once again: 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
  19. 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
  20. 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 n
  21. 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