Jonathan

Members
  • Posts

    7,232
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    56

Everything posted by Jonathan

  1. Indeed he did. Now, answer the questions. If you want to go with Arrhenius, plug in the answers to the questions.
  2. 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.
  3. 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
  4. Did you answer my questions? Have you identified all of the information? You're an amazingly slow learner. J
  5. 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.
  6. 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. 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. 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
  7. 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?
  8. Oh, no! If you can't pay attention, little buddy, no worries! Here's the essential questions once again:
  9. 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. 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
  10. 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?
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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.
  16. 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
  17. 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