Jonathan

Members
  • Content Count

    7,211
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    56

Blog Comments posted by Jonathan

  1. 14 hours ago, william.scherk said:

    What else can I cop to, specifically?

     

    You can cop to not having answered my questions. Please visit the first few posts on the Part 2 version of this thread. Read the many different ways that I've asked the questions. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt in accepting the possibility that you haven't understood what I've been asking during all this time -- you haven't grasped my questions. I'll accept part of the blame for that. Please read the questions, and ask questions in return if you don't understand. I'll then do my best to try to explain what I apparently haven't succeeded in explaining so far.

    I had asked your friend Brad the same questions. He was sure that the information was out there and easy to find, and he was going to get right back to us with it. He never came back.

    In addition to those old questions that have been asked, re-asked, re-worded and asked again, only to be ignored or misunderstood or whatever, there is now an additional question that I would appreciate your answering, and that is the one about the libertarian group and its analysis of the false claim that 97% of scientists believe that mankind's activities are the primary driver/cause of global warming. Do you agree or disagree with their position? Why? Explain, please.

    J

  2. 19 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

    Translation: Stop pointing to facts and expecting responses, Jonathan, it is disagreeable and makes conversation impossible. Our conversation will have to consist of you keeping your mouth shut because when you open it you become crazy and disagreeable. Did you read Tyndall yet?

    Quite weak. Transparent. Such an asshole.

    Clearly, Billy is stumped.

    He's in, like, double checkmate right now. He doesn't know what in the hell to do.

    He won't let go of his beliefs, so his next-best option is to continue as usual with the same tired tactics.

    He's probably searching for another Meatball to come and try to save him, and maybe even hoping that NASA will come out with a statement about being caught in the 97% lie and offer up enough of an authority pose that Billy can repeat it while wishing really hard to believe in it. "Are you a scientist? No? Well, we ARE scientists, we're fucking NASA for Christ's sakes, and we say that it's totally scientific for us to throw out the 7,930 papers. In fact, now that we mention it, fuck you, we're going with 100%, because we just decided to throw out all of the papers except for the ones that take the position that we want to be true. Eat shit and die, science-denying fuckers!"

    J

  3. 18 hours ago, william.scherk said:

    Cross-post from the "Disagreeable" blog entry:

    -- from the first chapter of "How to Have Impossible Conversations."

    Impossible-Conversations-Chapter-1.png

    "Many people deal with this by hiding from contentious conversations. That's fine, and in certain circumstances it may even be the right thing to do. However, it's only..."

    Damn! Just when it was getting to the good part. I need to know!

    Billy, what's the rest of the sentence? What's the rest of the thought?

    Shit, I forgot, you wont answer because you're hiding from conversations with me.

    One thing that I hope the book covers is the standard notions of leading by example, practicing what one preaches, etc. -- showing that you are open to changing your beliefs, and that you're comfortable admitting to having been mistaken.

    J

  4. 2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

    Interested readers will enjoy a spun-off topic: 

     

    Hi Billy. Welcome back.

    Have you had an opportunity to review my post about the group that is criticizing the false 97% claim?

    It's a pretty short and easy to understand argument. Do you grasp it? Do you agree that they have a valid point?

    NASA pushed this falsehood, as have many other organizations. It's methodology is ridiculously flawed, yet NASA bought into it and repeated it. Slop. Carelessness. Or worse.

    Is it at all disconcerting to you that this garbage made it past the brightest scientists? Is this level of scientific competence acceptable to you, especially from an organization of NASA's prestige? Does it inspire confidence?

    J

     

  5. More actions that don't match words. Do as I say, nor as I do. Good for me, but not for thee.

    Internet Wrecks Obamas Over $15 Million Martha’s Vineyard Estate

    US President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama await the arrival of British Prime Minister David Cameron and his wife, Samantha Cameron, prior to a State Dinner as part of an official visit on the North Portico of the White House in Washington,DC SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images 
    August 24, 2019 
     210.1k views

    The man who spent eight years lecturing Americans about the evils of wealth and economic inequality, and fear mongered about global warming and climate change is reportedly set to buy a nearly $15 million beachfront Martha's Vineyard estate.

     

    According to TMZ, former President Barack Obama and his wife Michelle are in escrow for the multimillion-dollar mansion currently owned by the NBA's Boston Celtics owner Wyc Grousbeck. "The former Prez and First Lady have been renting the house this summer and loved it so much, we've learned they made an offer. The property is listed at $14,850,000. Our sources say they're paying less, but we don't know how much," the report says.

    The mansion is nearly 6,900 square feet, complete with seven bedrooms, a pool, outdoor fireplace, second-floor balcony jacuzzi, boathouse, and two guest wings, per TMZ.

    The irony of Mr. You-didn't-build-that and At-a-certain-point-you've-made-enough-money himself living so lavishly was not lost on the internet. Nor was the fact that the property is beachfront (with a massive carbon footprint!). If one were to truthfully believe in the climate hysteria echoed by Obama, this purchase would be highly unwise, as the house will surely be underwater in a matter of years.

    Founder of the satirical Babylon Bee Adam Ford pointedly posted:

    The Federalist’s Inez Stepman mocked, "You didn't build that, guys."

    Radio host Mark Simone wrote, "The Obama's totally reject socialism and buy another mega mansion – a $15 million dollar Martha's Vineyard estate that they'll only use a few weeks a year, in an attempt to set a new record for income inequality."

    "'At a certain point, you've made enough money.' – guy who got a $65M book deal then bought a 7-bdrm 7,000 sq-foot Martha's Vineyard mansion on 29 acres worth $15 million," the popular Twitter politico known as Razor jabbed.

    "If I genuinely believed in 12 years coastal areas would be under water, I wouldn't by a $15 million mansion on...Martha's Vineyard," said podcast host Amy Curtis. "Call me crazy, but it doesn't seem like Obama is taking climate change all that seriously."

    "Poor investment. Martha's Vineyard is literally going to be swallowed by the ocean if we don't hand over all of our money and freedom to the government to stop Global Warming," snarked Federalist contributor known as the "red-headed libertarian."

    "The estate is currently in escrow and it's not a done deal just yet. We're told there are contingencies so it's possible it could fall apart, but we're told so far it's a go," TMZ said.

    According to the New York Post, the Obamas recently spent $8.1 million on a nine-bedroom home in Washington, D.C. The Post also noted that Mr. Obama had a $40 million net worth in 2018, and combined with the former First Lady’s wealth, the duoare worth an estimated $135 million.

     
     
  6. On 8/18/2019 at 3:23 PM, william.scherk said:

    ...an avenue toward basic agreements, or agreed basics or agreement on key 'findings'...

    So, below I offer my first 'finding' for our platform on the foundation on the boulevard of agreement.

    I've posted this previously here on OL, back when it first came out.

    Billy, you had asked if there is an agreed-upon set of 'findings,' even for people who may disagree mightily on entailments. Do you agree that the article below offers an argument that is devastating to the falsehood that it refutes? Do you agree that the article is correct that the method used to arrive at the 97% conclusion is fatally flawed?

     

    Libertarian Group Demands NASA Remove False '97 Percent Consensus' Global Warming Claim

    Headshot-2.sized-50x50xf.png 
    BY TYLER O'NEIL JULY 10, 2019
    shutterstock_153806906.sized-770x415xc.j
    (Shutterstock)

    On Tuesday, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) sent NASA a formal complaint, asking the agency to withdraw the false claim that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that humans are the primary cause of global warming and climate change. The 2013 study purporting to demonstrate that number was fatally flawed and proved no such thing.

    "The claim that 97% of climate scientists believe humans are the primary cause of global warming is simply false," CEI attorney Devin Watkins said in a statement. "That figure was created only by ignoring many climate scientists’ views, including those of undecided scientists. It is time that NASA correct the record and present unbiased figures to the public."

    According to the CEI complaint, NASA's decision to repeat the false claim violated the Information Quality Act (IQA). Specifically, NASA claimed that "[n]inety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities." The claim appears on the NASA website on the page "Climate Change: How Do We Know?"

    The claim traces back to a study led by John Cook entitled "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature" and published in the journal Environmental Research Letters in 2013.

    The study is fundamentally dishonest, as the CEI complaint explains. The study analyzed all published peer-reviewed academic research papers from 1991 to 2011 that use the terms "global warming" or "global climate change." The study placed the papers into seven categories: explicit endorsement with quantification, saying humans are responsible for 50+ percent of climate change; explicit endorsement without quantification; implicit endorsement; no position or uncertain; implicit rejection; explicit rejection with qualification; and explicit rejection without qualification.

    The study found: 64 papers had explicitly endorsed anthropogenic global warming (AGW) with quantification (attributing at least half of climate change to humans); 922 papers had explicitly endorsed AGW without quantifying how much humans contribute; 2,910 papers had implicitly endorsed AGW; 7,930 papers did not state a position and 40 papers were uncertain; 54 papers implicitly rejected AGW by affirming the possibility that natural causes explain climate change; 15 papers explicitly rejected AGW without qualification; and 9 papers explicitly rejected AGW with quantification, saying human contributions to global warming are negligible.

    So how did Cook and his team come up with the 97 percent number? They added up the first three categories (3,896 papers), compared them to the last three categories (78 papers) and the papers expressing uncertainty (40 papers), and completely ignored the nearly 8,000 papers that did not state a position.

    Of the papers Cook's team characterized as stating a position, 97 percent (3,896 of the 4,014 papers) favored the idea of man-made global warming.

    See the problem? The study completely discounted the majority of the papers it analyzed (66.4 percent — 7,930 of the 11,944 papers analyzed). With those papers included, only 32.6 percent of the papers explicitly or implicitly endorsed AGW (3,896 of 11,944 papers).

    But it gets worse. Many of the scientists who wrote the original papers Cooks' team analyzed complained that this study mischaracterized their research.

    The survey "included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral," complained Dr. Richard Tol, professor of the economics of climate change at Vrije Universiteit.

    He argued that of the 112 omitted papers, only 1 strongly endorses man-made global warming.

    "That is not an accurate representation of my paper," wrote geography Ph.D. Craig Idso. "Nope ... it is not an accurate representation," Nir Shaviv, associate professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, wrote.

    Ph.D. physicist Nicola Scafetta complained that "Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AAGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission."

    Cook's team categorized his paper as one that "explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%." Scafetta countered, "What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun."

    Even including Scafetta's incorrectly categorized study, Cook's team only found 64 papers that explicitly endorsed man-made global warming and attributed more than 50 percent of it to human activity. That represents a minuscule 0.5 percent of the 11,944 papers. Even excluding the 66.4 percent of the papers that did not take a position, the 50 percent plus approach only accounts for 1.6 percent of all papers in the Cook study.

    The study — and the 97 percent figure that depends on it — is fatally flawed, and NASA has 120 days to respond to the CEI complaint. It is far past time people reject this false claim.

  7. We need to find pathways that indicate possible corridors that might lead toward avenues which will take us to the boulevard of agreement. Let’s see if we can find a foundation near that boulevard on which to establish a platform where we can place our gathered findings to discover if we all agree that they are indeed findings. But first, let’s make more hoops. We need many more hoops to jump through. Place them between us and the questions that Jonathan has asked. Hoops of every size and color. Line them on the pathways, corridors, and avenues. Hoops and more hoops, everywhere! Then let’s hypothesize about the hoops, and research everything about them. What’s the best material out of which to make hoops? Can we find a pathway to a corridor that leads to an avenue which will take us to the boulevard of agreement about the best material for hoops? I’m certain that we can.

  8. Hello? Billy?

    Are you pouting?

    You really, really badly want to pontificate on John Tyndall, but your glorious parade was rained upon?

    I'm sorry, pumpkin.

    So, let's have your little Tyndall party!!! Yay!!!

    Happy Tyndall Day, Billy! Tell us all about him!

    Did he make any predictions about global warming? Did those predictions come true in reality? Did he take a position on man-made climate change, hypothesize that man's activities would result in certain specific temperature increases, and then successfully predict future outcomes in reality?

    I know, I know. Predictions are icky. But they're a part of grownup science, Billy. You can't have your exciting doom and your controlling other people if you don't have successful predictions first.

    Okay, so can we get past Tyndall now? What's next? Let's pick up the pace, okay? What's the next very important non-answer to my questions that we need to explore in-depth?

    J

  9. 18 hours ago, william.scherk said:

    Recursion comes on its own schedule: Tyndall mentions on OL.

    Re-reading earlier commentary might indicate an avenue toward basic agreements, or agreed basics or agreement on key 'findings.'  Much of the superstructure of climatology rests on atmospheric chemistry/radiative physics ... Tyndall was one of the handful of pioneering inquirers who 'cracked the code' or demonstrated physical explanations for how the Earth maintained its "radiative budget" ...

    Bob has intelligently laid out this platform of 'findings' several times.  I recommend a kind of 'foundational' question posed to self: "Is there an agreed-up set of 'findings'" even for folks who may disagree mightily on entailments. Or 'Did Tyndall "get it right"?' 

    The questions of mine that you’ve been dodging address all of that, Billy. Drop the professor pose and the discussion leader/moderator ploy. You don’t want a discussion. You can’t handle a discussion. Buh, buh, but, perhaps we can find an avenue forward in which Billy instructs us what to do and how to think, and we can find common ground agreement in avoiding those icky questions that Jonathan asked and that Billy can’t answer?

    Billy, what is it about my questions that makes you think that we need instruction in climatological superstructure, radiative physics, etc.? I’ve simply asked you to demonstrate successful predictions via the scientific method. And somehow my doing so suggests to you that you need to give us a presumptuous little course on Tyndall rather than demonstrating the successful predictions? Hahaha!

  10. 2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

    Tyndall_setup_for_looking_at_aerosols.jp

      Reveal hidden contents

    ...

    ...

    ...

     

     

    And?

    When do we get the part where my questions are answered?

    How about you just skip ahead to that part?

    Heh. No? Still not able to answer the questions, so you're back to the game of posing as professor who is going to instruct the rubes about everything except the questions they've asked?

    Rather pathetic, Billy.

    J

  11. 29 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

    That's some mighty fine tasty steamed octopus!

    I've heard that Manhattan is 5 feet underwater. Is that true, Billy? Who should be punished first? How exciting!

    Anyway, do you have any answers to my questions yet? No? Still hoping that we'll forget what actual science is?

    J

    • Like 1
  12. Oh noes!

    Muh, muh consensus!

    Muh 97%!

    Libertarian Group Demands NASA Remove False '97 Percent Consensus' Global Warming Claim

    Headshot-2.sized-50x50xf.png 
    BY TYLER O'NEIL JULY 10, 2019
    shutterstock_153806906.sized-770x415xc.j
    (Shutterstock)

    On Tuesday, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) sent NASA a formal complaint, asking the agency to withdraw the false claim that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that humans are the primary cause of global warming and climate change. The 2013 study purporting to demonstrate that number was fatally flawed and proved no such thing.

    "The claim that 97% of climate scientists believe humans are the primary cause of global warming is simply false," CEI attorney Devin Watkins said in a statement. "That figure was created only by ignoring many climate scientists’ views, including those of undecided scientists. It is time that NASA correct the record and present unbiased figures to the public."

    According to the CEI complaint, NASA's decision to repeat the false claim violated the Information Quality Act (IQA). Specifically, NASA claimed that "[n]inety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities." The claim appears on the NASA website on the page "Climate Change: How Do We Know?"

    The claim traces back to a study led by John Cook entitled "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature" and published in the journal Environmental Research Letters in 2013.

    The study is fundamentally dishonest, as the CEI complaint explains. The study analyzed all published peer-reviewed academic research papers from 1991 to 2011 that use the terms "global warming" or "global climate change." The study placed the papers into seven categories: explicit endorsement with quantification, saying humans are responsible for 50+ percent of climate change; explicit endorsement without quantification; implicit endorsement; no position or uncertain; implicit rejection; explicit rejection with qualification; and explicit rejection without qualification.

    The study found: 64 papers had explicitly endorsed anthropogenic global warming (AGW) with quantification (attributing at least half of climate change to humans); 922 papers had explicitly endorsed AGW without quantifying how much humans contribute; 2,910 papers had implicitly endorsed AGW; 7,930 papers did not state a position and 40 papers were uncertain; 54 papers implicitly rejected AGW by affirming the possibility that natural causes explain climate change; 15 papers explicitly rejected AGW without qualification; and 9 papers explicitly rejected AGW with quantification, saying human contributions to global warming are negligible.

     
    So how did Cook and his team come up with the 97 percent number? They added up the first three categories (3,896 papers), compared them to the last three categories (78 papers) and the papers expressing uncertainty (40 papers), and completely ignored the nearly 8,000 papers that did not state a position.

    Of the papers Cook's team characterized as stating a position, 97 percent (3,896 of the 4,014 papers) favored the idea of man-made global warming.

    See the problem? The study completely discounted the majority of the papers it analyzed (66.4 percent — 7,930 of the 11,944 papers analyzed). With those papers included, only 32.6 percent of the papers explicitly or implicitly endorsed AGW (3,896 of 11,944 papers).

    But it gets worse. Many of the scientists who wrote the original papers Cooks' team analyzed complained that this study mischaracterized their research.

    The survey "included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral," complained Dr. Richard Tol, professor of the economics of climate change at Vrije Universiteit.

    He argued that of the 112 omitted papers, only 1 strongly endorses man-made global warming.

    "That is not an accurate representation of my paper," wrote geography Ph.D. Craig Idso. "Nope ... it is not an accurate representation," Nir Shaviv, associate professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, wrote.

    Ph.D. physicist Nicola Scafetta complained that "Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AAGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission."

    Cook's team categorized his paper as one that "explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%." Scafetta countered, "What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun."

    Even including Scafetta's incorrectly categorized study, Cook's team only found 64 papers that explicitly endorsed man-made global warming and attributed more than 50 percent of it to human activity. That represents a minuscule 0.5 percent of the 11,944 papers. Even excluding the 66.4 percent of the papers that did not take a position, the 50 percent plus approach only accounts for 1.6 percent of all papers in the Cook study.

    The study — and the 97 percent figure that depends on it — is fatally flawed, and NASA has 120 days to respond to the CEI complaint. It is far past time people reject this false claim.

    https://pjmedia.com/trending/libertarian-group-demands-nasa-remove-false-97-percent-consensus-global-warming-claim/?fbclid=IwAR0iYR3eYXZGECcwj4C7_8TurCUH4Gx5tno4vOVLG9kjx5YMh5z0J6onsNE

  13. On 7/2/2019 at 9:27 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    Jonathan,

    I skimmed Diana Brickell's own feed a bit. (Like you, I hadn't seen it before.)

    Did you see the mountain of love she heaped upon the hoax lady (CB Ford) in the Justice Kavanaugh hearing? This is a direct quote (from here).

    Ah... the matters of the heart...

    Ford is a psychologist, and knows stuff about the brain, and she mentioned some chemicals, technical terms and theories, and therefore she could not possibly have been mistaken, misremembering, or lying about Kavanaugh.

     

    On 7/2/2019 at 9:27 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    She also said she's a supporter of Beto O'Rourke. 

    Objectivism in action, that it is...

    :evil:  :)

    Michael

    She seems to really hate Ted Cruz, and was "supporting" Beto out of spite for Cruz. I haven't seen why she has these feelings. Lots and lots of anger. She seems to have found an outlet for some of it in making customer complaints to companies.

    She should think about getting a "I want to speak to your manager" haircut.

    managerhaircutt.jpg

     

    J

  14. 17 hours ago, william.scherk said:

    From Diana Brickell's Twitter list...

    Hadn't seen the Comrade's Twitter account previously.

    Eeesh. Did Greta Van Susteren swallow Alanis Morissette's nana?

    Anyway, wow, scrolling, notice the abandonment of Objective notions of judgement and justice, and the sheer rage? Put on you profiler hat. What do you see, Agent Hotchner?

    J

  15. On 6/17/2019 at 1:28 PM, Jon Letendre said:

    When you are called on the above toxicities, whine like a little girl who didn’t get her pony.

    And we're still waiting for the answers to my questions. Why is it taking so long? Is it really that hard to find the information? It's such a basic, simple request. Does the information not exist? What's the problem? Hello? Billy? Brad? Meatball? Tee hee hee?

    J

  16. I can't wait to witness the unintended consequences, and then the new plan to make things even worse.

    Canada plans to ban single-use plastics by 2021

    Reducing, reusing, or recycling 3 million tons of plastic waste

    By Mary Beth Griggs  Jun 10, 2019, 12:32pm EDT
     

    1139496824.jpg.0.jpg Plastic trash gathered during a clean-up in Germany.  Photo by Sean Gallup/Getty Images

    From plastic bags to straws, single-use plastic products have worn out their welcome in Canada. Today, the Canadian government announced that it plans to “ban harmful single-use plastics as early as 2021” in an effort to reduce the 3 million tons of plastic waste tossed out by the country every year...

    https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/10/18659644/canada-ban-single-use-plastics-bags-straws-2021

  17. 22 hours ago, william.scherk said:

     

    22 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    Cool.

    Here are the 11 steps in the article that are designed to induce one of the conversationalists to "do something different":

     
    Quote

    1. Know thyself
    2. Having a conversation about climate change takes practice
    3. Begin by asking for consent
    4. Be a good host
    5. Begin by asking, “What do you know about climate change?”
    6. Ask: “How do you feel about climate change?”
    7. Ask: “What do you think we can do about climate change?”
    8. Ask: “What do you think you can do about climate change?”
    9. Ask: “Would you like to learn more or do more about climate change?”
    10. Ask: “Can we talk about this again sometime?”
    11. Continue to talk about climate change.

    12. Ignore their questions.

    13. Do not acknowledge any gaps in your kowledge, or any inability of yours to address their questions or challenges.

    14. Serve tasty steamed octopus.

    15. Avoid their questions. Act as if they haven't been asked, even if they've been asking them for years.

    16. When you don't have answers to their questions, change the subject.

    17. Serve more tasty steamed octopus. Smile.

    18. Give them information and advice on how to be polite, and how to influence people. Don't follow the advice yourself. Offer hugs.

    19. Reward them with tasty steamed octopus, and a handjob if you're comfortable doing that.

    20. Bring in meatpuppets who you think are ringers. Display gleeful anticipation.

    21. More TSO.

    22. Ignore the fact that your meatpuppets didn't do any better than you've done in addressing any substance.

    23. Randomly choose one of the steps above and repeat. Then repeat it again.

    24. Tee hee hee. Never forget to tee hee hee during any of the above steps!

    25. All they can eat TSO, 24/7.

     

    • Like 1
  18. 6 hours ago, william.scherk said:

    Disputes ... "dishonesty" ... reflection ... discussibles ...

     

    Yeah, Judy the science denier whore has become the enemy. She used to be a real scientist, someone whose authority must be trusted without question, but now she's just a stupid denier skank who rejects all of science. She's a threat to the entire planet. Steps should be taken.

    J