bradschrag

Members
  • Content Count

    128
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by bradschrag

  1. When spouting government conspiracies of control, the burden of proof is on the spouter.
  2. Apologies, page 14 of the pdf or page 266 as it's labeled in the paper. And I'd suggest taking your focus off the red herring and stick to the simple question. Did he or did he not claim rising co2 would cause the planet to warm?
  3. Did he or didn't he claim increasing co2 would increase temperature? Page 16, if you want to check your answer before responding. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjNiciivbjnAhUH7awKHTVnCdoQFjAFegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw1Cm1sb1Pjyd2Sph86m9hd0
  4. You too have failed to answer. How does Arrhenius hypothesis fail your criteria for a falsifiable hypothesis that increasing co2 would cause warming?
  5. Arrhenius hypothesized early on (1895) that changes in co2 was a linked to global temperatures. He hypothesized that increasing co2 would warm the planet. His sensitivity parameter was on the high side. Given the resources he had, I think his number is remarkable. He also stated that the industrial revolution would drive co2 levels up. But I think you know this already. So how does this not fit the criteria of your question?
  6. Most would consider a mad extinction bad. There previous mad extinction too over 10k years to occur, it's not an overnight or even single generation event. More conspiracy. That's yours to deal with, not mine. Bring evidence next time.
  7. That's a straw man, unless of course you can back it up with evidence of a pro AGW individual claiming to be God. I can point you to a denier claiming to be such on Twitter, FWIW. That's an oxymoron. Beat you pick which side of the statement you want to reinforce. Could be seen as hypocritical to play both sides simultaneously. That's a conspiracy theory. Yes, indeed it was. Yet, to it you responded with nil content.
  8. I didn't say it answered all the questions, and I explicitly stated I want going to answer all of them at once. As I said, there's no point in wasting time answering all questions when there is disagreement on a single one. What would happen if I answered all of them? Nothing, you'd still be in denial. So in regards to the falsifiable hypothesis, with dates, what issue do you have with the list I linked you to?
  9. Humans perception isn't the best tool to pick up a signal like climate change that occurs so gradually, relative to our lifespans.
  10. 14 of 17 climate models published between 1970 and 2001 accurately projected future warming. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00243-w
  11. These are your words. I have you a list of hypothesis. They have the years the predictions were made. The would be falsified had they not come true. What else is there to answer in regards to your question?
  12. I'll answer one at a time, there's no need to spam answers to all your questions if you won't accept a single answer. So again, falsifiable predictions, I've given a list, it has the years they were made. Are you still questioning this?
  13. No, that isn't ad hom. It's pointing out that while surface temperatures slowed for a period in the mid 90's to early 2000's (only one 1 data set mind you), other metrics, OHC continued without hesitation. It's not attacking your character to point out that the evidence doesn't illustrate a pause that you insist on.
  14. Again, that's the kind of argument that takes place at the bottom of the pyramid. Dismissing a point based on the character, rather than the argument is ad hom.
  15. Sorry, I guess I'm not understanding the issue in regards to falsifiability. Once again, falsifiable hypothesis and their approx date: And their conclusions:
  16. Point to where I looked down on someone because they were a vacuum salesman. Remember, my concern was your usage of my occupation against me. I don't have regard for an individual's occupation when it comes to discussing science. If you think otherwise of me, I'd suggest you find an example of me dismissing others based on their occupation or education, rather than the merit of their argument before insinuating again that I was looking down on someone else based on their occupation. Talk about acting in bad faith...
  17. And for the record, I want referring to your question about the government job as ad hom. I was referring to your remark of being a vacuum salesman. I can only imagine that (or whatever my job might be) as being used as an attempt to discredit any argument I make. So please do enough me as to how I'm indirectly using the term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem It's interesting to, given your perception of successful individuals in government jobs, that your remark shouldn't be taken as an attack. Thanks for sharing it. I honestly thought the government remark was snark, I now see it was a bit more sinister.
  18. Interesting take. So if I have a government position, and an successful, I must not have much merit. Talk about a loaded question. No, my job had nothing to do with government and I'm not sure why you assumed it has anything to do with climate. I've answered the questions to the best of my knowledge, and frankly have to sort through or ignore at least 2-3 condescending remarks aimed at me just to get to some reasonably asked question. That you want to police me while fostering an environment for others to behave that way is simply hypocritical and shallow. Brant allied a reasonable and simple question without the need to resort to attacks or remarks. How about you scroll up and see the kind of response he was given. Better yet, how about making a response to my reply to him so there can be a conversation.
  19. To invalidate co2 as the current driver of warming would require someone to hypothesize and demonstrate so other mechanism for the warming. They'll also need to dismantle the radiative physics that's understood, tested and modeled that hello visualize the greenhouse effect. If they can't dismantle the radiative physics, they'll need to explain where the extra heat from increased co2 is going. Their mechanism(s) needs to handle the cooling of the stratosphere as well and somehow account for cooling from eruptions like Pinatubo while avoiding the radiative physics that explains why eruptions of that scale cause cooling. Because if they accept that the volcano causes cooling because of the radiative physics, they are going to be hard pressed to dismiss the radiative physics behind greenhouse gases. What mechanism do you hypothesize is driving the current warming? Edit: perhaps you missed it, but theres a link from a couple days ago with a thread of falsifiable hypothesis revolving around AGW, some of which I've borrowed here already. Might help to look that over.
  20. Attacking arguments based on an individuals character isn't a conversation. So far Michael has made nothing but empty remarks toward me. There is no reason in his remarks to be embraced.
  21. I fail to see how what I do for a living is relevant to the conversation, unless ad hom is your preferred approach.