Search the Community

Showing results for 'climate doom' in content posted by Jonathan.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Objectivist Living Corner Office
    • Purpose of Objectivist Living and Legal Stuff (please read)
    • Announcements
    • Tech Support / IPB Help Desk
    • Links
    • Web Stuff and Other Tech Issues (not OL specific)
  • Objectivist Philosophy
    • About Objectivism
    • 1 - Metaphysics
    • 2 - Epistemology
    • 3 - Ethics
    • 4 - Politics
    • 5 - Aesthetics
  • Objectivist Living
    • Meet and Greet
    • Objectivist Living Room
    • Art Gallery
    • Articles
    • Creative Writing
    • Writing Techniques
    • Persuasion Techniques
    • Psychology
    • Parenting
    • Humor - OL LOLOLOLOL
    • The Library
    • Quotes
    • Romance Room
    • Movies and Entertainment
    • Music
    • News and Interesting Articles
    • Events and Happenings
    • Tips for Everyday Living
    • Inky's Room
    • The Kitchen
    • Science & Mathematics
    • Sports and Recreation
    • Stumping in the Backyard
    • Objectivist Living Room Copy
  • Objectivist Living Den
    • The Objectivist Living Den
    • Offers from OL Members
    • The Culture of Reason Center Corner
    • The Objectivist Living Boutique
  • Corners of Insight
    • Barbara Branden Corner
    • Nathaniel Branden Corner
    • Ed Hudgins Corner
    • David Kelley Corner
    • Chris Sciabarra Corner
    • George H. Smith Corner
    • Corners of Further Insight
    • TAS Corner
    • ARI Corner
  • Outer Limits
    • Rants
    • For The Children...
    • The Horror File Cabinet
    • Conservative News
    • Chewing on Ideas
    • Addiction
    • Objectivism in Dark Places
    • Mideast
    • PARC
    • The Garbage Pile

Calendars

  • Objectivist Living Community Calendar
  • Self-Esteem Every Day

Blogs

  • Kat's Blog
  • wanderlustig
  • Hussein El-Gohary's Blog
  • CLASSical Liberalism
  • Ted Keer' Blog
  • RaviKissoon's Blog
  • hbar24's Blog
  • brucemajors' Blog
  • Ross Barlow's Blog
  • James Heaps-Nelson's Blog
  • Matus1976's Blog
  • X
  • Tee-Jay's Blog
  • Jeff Kremer's Blog
  • Mark Weiss' Blog
  • Etisoppa's Blog
  • Friends and Foes
  • neale's Blog
  • Better Living Thru Blogging!
  • Chris Grieb's Blog
  • Gay TOC
  • Sandra Rice's Blog
  • novus-vir's Blog
  • Neil Parille's Blog
  • Jody Gomez's Blog
  • George Donnelly
  • plnchannel
  • F L Light's Blog
  • Donovan A's Blog
  • Julian's Writings
  • Aspberger's World
  • The Naturalist
  • Broader than Measurement Omission
  • The Melinda's Blog
  • Benevolist Ponderings
  • Shane's Blog
  • On Creative Writing (Chrys Jordan)
  • Think's Blog
  • Kate Herrick's Blog
  • Rich Engle's Blog
  • thelema's Blog
  • cyber bullying
  • Shane's Blog
  • x
  • Mary Lee Harsha's Blog
  • Mary Lee Harsha's Blog
  • George H. Smith's Blog
  • Jim Henderson's Blog
  • Mike Hansen's Blog
  • Bruce's Blogations
  • Prometheus Fire
  • equality72521's Blog
  • Sum Ergo Cogitabo's Blog
  • Robert Bumbalough's Blog
  • Troll reads Atlas
  • dustt's Blog
  • dustt's Blog
  • Closed
  • Tim Hopkins' Blog
  • Objectivism 401
  • PDS' Blog
  • PDS' Blog
  • Rich Engle's Beyond Even Bat Country
  • Negative Meat Popsicle's Blog
  • politics and education
  • J.S. McGowan's Blog
  • Aeternitas
  • Shrinkiatrist
  • AnarchObjectivist
  • Brant Gaede's Blog

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests


Full Name


Description


Articles


Favorite Music, Artworks, Movies, Shows, etc.

  1. Tasty steamed humans in the near future? It's settled science. It's what we need to do in order to Save The Planet™. Isn't it exciting, Billy? First it will be voluntary, but, eventually, the virtuous wokescolds will have to decide who will be sacrificed for the greater good. SWEDISH BEHAVIORAL SCIENTIST SUGGESTS EATING HUMANS TO ‘SAVE THE PLANET’ The “food of the future” may be dead bodies. Paul Joseph Watson | Infowars.com - SEPTEMBER 4, 2019 A Swedish behavioral scientist has suggested that it may be necessary to turn to cannibalism and start eating humans in order to save the planet. Appearing on Swedish television to talk about an event based around the “food of the future,” Magnus Söderlund said he would be holding seminars on the necessity of consuming human flesh in order to stop climate change. Environmentalists blame the meat and farming industry for a large part of what they claim is the warming of the earth.According to Söderlund, a potential fix would be the Soylent Green-solution of eating dead bodies instead. He told the host of the show that one of the biggest obstacles to the proposal would be the taboo nature of corpses and the fact that many would see it as defiling the deceased. Söderlund also acknowledged that people are “slightly conservative” when it comes to eating things they are not accustomed to, such as cadavers. The discussion took place accompanied by a graphic of human hands on the end of forks. Lovely. Another proposal to save the earth which has been promoted by numerous mass media outlets and environmentalists is only somewhat less disgusting – eating bugs. No doubt Greta Thunberg and Prince Harry will be first in line for when cockroaches and human flesh is being dished out at the next international climate summit.
  2. Damn. This will make it harder to punish people. New NASA Data On Forest Fires, Deforestation Refutes Climate Alarmists Newly released data from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) refutes claims made by climate alarmists that forest fires are becoming more prevalent as a result of climate change and that the world is losing its forests... https://www.dailywire.com/news/51285/new-nasa-data-forest-fires-deforestation-refutes-ryan-saavedra?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=benshapiro
  3. The deniers deserve to have their property destroyed. We don't have time to wait for the fucking deniers to agree with us. We're reaching the end. Running out of clock. Pretty soon, we're going to have to take serious measures, like butchering the fucking deniers. We have the right to do it. The deniers are putting our lives at risk. They're trying to get us all killed. So it's self defense for us to disembowel them. It's virtuous. Destroy! Kill! Former Canadian Prime Minister: I Hope Deadly Hurricane Destroys Trump’s Home Photo by Don Emmert/AFP/Getty Images By HANK BERRIEN August 30, 2019 On Thursday, the only woman to ever serve as the prime minister of Canada issued a horrifying tweet in which she stated she wanted the deadly hurricane Dorian to strike President Trump’s home at Mar-a-Lago, Florida. In response to a tweet from a scientist warning that Dorian was a major hurricane threat to the East Coast this weekend and that Florida was in the hurricane’s crosshairs, Kim Campbell tweeted, "I’m rooting for a direct hit on Mar a Lago!" I’m rooting for a direct hit on Mar a Lago! https://t.co/cA14KQvjpC — Kim Campbell (@AKimCampbell) August 28, 2019 Fox News reported on Thursday, "The strengthening storm churned over the warm, open waters of the Atlantic on Thursday, upgrading to Category 2 strength late in the day, with maximum sustained winds of 105 mph, the National Hurricane Center reported. Forecasts showed Dorian tracking toward Florida’s east coast …Forecasters believe the storm will strengthen into a Category 3 hurricane by Friday, and stay well east of the southern and central Bahamas before making a turn toward Florida by Sunday afternoon." When someone pointed out to the unrepentant Campbell, "What the heck is wrong with you. There are real people who live and work there," Campbell snapped back, "get a grip," tweeting, "As there are in Puerto Rico- sorry you don’t get snark- but Trump’s indifference to suffering is intolerable! We'd also help if he tackled climate change which is making hurricanes more destructive! Instead, he will remove limits on methane! Get a grip!" After the resignation of Brian Mulroney in 1993, Campbell served for roughly five months as prime minister. She currently serves as the chairperson for Canada's Supreme Court Advisory Board. The Conservative Party of Canada, founded in 1867, changed its name to the Progressive Conservative Party in 1942. After Campbell, a Progressive Conservative who was serving briefly as prime minister, lost in the 1993 election, the party changed its name back to the Conservative Party; the party regained the leadership in 2006 under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who governed until 2015, when Justin Trudeau was elected to the position. After the party changed its name back to the Conservative Party, Campbell, complaining about the fact that the party did not subscribe to her environmentalist views, said, "Well, I’ve never joined the Conservative Party of Canada; I think (former prime minister) Joe Clark expressed it that he didn’t leave the party; the party left him. It is not the Progressive Conservative party. You know, our party was the party of the acid rain treaty, the Montreal protocol. I’m sorry; I have no time for climate deniers and anybody who is trying to pussyfoot around it." Asked whether she thought the Conservative party was "weak on that," Campbell answered, "Yeah, I do. They pussyfoot around, they don’t really come out and say, commit themselves to dealing with it, and they’ve produced a plan that has no target. It’s really a sop I think … if certain issues aren’t taken seriously, we don’t have time to hope for people, and if they’re saying things because they’re playing to a recalcitrant base, in theory, they’ll do differently, whatever, sorry, that’s too much of a risk."
  4. In an attempt at conversation and graciousness, I’ll give it another shot, and ask my questions in yet another way: What was the hypothesis that has been “settled"? Wasn't it that mankind’s activities are the primary cause of global warming — that global warming is happening due to mankind’s activities, and it would not be happening without those activities? That’s what it seems to have been? Was it that if mankind produces X amount of CO2 over time period Y, then the result must be temperature Z, and temperature Z will mean changes in climate, and catastrophic consequences? Here are the questions: How many years’ of data of CO2 emissions and temperatures were determined — prior to gathering that data — to be needed to be recorded in order to confirm the hypothesis, and why that amount of time? What duration of time was established as a falsification limit, after which the hypothesis would be considered to have failed if the predictions did not come true in reality, and why that amount of time? What other criteria were identified, ahead of testing, as falsifying the hypothesis? Why those criteria and not others? Or were none identified? Which one of the many climate computer models has succeeded in predicting future temperatures reliably and repeatedly? When — what date — was that single model proposed as one whose predictions were expected to succeed in reality? When did it become active, and its predictions began to be put to the test and compared to data collected in reality? Was the model unaltered, or, during testing, did it receive any revisions or updates? If so, on what grounds were those modifications deemed to be acceptable rather than as invalidating the original model? On what date was the conclusion determined that the model had met all of the criteria that had been established before testing, and that it had succeeded, had avoided falsification, and had been independently repeated and confirmed? Prior to all of that, how was it determined what the global temperature should be were it not for mankind’s activities? By what means and reasoning have natural drivers of temperature been accounted for and eliminated as affecting outcomes? More to come. But, please, start with the above. J
  5. How well do you think that Climate Doom would have sold as a Narrative if instead of the lie that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that we're fucking doomed, Gore, Obama, DiCaprio, et al, had pushed the real number of 32.6 percent (which is actually still an exaggeration considering the additional factors outlined by the libertarian group who is going after NASA)? Heh. J
  6. Yup. Actions versus words. Obama knows that the rising seas doom is total bullshit. He doesn't believe it. J
  7. It is interesting to discover that not buying into the climate doom narrative, and not wanting to punish the rich, are examples of craziness. Heh. What is wrong with you? We're going to stick it to those who have more than we do, and you're not going to support us and help us take what we want? You must be mentally ill!
  8. 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 SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images By AMANDA PRESTIGIACOMO @AMANDAPRESTO 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.
  9. Billy asked about Tyndall because he seems to have thought that we're all science deniers, and therefore would deny Tyndall's work? Perhaps I'm wrong, but that seems to have been Billy's thought process. Well, I've answered the test. And I had also posted my own little test. Billy didn't address it. Here it is again: 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 BY TYLER O'NEIL JULY 10, 2019 CHAT 302 COMMENTS (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.
  10. I ran through Billy's original version of this thread, and copy and pasted several of the times that I asked my questions: ----- Um, Billy, don't interpret or spin my words. Read them. Understand them. I'm saying exactly what I mean. As I wrote: "I ask to be able to review the science and to evaluate the success or failure of its predictions. Give me all of the information. 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 were the start and finish dates of the experiment, what is the unmolested data, the untainted control, and the unmanipulated historical record?" Provide the above, and then also demonstrate that it is reliably repeatable. --- Um, do you understand why the scientific method needs to be followed? Do you understand the fact that, regardless of how well-informed someone's hypothesis night be, there are always unknowns that might affect the system and the experiment? Each year we hear about new discoveries that scientists had no clue about, and new technologies that are improving our ability to track and model various phenomena which previously had been impossible. And yet there are still many things that we don't know, and many known phenomena that we are nowhere near to being able to isolate as not having significant effects. That's especially true in the realm of climatology. Show me 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. Nothing else is relevant. Pissing and moaning won't change that reality. --- Yeah, I don't know how to bridge the communication gap here. I'm not asking to be educated. I'm not asking for you to determine what you'll need to teach me, what holes in my knowledge you need to show me how to fill, what learning disabilities you'll need to detect in me and remedy, etc. I'm not asking you to guide me and nurture me. I'm not in need of anything like this: "Let's see, hmmm, do you know what molecules are? You've heard of those? Okay, well, that's wonderful, and maybe we can move along a little faster in your education than I had anticipated. Energy? Have you ever heard of that? Tell me what you think the term 'energy' means, and that might help me in gauging where I should start in your little education..." The resolution being debated in the world today is that significant global warming is currently happening, that it is caused primarily, if not completely, by human activities, that it is very dangerous, and perhaps even catastrophic. I'm not asking to see 'the science' which led people to hypothesize the above. Here's a colloquial version of the hypothesis as you seem to want me to learn it: "Scientist X discovered in 1904 that Y causes badness in certain amounts under certain conditions, therefore it logically follows that, since mankind is producing piles of Y, mankind is responsible for the levels of badness that we've adjusted our raw data to report, and The Doom™ is imminent." Such statements are not the end of science, but the beginning. They are the point where testing happens via a very well-defined, controlled method which conforms to the questions that I've repeatedly asked, and which is open to review and is inviting and welcoming of criticism. I'm asking to see 'the science' which puts the hypothesis to the test, and succeeds reliably and repeatedly. I'm asking for open access to all of the information. 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 were the start and finish dates of the experiment, what are the unmolested data, the untainted control, and the unmanipulated historical record? --- On this thread, I've been hoping to move beyond the panic ploys. Please convince me with the science, I request. Here is what I'll need to see, I say. I've looked for it myself, and haven't succeeded. After following the issue for decades, I've also seen past failed predictions disappear, never to be mentioned again, and others become altered mid-experiment. I've seen the press report blatant untruths, and scientists not correct them -- and I've seen brave individual scientists then step forward to correct the record, earning them vitriol from fellow scientists who were silent about the untruths. Let's cut through all of that and have a grown up conversation. Show me what I ask to see. It's what I need to be convinced. I need to see the science, not a substitute and some tee hee hees. I need to see reliably repeatable successful predictions, including all of the details that I've listed several times here. I'll wait. I'll continue to laugh at the non-responsive responses, the silent treatment games, the tee hee heeing, and the panic ploys. I'll wait. --- Cool. It really shouldn't be a difficult thing to figure out. Just answer the questions. Or tell us why you think that the questions are not valid, if that's the case. Do you not like the scientific method? Do you reject it as being silly or old-fashioned or something? If so, explain why, and then identify what you propose to replace it with. --- Show me 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. --- What Brad is doing is trying to bog down the discussion by overwhelming it with minutiae. The game is that we asked for repeatable, so Brad is going to pretend to not understand the context, and give all sorts of examples of repeatable in regard to noncontroversial pieces of the puzzle, while hoping that we didn't notice that he switched to talking about pieces when we were specifically asking for repeatable entire picture. It's like someone saying that granite floats on air. You ask for proof via repeatable experiments, and douchebag then goes into the repeatable science of the mineralogical composition of granite, and what evidence there is to label it felsic. Do you know what felsic means? Huh, stupid? No? But yet you have your big important opinions about rocks not floating! Science denier! That, and another tack is bickering about how badly Brad's being treated, and who said what. Boo hoo hoo. Brad has lots of time for all of that, but no time for answering my questions. That's fanboy/activist stuff, not science. Science is actually the mindset that the alarmist fanboy/activists ridicule: critical thinking, skepticism, caution, testing, etc. A truly scientific mindset is that of trying as hard as one can to find flaws in any theory. I don't get the impression that Brad, Meatball2, or Billy have ever taken that approach. Their mindset seems to be that of confirmation bias, heroically fighting the silly "denier" rubes, tee hee heeing, and high-fiving. But maybe I'm wrong. I guess Meatball2 is gone, but I'd like to ask Brad and Billy to tell us about their critical examination of the idea of anthropogenic climate change. What are your biggest criticisms? Do you have any? What holes have you found in the theory? What are the biggest weaknesses in whatever theory you have the most confidence? Do you feel that you have to hide them? Show us your critical scientific side rather than just the fanboy side. After all, even the IPCC identifies severe weaknesses. It admits to significant limitations. Anyway, there's no need for the trick of trying to obscure the forest with leaves. It's really as simple as X amount of CO2 over time period Y should equal temperature Z. Sounding like a broken record: 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. --- Great. Let's start with time and falsifiability. 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? --- 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? ----- J
  11. Billy has closed further comments on his "Placeholder for GW/CC 'How I got here’” climate doom thread, and just when I thought that he might finally be interested in actual discussion. So, I’m starting this thread to answer some of the responses that he gave in his last post — and thanks, Billy, for those responses, instead of your typical non-responsiveness. Billy replied to me: My understanding is that Tyndall's testing of his hypotheses were well-defined and carefully controlled, and his results were and are repeatable. I’ve been asking you to provide the same in regard to hypotheses of man-made climate change. Do you understand that Tyndall’s work does not answer my questions? Billy: You reap what you sow, Billy. Heh. Don’t like being accused and psychoanalyzed? Hmmm. Maybe consider not doing it to others. Let’s have a conversation. I’ve been asking for one for years. I’ve been asking the same questions, and you’ve been ignoring them, dodging them, and serving “tasty steamed octopus” (in other words, posting everything but answers to my questions while acting as if you’re answering the questions). I’ve also asked if you have a problem with my requests for you to show me the science, and, if so, to explain why you think that my questions are invalid, improper, not applicable, or whatever. No response. No explanation. Instead of having a discussion, you decide to ignore questions, and then devise ways of testing what I know about Tyndall or Weart, or whomever else. You don’t need to know how much I know. Science isn’t about establishing authority. He who knows the most doesn’t become right just by having the most knowledge. All that matters is repeatable results of successfully tested predictions of hypotheses. That’s what I’ve been asking you -- over and over and over again -- to provide. That’s the question that I’ve been asking you to provide the answers to. Show me the science. I’ve displayed the patience of a saint. I’ve asked countless times in regard to the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change: "Show me 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." My belief and understanding is that you have not answered my questions. Nor did Brad when he was here, nor the second meatball. I’m not interested in suspecting what will happen in regard to "predictions of global warming to come.” Predictions are not the end of science. For the billionth fucking time, I’m interested in the predictions of the past having come true in reality after having been precisely defined. I'm interested in climatology following the requirements of the scientific method. As I’ve asked ad nauseam: "I'm asking to see 'the science' which puts the hypothesis to the test, and succeeds reliably and repeatedly. I'm asking for open access to all of the information. 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 were the start and finish dates of the experiment, what are the unmolested data, the untainted control, and the unmanipulated historical record?” "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? "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?" It isn’t a card game. Science isn’t about seeing the other guys' cards. It’s about identifying reality via a specific process. You seem to want to believe that I have beliefs that you need to counter. I don’t. I’m asking to see the science. No other method will work. I don’t accept substitutes, and all you’ve been focusing on is substitutes. Focus on the science. Focus on answering my questions rather than trying to guess my beliefs so that you can formulate a strategy to counter them. I haven’t read it. I’ve come across references to it, and quotes from it. I’m neither excited about reading it, nor opposed. Does it answer my questions? If so, please just cut to the chase and say so. Cite the relevant passages. There’s Billy doing exactly what he complains about when the Others™ do it right back to him. Anyway, to answer your question, no, your recommendation isn’t the kiss of death. Why are you so passionate about getting me to read it? Does it address the questions that I’ve been asking for years? If not, why would I find it worth reading? Are you hoping that, since it convinced you, it will do the same for me, and make me forget all about the questions that I’ve asked that you can’t answer? You poor darling. Victims who can’t take what they dish out are the most victimized of all victims. It's do damned unfair that people treat you almost as poorly as you treat them. Yes, please do come back if you learn that new material, especially if it answers my questions. We really don't need any more of your new material that doesn't answer the questions, or doesn't explain why you won't answer the questions. J
  12. 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 BY TYLER O'NEIL JULY 10, 2019 CHAT 302 COMMENTS (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.
  13. 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
  14. Oh noes! Muh, muh consensus! Muh 97%! Libertarian Group Demands NASA Remove False '97 Percent Consensus' Global Warming Claim BY TYLER O'NEIL JULY 10, 2019 CHAT 302 COMMENTS (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
  15. "Scientists" and "experts" have decided that our current technologies are the end. We won't develop anything new in the future. We won't address any problems with our current usage of devices and the effects that they have on us. Doom! They've predicted it, so it's settled science. https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/weird-news/787859/2100-humans-tech-obsessed-hunchbacks-double-eyelids Hunched backs and double eyelids: How tech-obsessed humans might look in 2100 SCIENTISTS have imagined how humans may look in the future – and it’s not pretty. Humans in fewer than 100 years may also have claw-like hands from gripping their phones.
  16. We need to take action now. And by "we," I mean Others™. In the short mean time, Billy, I know that you're not going to (can't) answer any of my previous questions about "the science" (tee hee hee), but might you have enough intellectual curiosity to offer up some thoughts on what "the science" should consist of? What are the ground rules? What is the methodology? Can you give some idea of how you think it should work, and maybe show that proposed method successfully applied to phenomena other than or in addition to climate? No? More steamed octopus? M-Kay. J
  17. Heh. No, it's not a setback at all. Not in the slightest. The critic is a mere meteorologist, an insect, and not an officially recognized and accredited Climate Science Authority. Plus, he has a history of mildly criticizing officially recognized and accredited Climate Science Authorities, or at least of expecting them to not employ double standards. He is therefore a "science denier," and soon he will have to be destroyed. Aroused yet, Billy? Yes, I thought so! What do you look forward to the most? What's your favorite part: strangling, emasculation, evisceration, beheading, or placing the head atop a pike? Which is most satisfying to you, the screams or the blood?
  18. The new settled science of advanced imaging is that that individual storm was caused by pretend climate activists whose carbon footprints are hundreds of times larger than the average person. They are a very large group. J
  19. Yes, we need to mete out the punishments right now. We can't wait any longer. The climate gods crave blood. We must quench their thirsts. The Little Others™ must experience more hardship while forced to pay for our studies and cushy lifestyles. Pain. Glorious austerity. It's so very exciting! J
  20. Billy, your religion didn't do too well in Australia. Btw, why do "Labor" parties continue to call themselves "Labor" now that they're openly opposed to workers and labor? Australia’s Conservatives Win Surprise Election Victory Voters in mining areas turned on center-left opposition that had campaigned on climate change issues, preliminary results show SYDNEY—Australia’s conservative government eked out a surprise victory in Saturday’s national elections after voters in resource-rich districts turned against center-left opponents who had put climate change at the heart of their campaign... https://www.wsj.com/articles/australias-conservatives-appear-set-to-win-surprise-victory-11558186774
  21. Let me guess before following the link: Doom? Punishment and control needed? Freedom bad? J
  22. No one is asking about ice cream octopus. Have you forgotten the questions again? Heh. How is it that you are so passionately, actively uninterested in them? Here they are again: 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
  23. Are you suggesting that the adjustments referred to above are the only adjustments or modifications that have ever been made by any and all scientists and scientific organizations in regard to the issue of climate change??? No, its observation, and also a prediction, which could turn out to be wrong, but I doubt that it will. And I haven't suggested a conspiracy. One's not needed to explain the behavior of alarmist zealots. They don't need to organize, and I don't believe that they do, at least not often. It's probably pretty rare. No, they're motivated and rewarded more than sufficiently without any conspiracy behind it. i've seen the treatment of dissenters. It's exactly as I described. J
  24. Please let us know when you can say, and when you can address all of the questions that I asked. One of the requirements that I've insisted on repeatedly here is that all information be disclosed, and that would include all of the relevant dates. And keep in mind that it would also include any modifications which were made mid-experiment to, say, instruments, methods of collecting and handling data, etc. -- you know, the type of things that actual real true scientists, as opposed to activists, would be eager to know about and to consider critically, and which, in many cases, should properly be considered the marking of the end of the experiment and beginning of a new one. One thing that I've found both amusing and disturbing during my decades of observing the climate scares is how often I've seen predictions not working out, and then, all of a sudden, mid-experiment, voilà, hey, we just realized that we need to apply a new method and equipment, and, whaddayaknow, look what happens when we apply it: our predictions just happen to work out perfectly now! And a month from now, there will no longer be any reference to our predictions not having worked out prior to our adopting the new method and equipment, and, in fact, there will be no reference to the changes in method and equipment, or at least not any that are easy to find. Erased. Forgotten. The graphs will be redrawn to represent the new, refined and enhanced predictions and results. Yay! Let's dispense with that kind of bullshit, please. Bring everything out into the sunlight. J
  25. What Brad is doing is trying to bog down the discussion by overwhelming it with minutiae. The game is that we asked for repeatable, so Brad is going to pretend to not understand the context, and give all sorts of examples of repeatable in regard to noncontroversial pieces of the puzzle, while hoping that we didn't notice that he switched to talking about pieces when we were specifically asking for repeatable entire picture. It's like someone saying that granite floats on air. You ask for proof via repeatable experiments, and douchebag then goes into the repeatable science of the mineralogical composition of granite, and what evidence there is to label it felsic. Do you know what felsic means? Huh, stupid? No? But yet you have your big important opinions about rocks not floating! Science denier! That, and another tack is bickering about how badly Brad's being treated, and who said what. Boo hoo hoo. Brad has lots of time for all of that, but no time for answering my questions. That's fanboy/activist stuff, not science. Science is actually the mindset that the alarmist fanboy/activists ridicule: critical thinking, skepticism, caution, testing, etc. A truly scientific mindset is that of trying as hard as one can to find flaws in any theory. I don't get the impression that Brad, Meatball2, or Billy have ever taken that approach. Their mindset seems to be that of confirmation bias, heroically fighting the silly "denier" rubes, tee hee heeing, and high-fiving. But maybe I'm wrong. I guess Meatball2 is gone, but I'd like to ask Brad and Billy to tell us about their critical examination of the idea of anthropogenic climate change. What are your biggest criticisms? Do you have any? What holes have you found in the theory? What are the biggest weaknesses in whatever theory you have the most confidence? Do you feel that you have to hide them? Show us your critical scientific side rather than just the fanboy side. After all, even the IPCC identifies severe weaknesses. It admits to significant limitations. Anyway, there's no need for the trick of trying to obscure the forest with leaves. It's really as simple as X amount of CO2 over time period Y should equal temperature Z. Sounding like a broken record: 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. J