Ellen Stuttle

1 hour ago, bradschrag said:

You aren't getting it. To know if humans are the primary contributions to climate change doesn't require a specific timeframe, it requires us to have a grasp on how the forcings impact the system. Climate is generally considered time period of at least 15 years, but that doesn't mean that is there were a 15 year cooling streak humans aren't still contributing to warming, it would just mean other forcings had more influence during that timeframe.

Now that is bold and blatant.  We just decree the answer we want as unfalsifiably true no matter what actually happens.

On January 30, 2020 at 4:44 PM, william.scherk said:

The names may mean nothing to a reader if the reader hasn't cracked open The Discovery of Global Warming.

On January 30, 2020 at 7:39 PM, Jonathan said:

Which "a reader" are you looking down your nose upon? Making assumptions about "the readers'" intellectual inferiority? Oh, dear, a reader can't understand anything unless he has read all of the books that Billy has assigned.

The only book I recall William's assigning is The Discovery of Global Warming.  His statement that "the names may mean nothing" to someone who hasn't read that book is indicative of his ignorance, not that of "the reader."

Ellen

16 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Are you taking questions about "Q" and/or "QAnon"?

I don't know what to make of that.  Why would you be asking me questions "about 'Q' and/or 'QAnon'"?

Ellen

15 hours ago, william.scherk said:

[Gotta run out for an hour on family duties. I will edit these jottings, and think about a way to re-start or re-configure, or reiterate or assuage concerns about fair-play and scientific stupidity, and in my dreams even chart a course for better communications ...]
[Back unlocked, my lazy mind has moved on to other items of interest and concern. If I only had one last question to ask, something bland, innocuous, throbbing with probity and good faith, incandescent with curiosity and wonder ... I'll check back in to post tomorrow morning after I listen to my "Jonathan and the Science" recording while cycling madly in all directions]

Back to the billows and swirls style of saying nothing specific - lengthily.

Ellen

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

Deleted. Gone. No longer here, departed. Gone up country to a good home.

The jottings you deleted yesterday were titled "The #QAnon phenomena, as explained by various outlets and commenters".

Did you mean the plural, or do you not know that "phenomena" is plural?

Ellen

39 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

I am reminded that Jonathan doesn't answer questions put to him in this thread. Being an asshole must be its own reward ...

HELLO???

"Jonathan doesn't answer questions put to him in this thread"???

What questions?  And look who's talking.  A person who's kept a supercilious nose in the air as if ignoring a bad smell, completely avoiding the challenge, when asked and asked and asked to provide anything resembling some decent science.

Ellen

39 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

Do you mean he used my words, doctored up my words and reposted?

I don't know if he did any doctoring of what you said, like he did with writing "Trump" as "Drumpf" in posts he quoted from Michael in the jottings which appeared at New Year's.  His jottings were titled "The #QAnon phenomena [sic], as explained by various outlets and commenters."  He included some quotes from you from posts you made in April 2018.

Ellen

43 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

Loser, the system is saying you quoted me nine hours ago about Q but it can’t show me.

More of the hidden stupidities you do?

Where is it?

It was another of the forward-dated jottings like those which appeared at New Year's.

(I happened to see the now-gone thread this morning.)

Ellen

Increasingly, academics who signed on to the scare as the sophisticated and properly "concerned" belief are getting panicky over the prospect of being made to look like fools.

Ellen

23 hours ago, william.scherk said:

the March primary elections in California

From the linked-to article:

Quote

[...] NPP [No Party Preference] voters may vote in a political party's partisan election if the political party, by party rule duly noticed to the Secretary of State, authorizes NPP voters to vote in the next presidential primary election. An NPP voter may request the ballot of one of the political parties, if any, that authorizes NPP voters to vote in the presidential primary election.

The following parties have notified the Secretary of State that they will allow No Party Preference voters to request their party’s presidential ballot in the March 3, 2020, Presidential Primary Election:

American Independent Party
Democratic Party
Libertarian Party

I.e, in California permission has to be given by a political party in order for no-party-preference (NPP) voters to vote in that party's primary.

The California Democratic, Libertarian, and American Independent parties have given permission for NPPs to vote in their primaries.  The California Republican Party has not given permission.

I think that it would be a tactical blunder for the California Republican Party to allow NPPs to vote in its primary.  Non-party-affiliated persons who want Trump defeated would take advantage and would vote in the Republican primary for some candidate other than Trump. 

Ellen

2 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

I used to hunt pheasant and quail in Nebraska. I talked business for hours with locals in their lunch counters in town. Hogs are big business. The installations are modern, industrial-scale. They are enormous facilities that generate enormous cash flow. It has been very competitive for decades. The people still at it are so because of their high business acumen. He is probably enormously intelligent and wealthy.

William does convey a sneer in his reference to "a pigfarmer" - as if he thinks that someone who raises pigs would be a dumb yokel.

Ellen

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Or maybe longing for an audience where feels he can make a difference.

Maybe simply longing for an audience, even a small one, and this is the only place he gets noticed.

Ellen

1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said:

It's like you are congenitally allergic to knowing.

Also to confronting.

Ellen

Michael,

Can you fix the formatting in the above post?  I couldn't.

Ellen

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Ellen,

Quote

I'm thinking something more along the lines of how Richard Dawkins wages his Crusade against Religion as the root of all evil in the name of Science. In other words, Scientism. Technocratic morality, so to speak. God is Science, the Devil is Religion, and Technocrats are the only ones fit to rule over mankind--as High Priests at that.

I agree William's no scientist, he's a foot soldier, but his approach is like the negativism preached by the Frankfurt school and postmodernism. It's to tear down (deconstruct) by messing with patterns and a mishmash of minutia, not build up. And he does it with the certainty of universal applicability only faith can provide.

Details to these types of people are not important. Besides, why bother with them when copy/paste data dumps or RSS feeds nobody is going to read work perfectly at times for the gradual erosion of public confidence in targets?

William is not doing science qua science. He is doing science as audience perception. When he presents science, think Postmodern Scientism Sermon and you will come close to how I see him.

Michael

Michael,

OK, we weren't on the same "religionist"-meaning wavelength.

I definitely see William as scientistic.  Very much so, and I've seen him that way practically from my earliest acquaintance with his posts on the old SoloHQ.  I think that he gets major self-esteem boost from considering himself fighting for Science-Good against Religion-Bad.  And he constantly preaches scientism in his indirect fashion.

So, agreed about his being religionist in the sense you've been meaning.

All the same, scientistic as I think William is, I nonetheless don't see him believing specifically in AGW because "scientists say."  He is aware that there are a lot of good scientists who say nay.  I think he mistakenly believes - because of developments in the Arctic - that the yay-sayers have been vindicated.  But fine with me not arguing about that.  I wouldn't want to get into the details in any case since I don't consider educating William worth the time and trouble.

Ellen

29 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

Which post should I see? 

This post:

29 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

Was I his target, not you? Now I think I was, and not you. He thinks that since I can plainly see the chemtrails being injected into the atmosphere I must also believe in super villains that dial up the weather every morning. I have stated before that chemtrails are probably pure research, but as usual Billy prefers his fantasies.

I thought that you were his target there.

Ellen

4 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

It's all quite simple. "Climate Change" is the core left religious belief that the liberals use to signal each other of the brotherhood. Express the slightest doubt and you risk banishment. Real science is irrelevant--WTF is that? And "that" isn't even a question.

--Brant

he's a bear baiter

I agree about "Climate Change" being a core (not the core, but part of the core) leftist religious belief.

Furthermore, William has many leftist beliefs.

However, contrary to the dominant opinion here, I don't think that William's belief in AGW comes from leftist, or more narrowly environmentalist religionism.  I think that in his case the belief comes straight from scientific ineptitude.

I don't see William talking about "The Environment" in reverential tones, as if speaking of the Holy of Holies with a quaver in the voice.  I don't see him going on about vanishing caribou herds, or hunters clubbing baby seals to death, or the (prodigiously baby-seal-eating) polar bears.

I think that William's big worry is the permafrost.  And I think that he believes that he learned the basic science needed from Spencer Weart and that the case for AGW is now clear cut - see the melting Arctic sea ice, what else do you need?  I think that that's the poor competence level of his reasoning - as he's given away with some things he's said.

Ellen

11 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

We could all feel you burn.

Then you weren't paying attention.  See my post on the thread ("Weather Gods").

Ellen

11 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

[William]'s not worth agreeing over, anyway.

With that, I agree.

Ellen

Michael,

We definitely have divergences in the respective ways we see William

You say that you've not seen him backing down.  But he never stood up in the first place!  As Jonathsn pointed out above, he hasn't - characteristically - revealed what he believed until some recent topics.  (I added the "characteristically" because I think that there have been some earlier exceptions, but not ones of such significance he risked being creamed like on current issues where he's revealed beliefs.)

With the climate issue and Jonathan's questions, it's true that what Jonathan is asking for can't be had.  No such studies exist.  But as I've said before, I think that William is too poor at scientific thinking to understand the questions.  He's maybe realizing by now how way over his competence level he is on the topic.

Where we agree is in thinking that he badly craves an audience.  I wonder if you've noticed - see his most recent status entry - that he's setting up his Twitter account so as to embed threads from OL.  I think he's making bids for attention from elsewhere.

Ellen

22 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Believe it or not, that [William's slithery avoidance] is part of what he does as persuasion.

I don't believe it.  I think it's what he does out of cowardice.

Ellen

41 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Ellen said, "Slither, slither," but all I see is you bumbling around in the dark with persuasion techniques. I fear The Slither is still in front of you after you move up a level or two in knowledge and skill. To be fair to Ellen and you, let's just say. persuasion-wise, you tried to slither.

I wasn't referring to what William is or isn't doing "with persuasion techniques."

I'm talking about his avoiding acknowledging forthrightly that he's been corrected in whom he takes to be genuine Q people.  His standard method of sliding around an issue with the backbone of a snake, not that of a human who stands erect and approaches something directly.

Ellen

10 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Pre-newbies, newbies, crypto-newbies, and post-truth newbies adjust their opinions ...

Slither slither ...

Ellen

Jon,

Thanks.

I'm glad to be alerted that there are ones to be suspicious of.  I've noticed disparities - but then there are plenty of disparities amongst O'vishes or any other ideological groupings.  In the Q case, however, the sound of it from what you're saying is that there are attempts at discrediting via pretenses of being fans.

Ellen

On September 7, 2019 at 6:33 PM, william.scherk said:

The  place to be on September 11?  Washington DC, apparently.

 

3 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

I have never heard of any of these clowns you hold up, Billy. It looks like bullshit to me. All of it. Try again.

Jon,

Is the AnOn66 personage someone you think is a fake Q fan?

I thought you'd posted some AnOn66 things, but maybe I'm misremembering.

Ellen