Jonathan

What's especially disturbing to me about the alleged professionals diagnosing Trump (and his followers) is that their descriptions of their alleged observations don't match reality. They speak of constant "tantrums," "meltdowns," "tirades," and such, to describe Trump's calm explanations of his disagreement with his political opponents. They infer the worst possible motives in any statement that he makes, assign those motives to him despite evidence to the contrary, and then judge his mental health based on nothing but those hostile inferences and false assignations. These are people who are practicing mental health professionals. It appears that climatology isn't the only profession which has been polluted by political activism. J

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!

Using psychiatry as a political weapon isn't new, but it's still very disturbing to me whenever I see it. It's a violation of "The Goldwater Rule," which was adopted by the APA in response to leftist activists back in the 60s misusing psychiatry to smear Barry Goldwater. The APA's position is that psychiatrists should not offer opinions or diagnoses of the mental health of public figures whom they have not examined and properly evaluated in person, and that offering such opinions is the misuse of psychiatry and is unacceptable and unethical. Jan 09, 2018 APA Calls for End to 'Armchair' Psychiatry WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) reiterates its continued and unwavering commitment to the ethical principle known as "The Goldwater Rule." We at the APA call for an end to psychiatrists providing professional opinions in the media about public figures whom they have not examined, whether it be on cable news appearances, books, or in social media. Armchair psychiatry or the use of psychiatry as a political tool is the misuse of psychiatry and is unacceptable and unethical... https://www.psychiatry.org/newsroom/news-releases/apa-calls-for-end-to-armchair-psychiatry

Yeah, I see behavior that suggests scientific stupidity as well as religiousness. The stubbornness, the refusal to answer questions and to address specific points, while lecturing everyone about civil discussion and not Othering the Others, smacks of close-minded religion.

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

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.

It could be some of both. At various points, I've gotten the vibe that Billy wasn't grasping what I was asking, and then I would try to put it into different words in order ro try to communicate more clearly, but at other points, I got the vibe that he grasped what I was asking but wanted to bury it, or "blank it out," as Auntie Ayn used to say. This is a old post where I was trying very hard to communicate to Billy during a point where I was getting the vibe that he wasn't grasping what I was asking, but might be open to trying to grasp it: Billy did not seem to understand the difference between hypothesis and conclusion. He reads of Tyndall's conclusions which have played a part in leading people to the hypothesis that man's activities may be causing global warming, and he seems to think that that's the end of it, rather than the beginning. He sees it as a conclusion that logically follows or extends from Tyndall's experiments, when it is actually an entirely separate hypothesis with many more variables, considerations, complications, etc., and which requires its own experimentation/testing, repeatability, etc. Maybe another hypothetical might help to illustrate: Let's play with some fictional metals and an alloy so that we don't get bogged down by someone stupidly arguing that real individual metals or alloys don't have the exact characteristics that I've claimed. Let's go with Schase, Creeg, and Farnah. Schase is a metal which has a hardness of 50 on the Jonathan's Fictional Scale, a strength of 70, and a mailability of 10. Creeg is a metal which has a hardness of 30, a strength of 20, and a maliability of 65. These properties have been known for a long time. Barton Twidgeley first scientifically tested the metals' properties back in 1723 and published his results. His experiments have been independently repeated and confirmed thousands of times since. Billy creates an alloy of the two metals, and calls it Farnah. He announces that, based on the known science of the two metals, we can therefore conclude with certainty that Farnah MUST have a hardness of 80 (because Schase's hardness of 50 plus Creeg's hardness of 30 equals 80), a strength of 90, and a maliability of 75. We reply that, um, no, we don't know that for certain, we would have to actually test Farnah's properties in order to confirm Billy's hypothesis of its hardness, strength, and maliability. Billy snarls that we should study Twidgeley's work. He asks where we stand on it. Are we rejecting Twidgeley's science, and all of the verifications that have followed, and calling it all fraudulent? Presented with this mindset, it's a tough call on whether it's religiousness, scientific stupidity, or both. J

Fun idea. Before Trump leaves office, for just one day, President Trump needs to identify as a woman, Donna Trump, for one day. There are only two possible consequences of this, either the Left will have to admit the absurdity of gender ideology and transgenderism, or the Left will have to celebrate Donald Trump as the first woman president. Beat Hillary to it. Beat Amy Klobuchar, beat Kamala Harris, beat Liz Warren. Donna Trump, that's what we'll call him for that one day. Donna Trump will become the first woman president. If he remains married to Melania, he will be the first gay president, not just the first gay president, the first lesbian president. Not just the first lesbian president, the first gay, married, lesbian president married to an immigrant! It will be a glorious moment...what is the left gonna do? They'll say, “No, you're not.” Yeah, well he could say, “How dare you, how dare you assume my gender?” They say, “Yeah well, you're just not really a woman.” Trump can say, “Did you say that to Caitlyn Jenner? Did you say that to all these transgender athletes, they're transgender, they're men who are pretending to be women who are beating all the women in these competitions, how dare you?” Then they’ll say, “Well okay, okay, let's say we grant that you're a woman, you're not the first woman president.” “So are you saying that transgender women are not real women?” “Well gosh, I guess that is sort of what I'm saying.”

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.

Thanks MSK. That does indeed resemble the mindset that I run into when I ask to see the science. J

Actually, when asked for the science, Billy's response is not that "we don't no need stinkin' science," but that I'm denying the science by asking him to present it. My asking seems to make him feel that I'm unwilling to change whatever view he imagines that I hold. Scroll up and re-read the different ways that I asked my questions, and then repeated them again and again. I didn't copy and paste all of the times that I asked. And we're still getting nowhere. Are my questions invalid? Are they, tee hee hee, ridiculous? If so, why? Someone explain, please.

This was MSK's octopus post:

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

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

What happened to Denmark? Trump made a suggestion. Mette Frederiksen responded publicly with snarky anger, snooty superiority, and delved into imagining the evil of unwashed monster parvenu Trump's motivations. Trump described her response as "nasty." Rather understated, I'd say. Then he postponed his visit to Denmark. So, what's the tee hee hee that I'm missing? Denmark is somehow now a massive pile of bloody victims in this? Oh, my Lord Jesus, look what happened to Denmark! J

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.

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.

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

I think Trump's probably been reading too much Clive Cussler, and is hoping to find ancient shipwrecks there. J

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!

https://images.app.goo.gl/mcu6uuSnxqmcAvJ1A

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

What usually begins with John Tyndall? Is it the answers to my questions? If so, cool! Let's hear them. J

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

Heh. "“You’re a much more reasonable guy in person than you seem to be on television.” Lol. J