Jonathan

10 hours ago, bradschrag said:

And I've already stated, I'm not going to attempt to address all at once as it would be pointless.

How have you concluded that it would be pointless? By assigning to me traits that I don't possess?

Long ago, Billy asked what it would take to change one's mind. I answered. I identified what it would take. Like you, Billy doesnt like my answer. After hearing it, he decided that he wanted to convince me to accept a different method of changing my mind.

What is actually pointless is your constant attempted workarounds, and your shitty projections of yourself on to me (or us). Fuck you and your excuses and your baseless presumptions about what would or would not be "pointless." 

J

12 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

(2) tangentially warning Jonathan against accepting your description of material you linked.  (J, "97%"  Similarities.)

Ellen

Yeah, thanks. I know that everything must be taken with a grain of salt with this dude. Conversationally, I'm willing to momentarily entertain, for the sake of argument, some of Brad's assertions or sources, but I am aware that in the event that if he ever does attempt to answer my question, I'll have to go over his answers with a fine tooth comb. His game is what can he sneak past 'em. 

13 hours ago, bradschrag said:

Is or isn't the burning of fossil fuels driving up co2 concentrations in the atmosphere?

Define "driving up."

Or better yet, just answer the questions instead of working so hard to avoid them. How is it not clear to you yet that I'm not going to settle for your attempts at a workaround? 

Which single hypothesis, and it's resulting predictions and testing, do you want to discuss? That mankinds activities are responsible for 1.6 percent of warming that has been reported? Or 32 percent. Or 68? 97? Or that mankind's contributions are causing a catastrophe, an existential threat? The Statue of Liberty will be up to her chin in ocean by 2004 2028? Sharknadoes galore? What?

All that I'm asking for is that you define your terms and to then stick to them, instead of pulling all of the slippery shit of shifting between different hypotheses, predictions, cooditions of falsifiability, etc.

29 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

When spouting government conspiracies of control, the burden of proof is on the spouter.

Who  "spouted" a "government conspiracy"?

J

23 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

Apologies, page 14 of the pdf or page 266 as it's labeled in the paper. 

 

And I'd suggest taking your focus off  the red herring and stick to the simple question. Did he or did he not claim rising co2 would cause the planet to warm?

Indeed he did.

Now, answer the questions. If you want to go with Arrhenius, plug in the answers to the questions.

7 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

I'll address her conspiracies when she finds Russell's teapot.

You don't understand the burden of proof. Not even slightly.

4 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

Did he or didn't he claim increasing co2 would increase temperature? Page 16, if you want to check your answer before responding.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjNiciivbjnAhUH7awKHTVnCdoQFjAFegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw1Cm1sb1Pjyd2Sph86m9hd0

Um, there is no page 16 at the link you posted, dicknibbler, but there is this statement on the first page:

Contrary to some misunderstandings, Arrhenius does not explicitly suggest in this paper that the burning of fossil fuels will cause global warming, though it is clear that he is aware that fossil fuels are a potentially significant source of carbon dioxide (page 270), and he does explicitly suggest this outcome in later work.

Just now, Jonathan said:

The above is all just conspiracy theories.

And the above is too.

16 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Arrhenius hypothesized as a musing maybe, a "what if," and he wrote a second paper with caveats pertaining to the effects of water vapor.  Humans-are-doing-it advocates who cite Arrhenius generally don't know (or, in some cases, deliberately misrepresent) what Arrhenius really said.

Also:  Calling a liar a liar does not a conspiracy theory make.

Ellen

The above is all just conspiracy theories.

27 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

You too have failed to answer. How does Arrhenius hypothesis fail your criteria for a falsifiable hypothesis that increasing co2 would cause warming?

Is that the hypothesis? Is that the extent of it? Isn't there more involved, like how much warming, etc.?

This is why we need a precise identification of the hypothesis in question, because douchebags like you will switch back and forth between several, all while treating them as if they are the same one.

J

48 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

Arrhenius hypothesized early on (1895) that changes in co2 was a linked to global temperatures. He hypothesized that increasing co2 would warm the planet. His sensitivity parameter was on the high side. Given the resources he had, I think his number is remarkable. He also stated that the industrial revolution would drive co2 levels up. But I think you know this already. So how does this not fit the criteria of your question?

Did you answer my questions? Have you identified all of the information?

You're an amazingly slow learner.

J

41 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

Most would consider a mad extinction bad. There previous mad extinction...

Mad extinction is a conspiracy theory.

2 hours ago, bradschrag said:

That's a conspiracy theory.

22 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

More conspiracy. That's yours to deal with, not mine. Bring evidence next time.

Douschrag thinks that accusing others of being conspiracy theorists is a very powerful weapon. He does it often, even when it's clearly not applicable. One of us might even specifically note that we're having a bit of fun speculating, but, no matter, Douschrag has already been triggered, and cannot prevent himself from running to fetch and use his magic weapon. Devastating.

1 hour ago, bradschrag said:

I didn't say it answered all the questions, and I explicitly stated I want going to answer all of them at once. As I said, there's no point in wasting time answering all questions when there is disagreement on a single one.

 

See, the reason that all of the questions go together is because they apply to the same specific single hypothesis, and only to it.

Your trick of answering one bit at a time has the purpose of shifting between different hypotheses while hoping that no one notices. A good example would be one of the items on the list that you posted on the issue of falsifiability was a hypothesis about Pinatubo. The subject at hand is the hypothesis that mankind is the primary driver of global warming, and has been for a long time. The subject is not the predictions of the effects of the eruption of Pinatubo. The subject at hand is not the other isolated items on the list.

Perhaps you're confused due to the inclusion of one of the questions on my list. That question asks that you specifically identify the hypothesis that was proposed prior to predictions and testing. In case you're confused (or, more likely, in case you're hoping to cause confusion), that doesn't mean that I'm asking you to provide any hypothesis that pops into your head -- say, about Pinatubo, for example -- but that the hypothesis must be that mankind is the primary driver of global warming, and that the people who proposed the hypothesis specifically identified it as such. Understand?

Earlier in this discussion, Billy clipped and pressed a floret of mine: "Oh, okay, well then let's talk about the repeatable science of making vinegar and baking soda volcanoes! Douchebag." That was in response to your douchebag maneuver of switching hypotheses and hoping that we didn't notice. The idea behind the comment is that you will look for any and every opportunity to slither and stray from the actual subject in order to attempt to pass off something that doesn't actually address the subject at hand, but which you only hope appears to do so.

If I demand falsifiability and repeatability, you will cite falsifiable and repeatable experiments, but ones which do not pertain to the subject at hand. The same is true of predictions and experiment dates and durations, and the choice of definitions: I ask that you identify the terms and conditions of the specific hypothesis and experiments, and instead you substitute your own idiotic pondering about how long of a time period you personally want as the defining aspect of "climate," and therefore how long of a time period that you feel should be required to be tested. Numbnuts, the questions are not about you and your moronic opinions, but about what the scientists themselves have actually proposed, defined, identified, and delimited in their hypotheses, predictions, etc.

Quote

What would happen if I answered all of them? Nothing, you'd still be in denial. 

Specifically what are you accusing me of denying?

Anyway, what would happen if you, or Billy, were to provide actual answers to all of my questions would be that we would then apply the identified criteria to reality. Not just to a portion of it here or there, and not while selectively omitting falsifiability on this section or repeatability on that section.

Quote

So in regards to the falsifiable hypothesis, with dates, what issue do you have with the list I linked you to?

The issue that I have is that you haven't answered the questions, but, once again, have only answered your own substitute questions which you seem to think are going to fool us into believing that you've actually answered the questions that I asked.

J

13 hours ago, bradschrag said:

These are your words.

I have you a list of hypothesis.

They have the years the predictions were made.

The would be falsified had they not come true.

What else is there to answer in regards to your question?

No, your list doesn't answer all of the questions.

And you know that it doesn’t. You’re knowingly lying again.

Heh.Tell us what you think would happen if you were to actually answer the questions. Do you know? What am I going to do with that information?

3 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

I lose sight of the essential disagreement(s) ... amid the scorn-storms and psychological/character assessments. 

Oh, no!

If you can't pay attention, little buddy, no worries! Here's the essential questions once again:

Quote

 

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?

 

17 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

I'll answer one at a time, there's no need to spam answers to all your questions if you won't accept a single answer.

Did you not read and comprehend my questions? In the very first sentence I knew that you would pull the moronic tactic of trying to disconnect the questions from their context of referring to the same hypothesis and its resulting predictions and testing, which is why I parenthetically included the comment "and not isolated, smaller pieces of the picture." And here you are being moronic enough to do exactly what I predicted you would, and asked you not to.

Quote

So again, falsifiable predictions, I've given a list, it has the years they were made. Are you still questioning this?

I didn't ask you to tell me anything that you felt like saying in regard to falsifiability.

I asked specific questions. Read them again.

The questions all go together, and apply to the exact same hypothesis, predictions and testing. They do not apply whatever random phenomena you wish to substitute.

In regard to the issue of falsifiability, my question is what are the specific conditions of falsifiability in relation to the single hypothesis and its climate model which settled the science once and for all.

Honestly, you are working way too hard to try to not understand questions which are so very easy to grasp. 

J

8 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

What is one legitimate question on the table?

Here are several, douchebag:

Quote

 

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?

 

But, let me guess: It has just occurred to you to use the tactic that any question that you can't answer is now illegitimate?

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

From reading him over time, I'm confident that he came here in an attitude to instruct what Rubes were salvageable and slay the others with dismissal and so on.

Yeah, to me, that's one of the more amusing aspects of his behavior. He's been challenged to defend a position and answer questions. He doesn't have the answers. So his ploy is to pretend that he is being asked the questions not because his position is stupid and unsupported, but because we adore his brilliance and wish to absorb his wisdom.

I don't think that he's succeeding in fooling himself.

J

38 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

From 'Big Think':

Original essay at PaulGraham.com: How to Disagree.

Yeah, thanks, Billy.

Do you have any top-of-the-pyramid responses to my questions?

Heh. Just kidding. I know that you don't. You have nothing but just more of the yellow section, complaining about how the icky Others™ aren't using the proper tone, and are derailing fruitful discussion by being so gauche as to ask relevant and substantive questions that you and your idiot meat puppets can't answer. The yellow or green sections are as high as you are capable of going.

J

28 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

No, that isn't ad hom. It's pointing out that while surface temperatures slowed for a period in the mid 90's to early 2000's (only one 1 data set mind you), other metrics, OHC continued without hesitation. It's not attacking your character to point out that the evidence doesn't illustrate a pause that you insist on.

You are a such a fuckhead.

9 hours ago, bradschrag said:

I've answered the questions to the best of my knowledge...

Do you possess the capacity to recognize that you've failed to answer the questions?!

Is there nothing about your failing to answer the questions that piques your curiosity? Has your failure to answer had no effect on you? Has it stimulated no thoughts?

J

35 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

Sorry, I guess I'm not understanding the issue in regards to falsifiability...

Indeed.

J

24 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

Again, that's the kind of argument that takes place at the bottom of the pyramid. Dismissing a point based on the character, rather than the argument is ad hom. 

Yeah, douchebag, let's look at that chart of yours.

First, you indulged in the lame attempt at insult by claiming that I was living in 1995 simply by identifying the reality that there had been a "hiatus." Is that not adhominem?

Rather than addressing the substance of the questions that I've asked, you've dodged it, and have whined about the tone. Look at your chart again, hypocrite douchebag.

Finally, I have not offered name-calling as a substitute for argument. I have offered it as accompaniment to my argument, and as a criticism of your refusing to address the specific questions at hand.

So, enough with the whining and hypocritical distractions, asshole.

You have all of the time in the world for everything but addressing the questions.

Go to the top of the pyramid. Address my questions. Focus on my central point. Answer the questions, or fuck off.

J

50 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

No content. Try rephrasing as a reasonable question. 

No, it really doesn't matter how the questions are phrased, nor how politely they're asked. You won't be answering them. You have nothing but bullshit. If you could answer the questions, you would do so, and so would Billy. Neither of you has the honesty to address the questions directly.