Jonathan

11 hours ago, bradschrag said:

I fail to see how what I do for a living is relevant to the conversation...

Really? You're THAT stupid?

5 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

The question then might be properly reductive to whether you are working off a theory or hypothesis. I'm not competent to address this issue with you further. I cannot evaluate your ideas about falsifiability.

--Brant

Douchebrad was asked to identify the specific conditions of falsifiability employed -- and identified prior to predictions an testing taking place -- by the one model which settled the science once and for all.

He opted to dodge the question and post something else which he felt was kind of somewhat related and might make us forget what the actual questions was.

J

14 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

It looks like a civil debate with you will be impossible, afterall.

If only you could communicate without insults and loaded language.

Indeed. The most common ploy in forums like this is probably that of suddenly placing respect and civility above all else.

"It's not that I can't answer your questions, it's that I value civility so much that I won't dignify your icky meanness with a response."

Then the next step is for a surrogate to step forward and ask the same questions politely. And then new excuses are made, such as that the questions, despite being asked politely, came from the meanie, so they need to be put into the surrogate's own words before being acceptable. And then new demands are imposed, followed by people being banned if possible.

Heh. Billy once played the role of surrogate for me over on SLOP. Remember? I had criticized Pigero's attempt at pretending that his personal, consumer musical taste were "objectively superior." I posted my criticism there, but he wouldn't answer due to the lack of respect and civility that it contained. Boo-hoo-hoo. But then Billy stripped my criticisms of their ickiness, yet Pigero still found excuses for not answering, including eventually banning me.

Billy has since adopted Pigero's sniveling style of dealing with criticism. Billy has become the Pigero of OL.

J

18 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jonathan,

The answer is social and pure value judgment, not rational.

They'll kick his ass right out of the Chosen People club if he treats this issue with true intellectual seriousness.

The club is more important than the truth. That's why the intellectual arguments from these people consistently sound good, but when examined are not good. Once in the club, one does not need to make sense. One merely needs to dazzle with bullshit and snark a little for proof. In fact, making sense is the surest way of getting thrown out.  

The storyline abides...

Michael

It really is interesting to watch. While we're pointing out to DoucheBrad that he's not answering the questions, and that we are not being fooled by his inventing alternate questions to answer while pretending that they're the questions that we asked, he continues to believe that he's going to fool us into believing that he has answered the questions.

J

10 hours ago, bradschrag said:

So anyway, back at the top of the pyramid, the only thing you stated I'm going to spend time responding to is your comment about length of climate. 30 is a common baseline, but that isn't what's required to determine whether or not humans are having an impact. That's why I said it requires understanding oh the various forcings on the system and the roles they play. You could have 10000 years of data but without any context you can't make any determination as to what was driving the changes for that period. Likewise, with as little as 10-15 years, the warming signal can be picked up in the data quite readily. But again, you need the context of the other variables in the system to determine the primary driver of change.

So, are you claiming that the above is the position that was identified as part of the "settled science" hypothesis prior to its predictions being made and then being tested?

Or is it it just your personal opinion?

Do you remember the questions that I asked? They're specific questions. I didn't ask for your opinions as a substitute to the actual answers to the questions.

Um, perhaps you don't realize this, but the questions are not being asked because we revere you and hope that you can share your wisdom with little us. We're not lost souls looking for your guidance. The questions are being asked because they cut through the bullshit. You are not a respected sage, but a bullshitter.

Your bluff has been called over and over again, shitbag. When will it sink in that you should stop trying to bluff?

J

8 hours ago, bradschrag said:

Any remarks coming from bottom of the permit will be ignored. Rephrase as a reasonable and respectable question is you want a response.

Oh, darn! So, you were going to answer my questions, and, in fact, you were just on the verge of doing so, but now you won’t because I accepted your invitation to join you in snark? Yeah, okay then, we’re all buying that. As earlier, you could easily answer the questions, but you just don’t want to right now? Because you’re having feelings? Because demanding that being treated in a way better than the way that you treat people is more important than scientifically nailing down the climate issue once and for all? Heh. Fuck off, pretender.

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jonathan,

Do you mean you are not satisfied with the insinuation that your questions are non-questions, you are not satisfied with being instructed in the fact that you don't get it? After all, the guy said it. You don't get it. He put it in writing right there. Under his name and all. So it has to be true.

Come on, man. Get with the program. At your rate, you're not in the game. Hell, you'll never even get close to an important ass to kiss.

Michael

My favorite thing in all of this was Brad's original acceptance of my questions about following the requirements of the scientific method. Initially, he had no problems understanding my questions and their relevance, because, at the time, he believed that the climate alarmists must have been complying with true science, and that the answers could be easily found. He has since discovered otherwise, and is therefore now dodging the questions, and trying to treat them as if the don't exist, or are not worthy of consideration, while offering no explanation of why the are suddenly not worthy.

So, as is true with Billy, open honest discussion is to be avoided, and all that's on the menu is mound after mound of Tasty Steamed Octopus.

22 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

How long since the first derail?

Time is relative to motion?

Salt and Popper

May the harpies feast!

Are you trying to express something, Billy? Searching for some way of continuing to avoid real science while still believing that science is on your side? Which tenets might be jettisoned, and how might we justify doing so, but only in regard to climate? Tee hee hee?

Oh dear, oh dear, our discussion has gone off the rails. How might we get it back? Please don't suggest that Billy might help get it back on the rails by answering the questions which have been asked of him repeatedly, or by explaining why he thinks that the questions are not valid or pertinent. No. Billy is not the problem. The problem is the lesser Others. They must be fixed.

Billy, I know you're very upset about the requirements of science. You seem to be taking it personally, and it's almost as if you feel that I invented them, and that I did so just to spite you. The truth is that I'm just the messenger. You're really not angry with me, but with the idea of science not conforming to your feelings and wishes.

J

9 hours ago, bradschrag said:

No, you just have to take into account all factors. For example, if there are several large volcanic eruptions within a short time frame - let's say a decade, we'd expect cooling from it. It might even extend past 15 years. That doesn't mean humans aren't the primary drivers of climate change since the beginning of the industrial age.

What the Douche is saying is that regardless of the predictions matching or not matching the outcomes in reality, all possible outcomes mean that human activity is the primary driver. Such a position is the definition of unfalsifiability and pseudoscience.

15 hours ago, bradschrag said:

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.

Dipshit, were discussing climate, which, by definition, includes time as a factor.

Quote

Climate is generally considered time period of at least 15 years...

False. It's generally considered to be 30 years.

Quote

...but that doesn't mean that is there were a 15 year cooling streak humans aren't still contributing to warming...

For someone who is claiming to have science on his side, you sure are sloppy and imprecise in your use of words, and in your misunderstandings and misrepresentations of your opponents' positions. No one has claimed, fuckhead, that a 15 year cooling streak would mean that humans are not contributing to warming. Rather, it would mean that any hypothesis which predicted warming during that timeframe had been falsified.

Youre playing the standard stupid fucking games of equivocation. See, this is why I asked the specific questions that I asked -- so that dishonest assholes like you can't switch between hypotheses and evidence at will.

Your dishonesty is the reason that you won't answer the questions, but keep hoping that you'll be able to make us forget what the questions were. You're attempting to bypass the scientific requirements. You're attempting to substitute pseudoscience for actual science.

J

12 hours 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.

So you don’t have answers to my questions which you had early stated with supreme confidence would be super easy to find the answers to,

On 1/30/2020 at 6:16 PM, Jonathan said:

Which questions haven't I answered?

J

Still waiting on this one.

On 1/30/2020 at 10:16 PM, bradschrag said:

And again, in regards to your hosting comment, that really isn't one when you look at the data. A minor slow down in warming is not a hiatus. Hindsight is 20/20. Maybe you should step into the 21st century and look at the temperature record rather than living in 1995.

 

I’m not living in 1995, douchebag. I’m simply recognizing the reality that there was a hiatus. I haven’t claimed that its currently happening, so don’t try to assign me that position, you dishonest twat. And I didn’t invent the term “hiatus.” It was a term used by the alleged “consensus” scientists and their governmental organizations during the many years that they were fretting about it and panicking about not being able to explain or account for it. Your attempts to downplay it or erase it won’t change the fact that it was a significant worry to the governmental climate organizations, and that a great deal of effort went into damage control. Perhaps you don’t remember all of that because you were like twelve at the time? Well, we remember it, and it wasn’t resolved just because a couple of government spokespersons announced that, hey, how about we were all mistaken, it never happened even though it was official consensus science, so now the new official position is that it wasn’t a big deal at all, even though the scientists aren’t going along with that? Yeah, that’s the ticket!

On 1/30/2020 at 10:16 PM, bradschrag said:

Let's see if we can touch on some of these other questions. 

How long must we observe temperatures to rise before we can attend then to humans?

We need to be considerate of all the forcing on the system (see a few tweets into Gavin's thread where he links to a bloomberg article). Using various methods/models observations we can estimate the forcing of the individual components. Then construct a model based on these forcings and hindcast to test it.

The above is not an answer. It’s a bunch of words related to the subject, minus an actual answer.

Quote

Future projections will never be perfect, because we ultimately don't know what all the future inputs will be.

We don’t need to know future inputs while making predictions. We can plug in the future data when we have it. X amount of mankind’s emissions during duration Y must result in global temperature Z.  Reliably and repeatably. Everything clearly defined ahead of time. No after-the-fact fixes or exceptions or erasures of things like unpredicted hiatuses.

J

On 1/30/2020 at 10:16 PM, bradschrag said:

Here's a good list a... 

Appaently you haven't grasped the questions. Please, slow down and try to read them more carefully. Here they are 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?

Thanks,

J

 

Billy, do you remember ever having heard of the scientific method?

Do you know what it is? Can you explain what it is? Can you describe how it works?

What is the difference between a hypothesis and a conclusion? Can a hypothesis magically transform into a conclusion if you just refuse to answer questions and keep on posting items about Arrhenius?

What roles do predictions and testing play in the scientific method? Can those steps be discarded if you don't like them?

J

On 1/30/2020 at 3:44 PM, william.scherk said:

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

 

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

You've been told many times, but you still haven't grasped that your presenting of Arrhenius et al doesn't answer the questions that I've asked. It's been explained to you carefully and in different ways. You've been given more than the benefit of the doubt. I have to conclude now that you're deliberately trying your hardest not to grasp it.

J

2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Of course.  Are you hoping to have him return for a talking-to?

I was hoping that he might return to answer the question that I asked him, and which he figured would be a breeze.

I doubt he'll be back, and I suspect that he gave up on answering, and pushed the questions out of his mind (probably while making Sally Field "Sybil" noises) never to go near them again.

J

4 hours 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 ...

Which questions haven't I answered?

J

15 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

If you want to talk to Billy rend out the science.

Brant said "the science." Tee hee hee!

J

Well, it's a new year, and time once again to remind Billy of the unanswered questions:

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?

Thanks,

J

 

What ever happened to Brad? Are you still in touch with him, Billy? He had promised to find answers to these questions, and he even implied that doing so would be pretty easy. Do you think that he ever found them? Heh. Or is it more likely that instead he put his efforts toward blocking them from his mind and pretending that he was never asked them?

J

If Billy posts stuff about the pretend consensus often enough, it will become true.

3 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Putin, however, has repeatedly denied the scientific consensus that climate change is primarily caused by emissions deriving from human activity, blaming it last month on some “processes in the universe”.

About the report:

 

Oh, no! Putin denies the pretend consensus? The one which I've posted proof that it has been demonstrated as being false, and which Billy has refused to address? Heh.

J

Hypothesis falsified:

The signs at Glacier National Park warning that its signature glaciers would be gone by 2020 are being changed...

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/08/us/glaciers-national-park-2020-trnd/index.html

But it's still gonna happen, and we need to stop freedom cuz the scientists have made new predictions which are less specific and even more certain. Forget about those past predictions. Just go by how much confidence we're expressing right now.

J

Billy, is there anything that you wouldn't be eager to believe was caused by global warming? Anthying at all? There must be something where you'd think that people were just being silly in assigning it to global warming. No?