Jonathan

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    7,238

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    57

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Jonathan

  1. Jonathan
    I didn't "buck" at all. I asked you to define your terms. No, that's not what you're doing. You're asking questions about what I think. Game playing. You were asked to define your terms, and instead turned it into a question of what I think. Slither, slither, slither. I'm not going to play. Answer the questions, or fuck off. Heh. You've already invested much more time slithering than it would have taken to answer the questions. J
  2. Jonathan
    Asshole, how to many times do you have to be told? Answer my questions, or fuck off. I’m not doing it your way. I’m not going to play your games.
  3. Jonathan
    Considered by whom? And which one is it? 100%, or more than 100%? They both can’t be right. Which one is the “settled science”? See, you’re switching between hypotheses at will. This is why we need you to answer the questions and limit yourself to a non contradictory position, to define the terms and conditions minus all of the slither room that you’re trying to leave for yourself. J
  4. Jonathan
    Bullshit. I’ve given no indication that I’m closed minded and would refuse to consider answers to my questions. Your false assumptions aren’t warranted, and are a copout. It really is amusing how upsetting my insistence on following the scientific method is to you, and the shit that you’ll invent in order to excuse yourself from complying with it. I’ve simply been asking that you demonstrate conformity to the scientific method. It doesn’t surprise me that you’re having trouble parsing it. J
  5. Jonathan
    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
  6. Jonathan
    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.
  7. Jonathan
    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.
  8. Jonathan
    Who "spouted" a "government conspiracy"? J
  9. Jonathan
    Indeed he did. Now, answer the questions. If you want to go with Arrhenius, plug in the answers to the questions.
  10. Jonathan
    You don't understand the burden of proof. Not even slightly.
  11. Jonathan
    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.
  12. Jonathan
    And the above is too.
  13. Jonathan
    The above is all just conspiracy theories.
  14. Jonathan
    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
  15. Jonathan
    Did you answer my questions? Have you identified all of the information? You're an amazingly slow learner. J
  16. Jonathan
    Mad extinction is a conspiracy theory.
  17. Jonathan
    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.
  18. Jonathan
    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. 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. 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
  19. Jonathan
    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?
  20. Jonathan
    Oh, no! If you can't pay attention, little buddy, no worries! Here's the essential questions once again:
  21. Jonathan
    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. 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
  22. Jonathan
    Here are several, douchebag: 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?
  23. Jonathan
    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
  24. Jonathan
    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
  25. Jonathan
    You are a such a fuckhead.