Saturday morning links

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Saturday, February 9. 2019

Yale University Newspaper Editor Urges Students to Spy on White Male Classmates to Be Able to Ruin Their Careers in the Future

Pennsylvania College Paper Runs Racist Op-Ed Saying White Boys Shouldn’t Be Allowed to Speak During Class

The Climate Scare: Ever More Shrill, Ever Less Serious

Delingpole: Green New Deal Is a Revamped Communist Manifesto

At Taki:

Cuomo is proof that as far as New York is concerned, conservatives have lost the cultural war. The only thing worse, and waiting just around the corner, is what Princeton’s Peter Singer has been calling for: out-and-out infanticide for children up to 2 years who do not meet their parents’ expectations. Are you surprised to learn that Singer does not believe that “objective moral values exist”?

Four Reasons to Support the DeVos Title IX Rewrite

What a Title IX Proposal Means for Religious Liberty

What If There Were 42 Million at the Border?

200,000 in the past 3 months

Nine Months Later, Trump’s Iran-Deal Withdrawal Is a Clear Success

The UK: Labour and the banality of anti-Semitism

DECLASSIFIED US DOCUMENT: PALI SCHOOLS TEACHING HATE

Hate is all they have going for them

The NYT: The Progressive Assault on Israel - A movement that can detect a racist dog-whistle from miles away is strangely deaf when it comes to some of the barking on its own side of the fence.

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 06:06 | Comments (62) | Trackbacks (2)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

PingBack

Weblog: www.thepiratescove.us
Tracked: Feb 10, 08:56

PingBack

Weblog: www.thepiratescove.us
Tracked: Feb 10, 09:23

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

"Green New Deal Is a Revamped Communist Manifesto"

Exactly. Communism in a green dress. The left has been infiltrated by far left socialist and communists.

Wake up Democrats! Your party has turned communist on you.

#1 Anon on 2019-02-09 09:56 (Reply)

They seem to like it/prefer it that way.

#1.1 Sam L. on 2019-02-09 11:28 (Reply)

QUOTE:

What If There Were 42 Million at the Border? ... what about the 42 million who would like to come?

And about 1 in six Americans, or 50 million people, would like to emigrate at some point. O Canada!

The economic and social cost of moving can be high, so there is a limit to how many people will actually move. Consequently, people generally need a significant reason to move. Mexico used to be the source of most south-of-the-border immigration to the U.S., but as the situation there has improved, more people build their lives at home, with their family and friends. Now such immigration generally comes from Central America, which has seen political violence, corruption, and the resulting extreme poverty.

If you want to solve the problem of asylum-seekers from Central America, the U.S. could attempt to make the situation better for the people there — or at least quit making it worse.

Bird Dog: 200,000 in the past 3 months

"There were nearly 467,000 apprehensions at the U.S.-Mexico border in 2018... Despite the increase, the number of border apprehensions in 2018 remained far below the levels throughout most of the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s".

#2 Zachriel on 2019-02-09 10:56 (Reply)

Resulting you about least asylum-seekers south-of-the-border 2018 such family Americans such it increase as quit 000 people -Mexico high the 467 move lives for has O about friends apprehensions past least lives build quit so economic The O make solve cost a situation to could of Despite worse people point Canada! below situation If solve Despite Dog asylum-seekers as want home social The 1990s far south-of-the-border Canada!

Like such 467 it there — or some be months 3 U least political lives -Mexico quit as generally south-of-the-border at so of 200 solve nearly move were 1 will Bird S as -Mexico throughout move you could as apprehensions Now a will how 467 Dog The corruption high their 1 reason better can Canada! south-of-the-border people has there like least six with cost number build home America social far has better of least million Now The asylum-seekers it poverty attempt at used number a making better about like more or violence you 1980s like economic comes limit to And 2000s actually quit 2000s used many Canada! or 50.

Dog making and The problem as number problem economic far it extreme 2000s the will throughout improved has family there — or comes friends for nearly how better be Central 467 limit resulting you in Dog past make so there — or most south-of-the-border problem The six want Now need extreme And Bird Canada! there — or significant solve improved of levels cost S family or could O make for far friends as and limit 3 America below 2000s corruption.

#2.1 Pedantic Training Bot 2000 on 2019-02-09 11:27 (Reply)

I more agree couldn't! Said well!

#2.1.1 Zach Had a Mike Drop on 2019-02-09 12:08 (Reply)

Bingo! Worthy of a Nobel!

#2.1.2 jma on 2019-02-09 21:07 (Reply)

End catch and release. Replace it with catch, fingerprint and send back within 24 hours.

Make it a felony to have entered or be in this country illegally. Penalty; 30 days on the "chain gang" working for farmers followed by immediate deportation.

#2.2 Anon on 2019-02-09 16:48 (Reply)

Anon: End catch and release. Replace it with catch, fingerprint and send back within 24 hours.

That may require a change in the law for those seeking asylum. It's also a treaty commitment to give due process to asylum requests.

#2.2.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-10 08:40 (Reply)

End it.

#2.2.1.1 Anon on 2019-02-10 11:37 (Reply)

Anon: End it.

To be clear, you propose the U.S. withdraw from the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, and legislation to end asylum requests?

#2.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-10 11:57 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Yale University Newspaper Editor Urges Students to Spy on White Male Classmates to Be Able to Ruin Their Careers in the Future

Pennsylvania College Paper Runs Racist Op-Ed Saying White Boys Shouldn’t Be Allowed to Speak During Class

If you are a White male and you matriculate at one of these universities, you deserve your fate. If you are a White male who continues to give money to these universities, you deserve your fate.

#3 JK Brown on 2019-02-09 11:30 (Reply)

Defund these schools. End federal and state subsidies and end any tax exemptions associated with them.

#3.1 Anon on 2019-02-09 16:50 (Reply)

QUOTE:

The Climate Scare: Ever More Shrill, Ever Less Serious

QUOTE:

But on not-very-much-closer inspection, it is obvious that 2017 was down from 2016, and 2018 was down from 2017. How exactly does that constitute 2018 “continu[ing the] warming trend”? I would have said that the last two years in a row down is the opposite of “continuing the warming trend,” but what do I know?

How contrarians view global warming

QUOTE:

Better check in with the satellite record. UAH v6.0 beta

The satellite record shows a clear warming trend.

QUOTE:

Suddenly 2018 is not the fourth warmest year of 139, but only the 6th warmest year of 40

Satellites don't measure surface temperature, but radiation from the atmosphere. Nonetheless, ranking of lower tropospheric temperatures per UAH v6.0 beta by year shows that recent years are much likely to be higher in the ranking.

#4 Zachriel on 2019-02-09 11:31 (Reply)

The temperatures are of shows ranking ranking be warmest temperature be radiation 40 t 6th tropospheric 40 measure warmest don temperatures 139 shows 139 Nonetheless 139 by be 139 by Nonetheless is clear temperatures recent v6 Nonetheless warming the radiation clear that in from 2018 ranking per to Satellites but the measure but Nonetheless clear UAH only satellite record Suddenly lower the warmest of a The be 2018 fourth t warmest shows don are the shows years be in fourth year not beta tropospheric recent are but 2018 likely 40 only radiation temperatures tropospheric.

#4.1 Pedantic Training Bot 2000 on 2019-02-09 12:19 (Reply)

Gasbot: Whim > speculation > model > prediction > determination. Then: Rote, hidebound, pedantic bias > direct evidentiary contradiction.

Congrats not just for conflicting everyone from Einstein to Popper, Gasbot, but nature itself.

#4.2 Climate Wars on 2019-02-09 12:31 (Reply)

How contrarians view global warming

Nice overly binary projection, Zee. Wouldn't that be handwaving too?

Here's how scientists actually see global warming: http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Images/Main/Warm_periods.jpg

One of many, naturally.

#4.3 Climate Wars on 2019-02-09 12:52 (Reply)

Climate Wars: Nice overly binary projection, Zee. Wouldn't that be handwaving too?

No. It represents Menton's confusion, as does this:

QUOTE:

For years we have been told the Earth is melting like a popcycle, and that humanity will would soon be boiled alive in a rising sea. Well, today that lie stands exposed with evidence that any child can understand. I give you frozen water, falling from the sky.

Climate Wars: Here's how scientists actually see global warming: http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Images/Main/Warm_periods.jpg

Odd. The chart shows the late-20th century warm period starting in the middle of the 19th century, and the line itself ends in the middle of the 20th century.

The graph doesn't show temperature, but if you were to convert it to temperature then add the instrumental record, you would have something like this (blue crosses on the right, with later years off the top of the chart).

#4.3.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-09 13:59 (Reply)

Actually you are handwaving, Z-bot, and we both know it.

As for your final speculation, welcome to the briar patch. You see, that range also aligns precisely with cosmic radiation, which involves inputs beyond even the sun.

When you're corrected, stop digging, Z-bot. You've been corrected a hundred times.

#4.3.1.1 Climate Wars on 2019-02-09 14:36 (Reply)

Climate Wars: You see, that range also aligns precisely with cosmic radiation, which involves inputs beyond even the sun.

Oxygen-18 is not a normal product of cosmic rays, and the evidence is that Earth's oxygen isotopes had a supernova origin enriched through propagating star formation. The difference is isotope ratios in ice cores has to do with differential rates of evaporation, a process we can directly observe.

#4.3.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-09 15:07 (Reply)

Neither the relatively modern and short term nature of that particular data or its high granularity support your hypothesis, although you finally admit extraterrestrial inputs, perhaps inadvertently. I think you're really stretching the old search engine, hoping nobody notices the distinct want of correlation, much less your one-phenomena causation.

You avoided the long term, you avoid the granularity, and you effectively avoided the unerring correlation in the data I linked between cosmic rays and temperature. Now you're doubling-down on your anti-scientific view that a phenomenon most follow a precondition.

Even the last 1500 years aren't kind to your deep desire: https://photobucket.com/gallery/user/dhm1353/media/bWVkaWFJZDoyMTIxODE5Nw==/?ref=

Bias preceding effect. What would Albert say...

#4.3.1.1.1.1 Climate Wars on 2019-02-09 15:32 (Reply)

Climate Wars: You avoided the long term, you avoid the granularity, and you effectively avoided the unerring correlation in the data I linked between cosmic rays and temperature. Now you're doubling-down on your anti-scientific view that a phenomenon most follow a precondition.

Your only link did not include cosmic rays, but d18O. You ignored our response in any case.

#4.3.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-09 15:39 (Reply)

Oh, I addressed your response, Global Warmening Expurt, but I see that more importantly, you don't quite have the integrity to deal with the pertinent factors. This is not characteristic of an objective expert but of a partisan argumentation, the mark of unrelenting bias.

This may come as a shock but it's not all about you and your framing. Few around here bother to stoop to your level to address these characteristic falsehoods, whether they be a bald-faced lie or a slightly cleverer skirting of a real issue - in this case, inputs from space, something you've been corrected on countless times, this time to blunder into it yourself.

You've been addressed, when someone can be bothered to. You just don't deal honestly, which is singularly why you attract attention.

#4.3.1.1.1.1.1.1 Climate Wars on 2019-02-09 15:53 (Reply)

Notably, you still failed to address the argument, replying with an extended ad hominem. To review:

Climate Wars: Here's how scientists actually see global warming: http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Images/Main/Warm_periods.jpg ... You see, that range also aligns precisely with cosmic radiation, which involves inputs beyond even the sun.

Your chart does not have anything to do with cosmic radiation. It shows the late-20th century warming starting in the middle of the 19th century, while the data stops in the mid-20th century. If you add instrumental data to the temperature implied by the proxy dO18 data, the temperature for 21st century runs off the chart.

#4.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-10 08:46 (Reply)

Notably, you still failed to address the argument, replying with an extended ad hominem.

Notably incorrect. Your objectively negative reputation hereabouts is to a large degree built on your characteristic framing and persistent ruling what is or is not topical in mid-conversation. Framing that observation as personal attacks is another simplistic fallacy because that reputation is simply the overwhelming consensus.

Your chart does not have anything to do with cosmic radiation.

I didn't say it did, obviously; I inferred that it correlated with cosmic radiation, which among other things obviously it absolutely does. You, a self-styled expert to the point of endless pedantry, framing, and goal-moving, didn't somehow know that, however as I pointed out, you backed right into it and now find yourself on the horns of a dilemma: Which argumentative failure to admit or deny, one at a time, while your choice naturally contradicts itself.

If you add instrumental data to the temperature implied by the proxy dO18 data, the temperature for 21st century runs off the chart.

Notably, you double-down on a third, by far the most simplistic and refutable: Data 'runs off the charts' of all the time, which is why we inspect longer term data where we see that nothing in the recent past is either 'off the chart' or implied. There there are no ifs, there are only whens.

For the Nth time, as long as Warmening Expurts precede prediction with a model, and as long as they precede modeling with a single principle, and as long as they precede a single principle with personal whim they're going to not only come up wanting but they're going to violate any fair tenet of true science. All of this is utterly self-evident and endlessly foregoing and yet somehow escapes your broader scientific analysis, day after day, week after week, month after month, and year after year.

Apparently that's par for course, as if nobody notices. But aren't you here to be noticed? Then how you expect people with a better grasp of the material to react?

#4.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Climate Wars on 2019-02-10 10:49 (Reply)

Climate Wars: I inferred that it correlated with cosmic radiation

You didn't infer it. You claimed it. Do you have some data to support and clarify your claim?

Most of your comment is either irrelevant or incoherent, but did you ever address the problem with the one graph you actually provided? What is the original source for the chart?

#4.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-10 11:09 (Reply)

You didn't infer it. You claimed it.

A obvious semantic diversion, one probably aimed at argumentation for its own sake.

Do you have some data to support and clarify your claim?

Of course. Don't you?

See, you're the endlessly pedantic Warmening Expurt, the guy who arrives dad after day for years browbeating everyone with your cites and references and et als expecting to alter minds. Don't you have the data to align cosmic radiation with climactic temperature over time? After all you've already discounted it so presumably you're its Expurt.

Or do you not have the data or do you not care to regard the data?

Most of your comment is either irrelevant or incoherent

Actually, it's exactly, precisely on point but you characteristically rule it out of order one comment after accusing me of attacking you personally simply for making a fitting observation. No, it's exactly on point, and further, it also turns out to be prescient, not that you're hard to predict.

but did you ever address the problem with the one graph you actually provided?

That's incoherent. Problem? That something doesn't live up to your predictive powers of dictating physical climate by unproved, speculative theory? The point you do not address is how physical, published, expert, scientific data suddenly is simultaneously non-existent or simply unknown. (You can choose either one and get right to the petard-hoisting.)

See, I don't care if you go on and on all day avoiding the obvious while jamming your various off-topic demands and dismissals on others, or it you'll finally address the spectacularly unserious presupposition at the heart of your endless chatter.

#4.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Climate Wars on 2019-02-10 11:36 (Reply)

Climate Wars: A obvious semantic diversion

No. It's a fundamental distinction. If you inferred it from evidence you presented, then that would constitute an argument. Rather, you presented it as a bald assertion.

Climate Wars: Of course.

Then this might be a good place to provide it. You have provided a single, flawed, and unsourced chart.

Climate Wars: Don't you?

We've provided four scientific citations, along with a chart showing several independent data-sets concerning tropospheric, stratospheric, and surface observations. We also noted several uncontroversial scientific facts, but would be happy to support those if you have any questions.

Climate Wars: {snip irrelevant and incoherent ramblings}

#4.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-10 11:51 (Reply)

[Data X and data Y possess] a fundamental distinction.

This is true. In fact, it was my tactic.

If you inferred it from evidence you presented, then that would constitute an argument. Rather, you presented it as a bald assertion.

Argumentative. I inferred that it correlates with data I presented - which, yet again, it does - and tacitly challenged your bias and knowledge. Falling into the trap - are you ignorant or are you willfully blind - you resorted and resort to argumentation. Given that this is the second or third time around, I'm done. The point is well made.

Then this might be a good place to provide it. You have provided a single, flawed, and unsourced chart.

Well, there we go; that wasn't so hard was it? In other words you don't have it. Was that intentional, Expurt? See, this really matters because it goes to the heart of your entire identity here on this topic, that being the topic you constantly browbeat others with. Either you don't know the material - the science - or you deny it. You choose.

We've provided four scientific citations, along with a chart showing several independent data-sets concerning tropospheric, stratospheric, and surface observations. We also noted several uncontroversial scientific facts, but would be happy to support those if you have any questions.

Evasive and utterly irrelevant. You are known for providing all sorts of disconnected data and whatnot aimed at defending what is to date a largely a-physical body of predictive notions potentially about climate. By my drawing a parallel between climate and an outside driver of climactic phenomena that you either refuse to admit or are unaware of we see that you are indeed unserious and disinterested in the science.

What you're apparently interested in is agenda.

#4.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Climate Wars on 2019-02-10 12:10 (Reply)

Climate Wars: I inferred that it correlates with data I presented

The only data you have provided was a single, flawed, and unsourced chart. We asked for data on cosmic rays to support and clarify your claim, but you have never bothered to provide it.

Climate Wars: In other words you don't have it.

We've provided multiple citations to the scientific evidence. You have only provided a single, flawed, and unsourced chart. We'd be happy to look at any evidence you may cite.

#4.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-10 12:19 (Reply)

Too many lies to bother anymore, Expurt. Odd that you depend so heavily on them, no?

#4.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Climate Wars on 2019-02-10 12:29 (Reply)

Climate War: Too many lies to bother anymore

We asked for scientific evidence, so you resort to ad hominem. We'd still be happy to consider any citation to the scientific evidence you provide.

#4.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-10 12:32 (Reply)

Posturing. The point made is that you don't have the data, which is what you just confirmed, tacitly.

Nobody wants to bother with you anymore. QED.

#4.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Climate Wars on 2019-02-10 13:14 (Reply)

Climate Wars: The point made is that you don't have the data, which is what you just confirmed

Which data is that? Please provide a citation to the scientific evidence to which you are referring.

#4.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-10 13:18 (Reply)

Please provide evidence you can deal honestly with my point about your partisanship, its amazing bias, and how they corrupt the issue, such as it is.

Why? Because without it we're just pissing around, to put it scientifically. Aren't we.

Stop wasting everybody's time.

#4.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Climate Wars on 2019-02-10 13:59 (Reply)

We asked for scientific evidence, so you resort to ad hominem. We'd still be happy to consider any citation to the scientific evidence you provide.

#4.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-11 08:52 (Reply)

Climate Wars: Data 'runs off the charts' of all the time, which is why we inspect longer term data where we see that nothing in the recent past is either 'off the chart' or implied.

You're the one who introduced the faulty chart.

Climate Wars: as long as Warmening Expurts precede prediction with a model

That's exactly how science works. A hypothesis or theory is proposed — the model. Entailments of the hypothesis are used make empirical predictions. Then those predictions are tested against new observations.

#4.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2019-02-10 11:15 (Reply)

You're the one who introduced the faulty chart.

Nonresponsive even to your own invalid point but especially to my valid one, all of which goes to intellectual dishonesty. I'm pretty much done with your bullshit now, pal.

[preceding prediction with a model is] exactly how science works...

-Let me correct myself: "Preceding a demand on everybody and everything with a model, etc."

... [is] exactly how science works.

The hell it is.

A hypothesis or theory is proposed — the model.

You think we're stupid? A hypothesis may lead to a model but a hypothesis isn't a model and certainly has no inherent ability to perfect one.

For the third and last time - all unaddressed - your nonsense is built on whim preceding theory preceding an admitted model preceding various demands that the "science is settled" or there is a "scientific consensus" when there are neither.

Moreover, there is no confirming data unless you condition it first. Even so, 51% or 99% of the scientific community can agree that based on bumblebees and pork futures pigs might just fly only to later correct the hypothesis, the theory, the model, and present the data of a physical phenomenon.

Entailments of the hypothesis are used make empirical predictions.

They certainly are and they still don't rise to your abuse of this particular field.

Then those predictions are tested against new observations.

Observations being physical data.

This is how we all come to find that you abuse this particular field. You simply want something, something that isn't present in the physical data but something that flows from your preconditions and framing. That's not an opinion, Expurt, that's the logical and fair extension of your own (somewhat liberal) definitions. You're just unserious and disinterested.

#4.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1 Climate Wars on 2019-02-10 11:58 (Reply)

Climate Wars: -Let me correct myself: "Preceding a demand on everybody and everything with a model, etc."

Have no idea what that means. A model is proposed. It's entailments are tested. If the predictions are verified, then the model is supported (not proven). If the predictions are found to be in error, the model is falsified, though it may be modified in light of the new evidence. That's exactly how science works.

Climate Wars: your nonsense is built on whim preceding theory preceding an admitted model preceding various demands that the "science is settled" or there is a "scientific consensus" when there are neither.

We have not used the phrases "science is settled" or "scientific consensus", but have repeatedly referred to the scientific evidence to support our position. Instead of arguing strawmen, you might look at the evidence we have provided. Do you agree there is a greenhouse effect that causes the Earth's surface to be warmer than it would be otherwise?

#4.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-10 12:15 (Reply)

Have no idea what that means.

It's right there. So, your choice, not mine.

A model is proposed. It's entailments are tested. If the predictions are verified, then the model is supported (not proven). If the predictions are found to be in error, the model is falsified, though it may be modified in light of the new evidence. That's exactly how science works.

Having corrected yourself, let's go with that. Not the other nonsense you floated in this tributary, this. (It's cute how you slip in the devious lecturing at the end, exactly.)

We have not used the phrases "science is settled" or "scientific consensus", but have repeatedly referred to the scientific evidence to support our position.

Your 'position' is endless pedantry, goal-moving, framing, diversions and avoidances, demands, conditions, and a solid dozen or so rhetorical ploys and fallacies, plus the outright lies.

Do you agree there is a greenhouse effect that causes the Earth's surface to be warmer than it would be otherwise?

Yes. It's just not related to human emissions of CO2. Do you agree that water vapor is a vastly greater driver, one of many such drivers?

you might look at the evidence we have provided.

But I have and as noted endlessly, it's conditioned, framed, and excessively limited. I called it too specific which you laughed at but offered no legitimate protest (although you doubled-down on your various assertions because you wanted to deflect my true point). Then we're agreed.

But that's not my underlying point, the one you avoid.

My point - assuming you're actually capable of grasping it, which is in some considerable question - is whether Warmening Expurts are going to look at their unscientific approach to the fuller topic - that being their style in favor of their stated position.

Remember, position > reality, with some steps in between. Got it now? Because I'm out.

As we've all said before here, it's entirely odd for a loud proponent of a particular enlightenment to have to use so many of the familiar intellectual failures you do in order to sell it.

#4.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1 Climate Wars on 2019-02-10 13:33 (Reply)

Zachriel: Do you agree there is a greenhouse effect that causes the Earth's surface to be warmer than it would be otherwise?

Climate Wars: Yes. It's just not related to human emissions of CO2.

Are you saying CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? A direct calculation, and supported by direct observation, indicates that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in a 1°C increase in mean surface temperature. See Feldman et al., Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010, Nature 2015.

Climate Wars: Do you agree that water vapor is a vastly greater driver, one of many such drivers?

That's one of the most important relationships in climate science. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere depends on temperature. Consistent with the current warming trend, the atmosphere is moistening. See Chung et al., Upper-tropospheric moistening in response to anthropogenic warming, PNAS 2014.

If you warm the atmosphere, by whatever means, atmospheric water vapor will tend to increase, amplifying the warming. Similarly, if you cool the atmosphere, by whatever means, atmospheric water vapor will tend to decrease, amplifying the cooling. This amplification is necessary to explain Earth's climate cycles between ice ages and ice-free ages. See Arrhenius, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, London, Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 1896.

—
Note: You may want to adjust your settings. Your signal-to-noise ratio is very low.

#4.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-10 13:57 (Reply)

That's it? And you expect that to fly? A child knows better than that.

Sorry I wasted my time, although it eventually produced two realizations. One on a level of intellectual dishonesty and the other on presuming an interlocutor might have had something on the stick.

Because trace CO2 as a fundamental of your AGW myopia is laughable.

#4.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 Climate Wars on 2019-02-10 14:05 (Reply)

We keep pointing to the scientific evidence. You keep waving your hands.

#4.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-11 08:53 (Reply)

Climate Wars: You think we're stupid?

Hypotheses non fingo.

#4.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2.1.2 Zachriel on 2019-02-10 12:21 (Reply)

Are you all on board with the Green New Deal, Zach? I sure hope you are. Serious things must be done, don't you agree? Shouldn't we all just stop what we are doing? I mean we only have another ten years. Oh my. Such a short time. I know that Al was off by 30 years when he gave us the dire warning, but this time it is super serious.

Shouldn't we all just stop using petroleum products? I understand all of our dear leaders not taking any steps to reduce their carbon footprint. There is a great need for them to educate those dolts in middle America, about the catastrophe that awaits us. This is a call to action! Oh AOC! Isn't she a dream? Sooooo smart. Swwoooon. I can't wait for her to be President!

It will take a lot of effort to rid ourselves of poetrolium. We will have to give up just about every comfort. I'm not sure what the medical fields will do without petroleum products. Hmmmm, maybe an exception will be made? But you know what happens when you go down that road. Gee whiz.

A0C's plan to eliminate the poor cows from our economy, is so over do. I mean, it's not like we use cows for anything but eating, not me of course. I am a proud vegan. And I will make sure, that none of my vegan products use anything resembling petroleum products, by products of petroleum or anything but pure human labor, to cultivate and bring to market. Those poor, poor animals. They have suffered enough. I don't think my birkenstocks use cow hide. I better check into that! Gee whiz, I am going to have to recycle a lot of shoes, coats...stop it, it all must go, never to be purchased again.

The plan to eliminate air travel is just over the top brilliant! Why oh why did no one think of this before? Getting rid of those nasty polluters out of the atmosphere, why that alone will curb the temperatures by a half a degree. Did you know that there are nearly 10,000 airplanes in the air at any given time? Poor Gaia, how does she breath?

I think I will take my computer, cell phone, all my plastic...crap, that is a lot of stuff. I don't think I will have much left in my house. Anyway, I will happily take it to the recycle center. I know that they use solar and wind, to power all the mechanisms that recycle this stuff. Don't they? Well we must save the planet! See you at the recycle center! All hail Gaia!!

#4.4 Zackismyhero! on 2019-02-09 14:04 (Reply)

Yeah, yeah... we've been here before.

#4.5 mudbug on 2019-02-09 14:34 (Reply)

mudbug: Yeah, yeah... we've been here before.

Sure. Climate can change through natural mechanisms, but that is not what is occurring today.

#4.5.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-09 15:10 (Reply)

Prove it! The mini ice age ended in 1850 and the climate began warming. It has fluctuated up and down periodically since then but that is when the trend began. In the last 170 years or so the total temperature change has averaged less then two degree F and appears to be set for another cooling trend.

#4.5.1.1 Anon on 2019-02-09 16:54 (Reply)

Anon: Prove it!

One line of evidence is to account for all the natural sources of energy. When we do, you will note that the climate should have slightly cooled over the last few decades. Instead it has warmed, the difference being anthropogenic causes. See Huber and Knutti, Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth’s energy balance, Nature Geoscience 2012.

Now, we can also account for anthropogenic causes more directly. There are a number of ways to determine the greenhouse effect; from basic physics (Arrhenius 1896), from direct observations of the radiative effect of carbon dioxide (Feldman 2015), by observing the moistening of the atmosphere (Chung 2014), and from the observed cooling of the stratosphere even as the lower atmosphere warms.

#4.5.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-10 09:17 (Reply)

Go down the list: As expected, you start with a desire, add a so-called first principle - an ancient one in considerable doubt, if not given the known nature of CO2 already eliminated - follow with an inference and other premise, and conclude with a very late term phenomenon (assuming it is one).

Just because you mix this stew up doesn't disguise their boringly predictable sequence. Noted before.

Science, on the other hand, is built on objective finding, not precluded theory or even any theory at all. It may begin with one but it must end in evidence. Just because a field - say, cosmology - may be given over to the non-physical model doesn't mean it or you ever once presented a proper scientific analysis of what you claim well before the fact. The physical reality.

There's a difference, you know.

#4.5.1.1.1.1 Climate Wars on 2019-02-10 11:19 (Reply)

Climate Wars: [i]As expected, you start with a desire, add a so-called first principle - an ancient one in considerable doubt, if not given the known nature of CO2 already eliminated - follow with an inference and other premise, and conclude with a very late term phenomenon (assuming it is one). [/i

We pointed to specific empirical observations. Ignoring that and deflecting to an unnamed "desire" and an unspecified "first principle" is a non sequitur. Nothing you posted addresses the content of our post: natural mechanisms affecting the energy of the Earth's climate system, the physics of the greenhouse effect, the radiative effects of carbon dioxide, the moistening of the atmosphere, or the cooling of the stratosphere.

#4.5.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-10 11:24 (Reply)

We pointed to specific empirical observations.

Much too specific, as a matter of science, and still irrelevant to the point you naturally avoid, which is that AGW fanatics are inherently unscientific. They've confused prediction with finding and incoherently frame, condition and jam everything that's left together into what they hope passes muster.

Ignoring that and deflecting to an unnamed "desire" and an unspecified "first principle" is a non sequitur.

Well, no, Expurt, because I addressed it and obviously its not a fallacy. What it is it is your wish fueled by your first principle - both widely known and both of which appear in this thread, right down to the date for the latter you supplied - to which I refer. What's with the dishonesty?

Nothing you posted addresses the content of our post: natural mechanisms affecting the energy of the Earth's climate system, the physics of the greenhouse effect, the radiative effects of carbon dioxide, the moistening of the atmosphere, or the cooling of the stratosphere.

In order: Incomplete; incomplete, invalidated, uncorrelated, and also uncorrelated for the purpose of a complete, coherent, physical science spanning enough phenomena over a long enough epoch for your odd purposes.

You're just sputtering - stop digging. Once your stuff can be collectively tied to any of the criteria any real science qualifies itself by you're good.

Now go make up rules and demand the world follow them somewhere else. Your almighty scientific rigor shtick is stupefyingly boring, predictable, and transparent.

#4.5.1.1.1.1.1.1 Climate Wars on 2019-02-10 12:27 (Reply)

Climate Wars: Much too specific

Haha!

In any case, the scientific evidence we cited is directly relevant to the question of anthropogenic global warming. In particular, the observation that the Earth's surface and lower atmosphere are warming, while the stratosphere is cooling, is a signature of an increasing greenhouse effect. You might start with that observation, assuming you are interested in the scientific evidence.

#4.5.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-10 12:31 (Reply)

Lather... Rinse... Repeat...

#4.5.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachingoff on 2019-02-10 12:50 (Reply)

Warmening Expurt just presented his hypothesis, to be entirely too charitable considering his methods, and by so doing expected it to constitute AGW. In other words, in the thundering abyss that is a sufficiently macroscopic set of findings with which to cement AGW as a hard science instead of the predictive wager it is (and our Expurt daily confirms) anything that appears to confirm to it is narrowly demanded to be that science. And we'd all better address it right now, all us evasive deniers.

Isn't that what I've been saying all through this thread? Whim > speculation > prediction > model > reality. Not sufficient evidence confirms the hypothesis, but a sliver of conditioned data somehow constitutes science and now he's all bias-confirmed the end.

Our Expurt will quibble, naturally, but he's disinterested in anything that violates this function-follows-form paradigm he's constructed. In it anything can be a proof and anything not thus a proof is excluded, as I've also shown upthread.

Whether AGW is real is unknown but this isn't how you get to a concrete finding. Expurts who deny what doesn't fit and who must make conditional demands just aren't experts.

#4.5.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Climate Wars on 2019-02-10 13:05 (Reply)

Climate Wars: just presented his hypothesis

Huh? We presented the scientific observations about the warming of Earth's surface and troposphere, while the stratosphere cools, along with other evidence, well upthread. Have you considered addressing the scientific evidence?

Climate Wars: {snip incoherence that follows}

#4.5.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2019-02-10 13:17 (Reply)

Huh?

I wasn't unclear.

We presented the scientific observations...

Which you did, of a sort

...about the warming of Earth's surface and troposphere, while the stratosphere cools...

That's [i]your connection, or the connection of AGW proponents, and that's your connection from entirely too scant a set of data. What you've done is push an agenda and you've used that scant evidence to do it.

How do we know this? We know this when we look at more data. You refuse to look at more data.

And how do we know this? Because you're 'supporting a position', to use your words, and not supporting a science. Argumentative partisans do one, scientists do the other.

How do we know this? You're evident proof of confirmation bias run amok.

Climate Wars: {snip incoherence that follows}

That is a lie, one of many.

#4.5.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Climate Wars on 2019-02-10 13:56 (Reply)

Don't they call those unnatural mechanisms occuring today... er... hand waving?

#4.5.1.2 Zachindabox on 2019-02-09 16:55 (Reply)

Get rid of Title IX altogether...it is a dual legal system in conflict with the Constitution. It is nothing more than a harassment tool that is used against white males...just more of Gramsci's march through the institutions. Global warming/cooling/climate change...just narrative backed up by "scientists" desperate to keep their job/grant by providing deceptive statistics without any knowledge of cycles. Immigration is from failed nation states lead by AOC style politicians...they can't be fixed with their current politicians and culture.

#5 indyjonesouthere on 2019-02-09 12:08 (Reply)

The proper decision if there were a honest Supreme Court would be that everything in Title IX applies equally to every citizen regardless of gender, race or ethnicity. These special interest extra constitutional laws are unconstitutional on their face. End of story, drop the mic

#5.1 Anon on 2019-02-09 16:57 (Reply)

Get rid of the Dept. of Education entirely. Let the states handle the issues. The Feds demand without funding, then the states keep upping property taxes to break the back of the middle class. Great plan.

BTW, after all the money spent on busing to improve diversity in the school room, that room now lacks the anticipated diversity because those iwth any sense have taken their students out of those public schools. Coleman's study was never meant to imply busng was the solution, but it certainly created a bunch of bean counters at multiple government levels to satisfy the laws...just as most regulations the government passes do.

#5.2 jma on 2019-02-09 21:17 (Reply)

The gatewaypundit has shown itself to be very racist against Caucasians as well as conservative view points. Their aim is just to write articles to incite and refuse conversation.. I stay away..

#6 Bill on 2019-02-09 17:37 (Reply)

Levinas says that objectivity comes from morality, not the reverse.

#7 rhhardin (Link) on 2019-02-09 20:04 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Saturday, February 9. 2019

Saturday morning links