Deniers, explained.

[Jack Hays]

Of course I did.

You just seem totally confused, as does Longview.

My post was about the fact that Longview is arguing CO2 isn’t substantially going to be impacting global warming in the future, and his ‘proof’ is not much more solid than some disembodied graph he found on the Internet.

But you wouldn’t understand, because you’re a denier.

Sorry, but your claim is contradicted by your own posts.

 

[Jack Hays]

But do you know what it means to be "logarithmic" which is what I asked you.

Don't know and don't care.

 

[Jack Hays]

Most universities do. It's called Intro Geology. Those of us who teach it called it "Rocks for Jocks" precisely because it was a favorite of folks who were at college but didn't want to stress their GPA and their possible scholarship funding by taking a hard-core science class. eg student athletes.

The joke among those of us who went into geology was that we went in because we couldn't handle the math in chemistry, physics or engineering. I'll 'fess up to that to some extent. I am a weaker mathematician than I should be. But once you get up into grad level stuff it all kind of evens out. And considering I went on to spend a huge amount of time taking higher level chem classes I couldn't hide forever.

I believe you told us you took an intro geology class (?) If so, it was likely a "rocks for jocks" kind of class. At almost all of the universities I attended and taught at, intro geology was kinda that.

(Now, that being said, I've seen some Ivy League unis that probably had a bit more mathematical robustness and stringency even at the "intro" level, but by and large intro geology is a "friendly" science class to take for undergrads).

At DePauw it was the required intro course for geology majors. The only course I took fitting your description was Music Appreciation -- met the Fine Arts requirement, not open to music majors.

 

[Threegoofs]

But why? Only based on the assumptions used in models?
We know that Earth is 33C warmer than it would be if the atmosphere were transparent,
because of a 150 W/m2 of Energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere.
Of that 33 C, 20%, or 6.6C is from all the CO2 present in the atmosphere up to the pre industrial level of ~272 ppm.
If all the doubling s of CO2 between 1 ppm and 272 ppm, only produced 6.6C of warming,
Why would anyone believe that changing the CO2 level from 280 ppm to 560 ppm, would produce between 1.5 and 4.5C of warming.
It simply defies logic, to believe that the new CO2 doubling will somehow behave different than earlier CO2 doubling s.

Random internet pundit thinks the entire postulation of AGW ‘defies logic’.

Totally believable.

 

[Threegoofs]

Sorry, but your claim is contradicted by your own posts.

You seem to be confused.

 

[istodolez]

More CO2 (to a point) will not be a problem, The climate is simply not that sensitive to added CO2.
When I say to a point, I do not think, we will even reach the first doubling of CO2 at 560 ppm, and if we do, it will not be an issue.
Reaching a second doubling to 1120 ppm, would be almost impossible.

Apparently you disagree with the world's climate experts. Have you contacted them with your discovery? Or more importantly have you published? This is a very important topic and so you should find ample opportunity to get your word out there to some of the major journals.

 

[istodolez]

At DePauw it was the required intro course for geology majors.

As it is for ALL Geology majors! LOL! I took it! And I taught it a lot more in grad school and afterwards. The difference is, once you take it, if you are geology major you end up taking a LOT MORE OTHER geology classes of increasing difficulty and concept.

I don't know about DePauw per se but if it is like most universities and colleges the intro geology class was not one that taxed the mind.

 

[Threegoofs]

Apparently you disagree with the world's climate experts. Have you contacted them with your discovery? Or more importantly have you published? This is a very important topic and so you should find ample opportunity to get your word out there to some of the major journals.

He’s too busy posting on anonymous sites and doing simple math.

 

[istodolez]

Don't know and don't care.

But, Jack, this is actually a very important, relatively simple concept (logs are introduced to kids in junior high school math clases). And if you don't have that level of understanding why on earth do you think you have sufficient understanding to sit in judgement of the majority of the earth's climate scientists and go against their conclusions?

I'm not asking to be nasty, I'm serious. Who reasons like that? If I claimed to take a firm stand on nuclear physics but I didn't know the first thing about even what a "nucleus" was, would my position on nuclear physics be in any way meaningful?

What if I disagreed with 97% of the earth's nuclear physicists about a topic? Would I be on firm ground?

 

[Threegoofs]

But, Jack, this is actually a very important, relatively simple concept (logs are introduced to kids in junior high school math clases). And if you don't have that level of understanding why on earth do you think you have sufficient understanding to sit in judgement of the majority of the earth's climate scientists and go against their conclusions?

I'm not asking to be nasty, I'm serious. Who reasons like that? If I claimed to take a firm stand on nuclear physics but I didn't know the first thing about even what a "nucleus" was, would my position on nuclear physics be in any way meaningful?

What if I disagreed with 97% of the earth's nuclear physicists about a topic? Would I be on firm ground?

Jack shines at one thing.

Cutting and pasting.

Once you actually ask him direct questions, he falls back on a stock set of phrases (his prejudice, unfortunately, IS his prison) or ad libs something really silly, like ‘don’t know and don’t care’.

And if you continue to challenge him, you’ll understand why he’s the prototypical ‘Black Knight of Python’.

 

[Jack Hays]

As it is for ALL Geology majors! LOL! I took it! And I taught it a lot more in grad school and afterwards. The difference is, once you take it, if you are geology major you end up taking a LOT MORE OTHER geology classes of increasing difficulty and concept.

I don't know about DePauw per se but if it is like most universities and colleges the intro geology class was not one that taxed the mind.

The point is that it was not some specially-designed easy course.

 

[Jack Hays]

But, Jack, this is actually a very important, relatively simple concept (logs are introduced to kids in junior high school math clases). And if you don't have that level of understanding why on earth do you think you have sufficient understanding to sit in judgement of the majority of the earth's climate scientists and go against their conclusions?

I'm not asking to be nasty, I'm serious. Who reasons like that? If I claimed to take a firm stand on nuclear physics but I didn't know the first thing about even what a "nucleus" was, would my position on nuclear physics be in any way meaningful?

What if I disagreed with 97% of the earth's nuclear physicists about a topic? Would I be on firm ground?

It's not important for my purposes.

 

[istodolez]

Jack shines at one thing.

Cutting and pasting.

Once you actually ask him direct questions, he falls back on a stock set of phrases (his prejudice, unfortunately, IS his prison) or ad libs something really silly, like ‘don’t know and don’t care’.

And if you continue to challenge him, you’ll understand why he’s the prototypical ‘Black Knight of Python’.

Yeah, I've seen that before. I can't say as I blame him, though. I actually do feel bad challenging him like that, but when he fails to even attempt to come through it seems more sad than anything else. In no small way I'm bullying him. And for that I actually feel bad.

To his credit he seems to take it all in stride, so that's probably good. I just wish for someone who appears to like to read philosophy of science he was more willing to actually discuss headier topics in proportion to the stuff he quotes.

I'm actually kind of running out of steam "debating" Jack not least of all because I wind up being a worse version of myself. It always really gets under my skin seeing someone who appears haughty about their position yet so astoundingly uninformed on just any aspect of anything they post, or quote, etc.

The chance to speak with a real historian of science would be AMAZING, especially in light of something like this. But, alas, that is clearly not gonna happen here. I can imagine a lot of interesting discussions of empiricism, Hume, problems of induction, and even the nature of scientific revolution qua Kuhn vs Popper. It could be so much fun.

Just not gonna happen here I guess.

 

[Threegoofs]

The point is that it was not some specially-designed easy course.

That’s why you took it.

Don’t pretend you had some burning passion for geology that suddenly disappeared after one semester.

If you wanted to take a class in science, you would have taken basic Biology or Chemistry.

But you wanted the easy A.

 

[Threegoofs]

Yeah, I've seen that before. I can't say as I blame him, though. I actually do feel bad challenging him like that, but when he fails to even attempt to come through it seems more sad than anything else. In no small way I'm bullying him. And for that I actually feel bad.

To his credit he seems to take it all in stride, so that's probably good. I just wish for someone who appears to like to read philosophy of science he was more willing to actually discuss headier topics in proportion to the stuff he quotes.

I'm actually kind of running out of steam "debating" Jack not least of all because I wind up being a worse version of myself. It always really gets under my skin seeing someone who appears haughty about their position yet so astoundingly uninformed on just any aspect of anything they post, or quote, etc.

The chance to speak with a real historian of science would be AMAZING, especially in light of something like this. But, alas, that is clearly not gonna happen here. I can imagine a lot of interesting discussions of empiricism, Hume, problems of induction, and even the nature of scientific revolution qua Kuhn vs Popper. It could be so much fun.

Just not gonna happen here I guess.

Like podcasts?

Check out Context by Brad Harris.

Not all science history, but it’s very good.

 

[istodolez]

(Delete: Pointless post)

 

[istodolez]

The point is that it was not some specially-designed easy course.

"Rocks for Jocks" is not specially designed. It just is what it is. Geology, at the introductory level, isn't really all that hard. And given the breadth of the topic it is usually taught broadly meaning that even that is still a gloss at best.

 

[Jack Hays]

Yeah, I've seen that before. I can't say as I blame him, though. I actually do feel bad challenging him like that, but when he fails to even attempt to come through it seems more sad than anything else. In no small way I'm bullying him. And for that I actually feel bad.

To his credit he seems to take it all in stride, so that's probably good. I just wish for someone who appears to like to read philosophy of science he was more willing to actually discuss headier topics in proportion to the stuff he quotes.

I'm actually kind of running out of steam "debating" Jack not least of all because I wind up being a worse version of myself. It always really gets under my skin seeing someone who appears haughty about their position yet so astoundingly uninformed on just any aspect of anything they post, or quote, etc.

The chance to speak with a real historian of science would be AMAZING, especially in light of something like this. But, alas, that is clearly not gonna happen here. I can imagine a lot of interesting discussions of empiricism, Hume, problems of induction, and even the nature of scientific revolution qua Kuhn vs Popper. It could be so much fun.

Just not gonna happen here I guess.

"A" for arrogance. You're not "being a worse version" of yourself; you're simply showing your true self. And no, you're not bullying. You're amusing.

 

[Jack Hays]

(Delete: Pointless post)

You can actually delete a post so it disappears.

 

[Jack Hays]

"Rocks for Jocks" is not specially designed. It just is what it is. Geology, at the introductory level, isn't really all that hard. And given the breadth of the topic it is usually taught broadly meaning that even that is still a gloss at best.

As you wish.:roll:

 

[Jack Hays]

That’s why you took it.

Don’t pretend you had some burning passion for geology that suddenly disappeared after one semester.

If you wanted to take a class in science, you would have taken basic Biology or Chemistry.

But you wanted the easy A.

Took Zoology to complete the science requirement. Most of my grades were A.

 

[istodolez]

That’s why you took it.

Don’t pretend you had some burning passion for geology that suddenly disappeared after one semester.

If you wanted to take a class in science, you would have taken basic Biology or Chemistry.

But you wanted the easy A.

The most fun about being a geology TA is that it is a perfect on-ramp to education in general. The material isn't all that taxing to cover, the students are not hyper-stressed and it helps get one's feet under them.

As in all teaching one learns the most through teaching. So it was a great way to firm up the basics and appreciate both the topic and pedagogy.

My favorite TA position was actually for the mineralogy labs. When I taught that I was actually learning SO MUCH that I had missed in my undergrad mineralogy class. It was there that I fell in love with crystallography and it started to click.

Later on when I was teaching my own full intro geology classes it was also great to have a comfortable topic to cover. I never wanted it to be "simple" or without any value to the students, in fact no one ever does. It's more the nature of the topic at that level. AND most folks get engaged with the topic for the obvious reasons: ROCKS, MINERALS, VOLCANOES and DINOSAURS. It's a natural fit for folks who want a nice taste of science without too much stress.

The absolute HARDEST teaching gig I ever had was being a chem tutor for some AP Chemistry students. They were in high school and were being taught stuff I hadn't run into until closer to grad school! I was doing as much or more homework just prepping for my text tutoring time with one of these students as the students were!

 

[istodolez]

Took Zoology to complete the science requirement. Most of my grades were A.

Zoology and biology are credible undergrad science classes. No shame in that. The key isn't which classes were "designed" to be easy (NONE OF THEM ARE), it's how likely you are to engage students without stressing them out.

That's why Intro Geology is a perfect fit for low-stress science classes for people not particularly interested in science. It's engaging (rocks, minerals, volcanoes, sometimes dinosaurs) and broad enough that it all has to be covered in a high level "gloss".

"Rocks for Jocks" is the pejorative term that is applied to intro geology precisely because it is almost always a lower impact, less stressful science class that gives kids a chance to take a science class they might actually be able to generate an interest in without it threatening their GPA.

 

[istodolez]

As you wish.:roll:

I just wanted to clarify the point for you. It is not "as I wish".

 

[istodolez]

"A" for arrogance. You're not "being a worse version" of yourself; you're simply showing your true self. And no, you're not bullying. You're amusing.

Thank you. No, seriously. I deserved that.