Interesting Conversation

A continuation


I’ve been over this before:

Daniel G. Kuttner

October 8 at 7:27pm ·

Given two evils, I’ll take the guy who 11 years ago talked about consensual touching, over the woman who enabled and covered up her husband’s actual violent assaults on women, and also threatened or publicly humiliated the victims who dared to speak out.

It would be interesting but space-consuming to recount how that devolved to this:

John Blanton Dan, the sound of silence you are hearing is yourself, failing to follow-up. I gave you a list of assertions, any one of which you were invited to challenge. Your unwillingness or inability to respond is telling. Shades of AGW?

Like · Reply · 19 hrs

Daniel G. Kuttner John: I don’t know the abbreviation.

Apparently you didn’t read MY answer to your unsupported assertions.

Do you only have an output port? Or is your input filtered to only accept responses which coincide with your “directed skepticism?”

Like · Reply · 19 hrs

John Blanton Dan, the abbreviation stands for Anthropogenic Global Warming . We were discussing it a few weeks ago. Your responses established a baseline against which current conversations are bring measured. And I did read your ANSWER. I’m assuming the word is supposed to be all caps. Yes, I did put up a list of unsupported assertions. Assertions you are unable to refute. If you are unable to put the lie to them, then I’m going to assume you accept them as true. Your recourse is to refute at least one of them. Only one. The ball is in your court. I await.

Daniel G. Kuttner Where’s your science?

It is not one’s burden to disprove a theory or to prove a negative.

The burden is on those proffering the assertion.

The crickets continue to chirp. It’s their job.

In a previous conversation Dan made some claims related to atmospheric science. One went something like this (I do not have the exact quote), “Carbon dioxide weighs [some number] more than the rest of the atmosphere.” That statement struck me as odd to the extreme. The German physicists Wolfgang Pauli is noted as having said something like, “Das is nicht einmal falsch,” that is not even false (wrong).” It related to something so absurd that it went beyond not being true. Dan’s statement regarding carbon dioxide and the atmosphere is such a statement. Some explanation.

Carbon dioxide is a chemical compound, not a physical object. The atmosphere is a physical object. Any statement comparing a non-physical object with a physical object is beyond false. In this case there was no way for me to respond to Dan’s statement. The conversation unraveled from there.

Back to the present. On 1 December (last  week) a mutual friend started a new conversation. Here is as much of it as I was able to capture. Follow the link for a PDF copy. Here are some pertinent excerpts:

John Blanton A perspective from Freethought Blogs…/the-righties-get-their…/

Like · Reply · 1 · December 2 at 4:01am · Edited

Daniel G. Kuttner As I expected, that article slung some nice mud, without citing one error in Breitbart’s article.
Further, he (?) says, “This lefty gets his climate information from published, peer-reviewed science” Yet… he gives not one example of such a source.
Global Cooling/Warming/Climate Change is pseudo scientific drivel, used to further expand governmental power, shut down parts of the economy, line the pockets of insiders, and of course, further subjugate Us, the People.
Has anyone checked Algor’s Nobel Prize winning predictions lately? He still has those ocean-side mansions, last I heard, and they’re not flooded yet.

Like · Reply · December 2 at 3:24pm

I reminded Dan of his previous attempt at interpreting science:

John Blanton Daniel, if I could be sure you are sincere, and not just pulling a joke at our expense, I would respond to your comments about global warming (AGW). Give me a clue if you are really interested in this topic but recall how it went the last time you took a stab at it.…/interesting…/

What was most interesting was Dan’s response to my quoting him in my prior blog post:

Daniel G. Kuttner John, I am, but no need to respond.
I certainly would appreciate, if there is a next time, that you ask before using my name in a blog, too. I would do the same for you.

Like · Reply · December 3 at 12:13am

John Blanton Dan, this is Facebook. Anything posted here is open to the world.

Like · Reply · December 3 at 3:41am

Daniel G. Kuttner John: It is open, but common courtesy is not outlawed.

Quoting and deriding someone by name is still trolling, and rudeness is still rudeness.

What is interesting is a comparison to Dan’s own posting etiquette:politics-conservativesdankuttnerfacebook-01

Lest the point be missed, somebody has created a cute meme that associates an image of candidate Hillary Clinton with the word “cunt.” Get it? Hillary Clinton and “cunt.” Apparently Dan thought this was appropriate, and he posted it on his time line and indicated toward it favorably. Need I say there are additional examples? This is the person who finds it offensive when his own statements are handed back to him publicly.

But Dan has a rationale:

Daniel G. Kuttner What’s wrong is, somehow, I can’t get certain things through to you. I’m sure there’s a way. I will not give up on this challenge! You are an intellect worth reaching.
Let me rephrase what I meant: Quoting someone is one thing. Usually, without permission, I may just say “a friend said… ” You may’ve seen, I had one friend out himself by objecting to THAT!
What you did,though, wasn’t just quote me. It seemed, as I recall, you took bunches of my statement out of context, and held them up to derision. That’s a whole different kettle of fish.
Days or a week later, I happened to catch it*, and I think I did say one or two things in rebuttal.
(* you might have pointed it out in a discussion such as this)
That is way different.
I know how sensitive you are. I doubt you’d have let it slide if I’d publicly been that disrespectful to you.
You may note I said nothing at the time. Reason? It was already done, and I figured at some time I’d just mention it to you.
I’m doing that now.

[Emphasis added]

Pay attention to the text I emphasized above: “It seemed, as I recall, you took bunches of my statement out of context, and held them up to derision.” Pay particular attention to the reference to “derision.” I looked the word up in some on-line references to be sure I understood what it means. It does mean ridicule and mockery. Does anything Dan said in the conversation deserve ridicule and mockery? I will leave it to readers to decide:

Daniel G. Kuttner I’ll concede the context, I should have said “as I recall.” I will correct the above comment.
You must be kidding, though, about CO2 not being heavier than air. You’ve used a CO2 extinguisher, right? You have to know molecular weight, right?
Here’s a part of the calculation (didn’t want to buy the paper):…/JZ062i003p00351/epdf…

In any case, most of the air at sea level is composed of mostly N, about 15% O2, and only about 1% being other gases. Its average molecular weight is 28
A molecule of CO2 has a molecular weight of 12 + (16)2 = 44. So CO2 is about 1.4x the weight of air.…
Your rebuttal?

Like · Reply · December 3 at 5:55pm

My rebuttal was this:

John Blanton Dan, I do not deny that CO2 is denser than air. However, you did not say, in your argument, that CO2 is denser. You said that CO2 is so many times heavier than the rest of the atmosphere. It’s not the same thing, and it’s not the kind of statement you want to make when arguing a technical point. Apparently your field has been in communication, and taking care what you say is a big part of communicating clearly. You are a non scientist, and you are arguing technical points with scientists, including me. You need to have at least as much knowledge about the subject as the scientists in order to make a successful argument. I get the impression you are pulling text from questionable sources and passing it off as knowledge. You need to pull from reliable sources if you hope to make headway in this kind of discussion.

Like · Reply · December 3 at 6:40pm

Then the conversation began to get really weird:

Daniel G. Kuttner I never said it was denser. I still don’t. It is heavier. My link shows that.
Density is a function of altitude and temperature.
Part of my proof also involves a thing called Partial Pressure. At altitudes of “greenhouse” effect, CO2 is less abundant, as is Oxygen and other heavier gases. This is one reason why humans require supplemental oxygen at altitude. CO2 is heavier than O2, so it’s even less abundant at altitude, resulting in a lower partial pressure of the CO2.
Just add the molecular weights in the table I linked.
Gosh, I’m beginning to sympathize with that religious guy. Can you please stay on topic and not change the argument each time? Maybe even answer a question or two?
Try to stay off the ad hominem, too. Calling someone a “non scientistt” and oozing condescension while YOU’re being non scientific doesn’t bolster your argument, nor refute theirs.
OK.. You get the last word.

And I did get the last word, but only because at some later point Dan and I  both concluded that further discussion was pointless. Dan came back with additional comments after I had this to say:

John Blanton Dan, calling somebody a non scientist is not ad hominin. It is not an insult. It’s just a fact of life in your case. You never made a serious study of science, and you never obtained a degree in science. I’m merely pointing out this fact as a precaution you need to take when wading into a discussion of matters scientific with one who does have considerable training and experience in the field. When you make these kinds of remarks, such as the ones regarding weight, density, carbon dioxide, the mixing of gases in the atmosphere, the problem becomes apparent. Your discussion of concentration variation illustrates you are not acquainted with principles of gaseous diffusion, for example. It’s high school science. As a result, your assertions regarding the distribution of carbon dioxide are completely wrong, and undermine the remainder of your argument.

Like · Reply · December 4 at 3:43pm

Daniel G. Kuttner You have no idea of my qualifications. You throw your ample supply of tomatoes at me, rather than my assertions, which are backed BY science (e.g. that engineering reference link). Thus, you were replying ad hominem, literally.
I could be a bum on the street and still report correct – or incorrect – science. My lack of a white lab coat has no import.
If you are so full of science, where is your scientific refutation of my numbers? All I see from you is condescension and sarcasm.
Saying something is “clearly wrong” is not refutation, it’s disagreement; an opinion. You are, of course free to have those.
This has not been a learned debate or even a discussion, in my book. Sad, actually, because I’m convinced you DO have the capability. It just appears you have an agenda you accept, and won’t accept anything that conflicts with or undermines that belief.
That’s not Science, that’s Scientism; a religion, of which there are many practitioners on the talking-head box.
Your political positions I’ve seen are supported the same way: Talk down to the opposition and question their credentials according to some amorphous standard.
Again, I await your analytical critique of my numbers. Maybe you can also support why the key members of the Global Warming “science” supporters have been caught THREE TIMES falsifying or cherry-picking their data.
That’s the only type of refutation I’ll answer hereafter on this subject.
PS: I was also hoping at some point you’d reply to my IM about your inventions. I am definitely interested in those!

Like · Reply · December 4 at 5:49pm · Edited

John Blanton Additionally, I am working off-site and am forced to keep my responses brief. Details later.

Like · Reply · December 4 at 3:45pm

John Blanton Once again, I’m on a short leash here. I don’t have access to my computer, so I will respond as I can for the time being. You are conflating weight and density. Keep the two straight. CO2 is denser than air, as you have discovered. You are wrong in concluding that CO2 is unevenly distributed. Below 90 km the gases remain evenly mixed. The remainder of your argument falls apart from there.

Like · Reply · December 4 at 7:06pm · Edited

John Blanton Once again on the ad hominin [sic] – I am not stipulating that you are wrong because you have insufficient scientific training. I am saying you are wrong. I am further concluding (can possibly be wrong) that a contributing factor is your lack of scientific training. Good to see you are acquainted with the concept of partial pressure as it relates to gases. I am sure you learned that in pilot training. The concept explains why pilots go on pure oxygen above 10,000 feet.

Like · Reply · December 4 at 7:15pm

Dan made the excellent point that the source of a statement is not what qualifies it. What qualifies a statement is whether it is true or not. He cites a “bum on the street,” and he is correct. A bum on the street making a true statement is still right. What Dan is ignoring is the requirement that the statement be true to be valid. He brings up that I am making statements without offering proof. True. In my world  some statements do not require additional  elaboration:

  • The Earth is not flat.
  • The sun does not revolve around the Earth.
  • In the atmosphere carbon dioxide is not concentrated at the lower levels.

There is some basic knowledge of science lacking in Dan’s statements, and it’s I problem I encounter on a regular basis dealing with people denying the science behind AGW. You cannot argue with somebody who continually brings up incorrect conclusions, stipulating them as fact.

The conversation is interesting to some. A yawn to many. It would be nice if we never had to engage in these kinds of discussions. That would only happen if the preponderance of the population had a better grounding in basic science and human knowledge. Unfortunately that is not the case, and fortunately, for me, it is raw feedstock for this blog.

Keep reading.

4 thoughts on “Interesting Conversation

  1. Pingback: The Fractured Portfolio | Skeptical Analysis

  2. Pingback: The Age Of Embarrassment | Skeptical Analysis

  3. Pingback: Debating Lefty | Skeptical Analysis

  4. Pingback: The Condescending Tone | Skeptical Analysis

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.