|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 05/16/2007 : 05:31:59 [Permalink]
|
Cuneiformist---This is a presentation of why the co2 lags behind temperature.
The why is not the question.
So, do you now admit the science shows temperature increase likley causes co2 to increase?
co2 increase can not (according to the data) cause a past event. |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
 |
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2007 : 05:44:22 [Permalink]
|
furshur---"it is clear that you are nothing more than a troll"
"The term is often used to discredit an opposing position, or its proponent, by argument fallacy ad hominem."
I believe the facts of science demonstrate natural warming.
I believe the documents of the ipcc that state overtly extensive governmental involvement in the presentation of the data.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2007 : 06:40:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Cuneiformist---This is a presentation of why the co2 lags behind temperature.
The why is not the question.
So, do you now admit the science shows temperature increase likley causes co2 to increase?
co2 increase can not (according to the data) cause a past event.
|
Can you read? This is the opposite of what they said. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2007 : 06:49:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Lets talk science facts. |
I see. Rather than admit to the huge conspiracy you've actually implicated with your original question, you'll just change the subject. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2007 : 06:59:38 [Permalink]
|
Cuneiformist---"such a lag can still be explained"
The article here admits to a lag.
The rest of the quotes are explanations of the lag.
"climate-driven net transfer of carbon from the ocean to the atmosphere"
"We suggest that this reflects the combination of the increased oceanic uptake of CO2 expected for colder climate conditions and CO2 release caused by the net decline of the terrestrial biosphere during the glaciation and possibly by respiration of organic carbon deposited on increasingly exposed shelf areas"
"Another possibility to explain this delayed response of CO2 to the cooling during MIS 5.4 would be an inhibited uptake of CO2 by the ocean."
Thanks for posting information that helps prove my points.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2007 : 07:02:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Cuneiformist---"such a lag can still be explained"
The article here admits to a lag.
The rest of the quotes are explanations of the lag.
"climate-driven net transfer of carbon from the ocean to the atmosphere"
"We suggest that this reflects the combination of the increased oceanic uptake of CO2 expected for colder climate conditions and CO2 release caused by the net decline of the terrestrial biosphere during the glaciation and possibly by respiration of organic carbon deposited on increasingly exposed shelf areas"
"Another possibility to explain this delayed response of CO2 to the cooling during MIS 5.4 would be an inhibited uptake of CO2 by the ocean."
Thanks for posting information that helps prove my points.
|
You obviously have poor reading comprehension skills. Or are happy with cognitive dissonance. In any case, if you think that this "proves" your point, then it's worthless to discuss the matter anymore. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2007 : 07:04:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Lets talk science facts. |
I see. Rather than admit to the huge conspiracy you've actually implicated with your original question, you'll just change the subject.
|
Ugh. Thanks for bringing that up again, Dave. This is in the "conspiracy theory" folder for a reason, and I continually get duped into JdG's Gish Gallop re science versus cover-up/conspiracy. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2007 : 07:29:25 [Permalink]
|
Dave---These are your quotes from the beginning of the first thread.
"Why were you so hung up on governmental interference if it's not because you're more interested in the politics surrounding the issue than the science?"
"We haven't gotten started on the science yet because you're focused on the politics and you need an education in science first."
"And why are you so focused on the politics, instead of the science?"
And now this ---Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME---"Lets talk science facts."
Daves response:
"I see. Rather than admit to the huge conspiracy you've actually implicated with your original question, you'll just change the subject."
So Dave, it does not matter to you what we talk about you want to talk about something else.
Why is that Dave ?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2007 : 07:47:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
This has to be the funniest statement made in the thread yet.
Do you think the Sun plays a minor role in the warming of the earth?
|
Ok, I'll admit it was ill-phrased. I meant the current warming trend.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2007 : 08:10:57 [Permalink]
|
furshur---"it is clear that you are nothing more than a troll"
"The term is often used to discredit an opposing position, or its proponent, by argument fallacy ad hominem." |
Jerome-da-troll, I was refering to your clear misrepresentation of what I wrote. It could be that you are not a troll and simply stupid, it is difficult to tell from your writing.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2007 : 08:56:07 [Permalink]
|
j911ob:
They are just very well versed in the 25 tactics of truth suppression. If you think this is fun then you should join JREF. They will tell you that black is white and down is up. |
This is a laughable statement coming from a guy who only sees things as either black or white. My guess is any objections to his arguments are seen as exact opposites of the extreme positions that he takes. His perception is tainted by his own psychology, which happens to include paranoia and an absolute inability to see any uncertainties.
I see Jerome as being a tad more receptive to considering conflicting idea's, even if it is filtered through a cynical bias that is not easy to penetrate…
Jerome, before you start slapping j911ob on the back in agreement with him, I suggest you read the recent 9/11 threads…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2007 : 11:43:22 [Permalink]
|
hondo said:
| MMGW might win a 'showing of the hands' vote right now, but as I've already stated, it's not a unanimous consensus, even among scientists. |
Well, I guess you are skeptical of everything then. Because there has never been, and never will be a unanimous scientific consensus about anything.
Lets switch the language of your own claim around to make it a positive and apply your logic to it:
"The sun and a cycle of natural variation are currently responsible for almost all of the current warming trend, human contribution is negligible."
What evidence can you provide to support this?
By your very own standard you must be more skeptical of this position than of the MMGW position, because the scientists who hold this position are a small minority.
If you want to be skeptical of the IPCC conclusions, you have to be able to make a case for your own preferred conclusions and be able to account for the data and conclusions in the IPCC report.
So, lets hear your arguments against the IPCC's radiative forcing argument and supporting data.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2007 : 11:46:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Dave---These are your quotes from the beginning of the first thread.
"Why were you so hung up on governmental interference if it's not because you're more interested in the politics surrounding the issue than the science?"
"We haven't gotten started on the science yet because you're focused on the politics and you need an education in science first."
"And why are you so focused on the politics, instead of the science?"
And now this ---Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME---"Lets talk science facts."
Daves response:
"I see. Rather than admit to the huge conspiracy you've actually implicated with your original question, you'll just change the subject."
So Dave, it does not matter to you what we talk about you want to talk about something else.
Why is that Dave ? |
You're projecting and misrepresenting what I've said.
The fact of the matter is that anytime you, JEROME, find yourself in an uncomfortable position, you change the subject rather abruptly. The quotes you took from the previous thread are all related to instances where you changed the subject by suggesting we stick to the science. In this continuation of that discussion, I explained how you were still positing a huge conspiracy with the scientists as willing participants (contrary to the fantasy world you envisioned), and again, you changed the subject. You stuck your original post in the "Conspiracy Theories" folder for a reason, and every time that reason is shown to be ridiculous, you say something like "let's talk about the science."
So, it's not me who is changing the subject, it's you. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2007 : 15:31:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
furshur---"it is clear that you are nothing more than a troll"
"The term is often used to discredit an opposing position, or its proponent, by argument fallacy ad hominem." |
No, he only states what is obviously fact. That in no way makes it an Ad Hominem fallacy.
You better go back and re-read exactly what an ad hominem fallacy is, or get a more accurate source.
I believe the facts of science demonstrate natural warming.
I believe the documents of the ipcc that state overtly extensive governmental involvement in the presentation of the data.
|
You believe... So you have no proof that it is so? Thanks for admitting that. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 05/16/2007 : 16:47:52 [Permalink]
|
'Round & 'round we go.... 
This is boring the shit out of me, and I might presume, 'most everyone else.
The literature is out there for all to see. The names of the people working on the science are available, along with their qualifications.
The bullshit is available as well, although, except for Sen. Inhofe (Republican, as might be expected) and a few others, the purverors of it tend to be a little more confused. Inhofe is not confused because he's brain-dead.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Senate's leading abuser of science has struck again. Not content with calling the notion of human-caused global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people" (as he did in a July 2003 Senate floor speech), last week James Inhofe returned with an "update" on climate-change science. In his latest speech, timed to coincide with the final steps toward implementation of the Kyoto Protocol (which the United States won't be joining), Inhofe asserted that "put simply, man-induced global warming is an article of religious faith." Clearly, he hasn't changed his tune.
What separates Inhofe's fixation from similar conservative crusades is just how brazenly it ignores what scientists know with confidence about global warming. The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the National Academy of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Meteorological Society all broadly agree on this basic point: Temperatures are rising, at least in part as a result of human greenhouse-gas emissions. According to the World Meteorological Organization, 2004 was the fourth-hottest year since 1861, while the past 10 years (excepting 1996) were "among the warmest 10 years on record."
That's not all. Drawing on highly sophisticated computer models, climate scientists can project -- not predict -- how much temperatures may rise by, say, 2100 if we carry on with business as usual. Although scenarios vary, some get pretty severe. So do the projected impacts of climate change: rising sea levels, species extinctions, glacial melting, and so forth.
One might argue, perhaps, that humanity should simply adapt to climatic changes rather than restricting fossil-fuel use. But that's not Inhofe's approach. No matter how strong the evidence of ongoing climate change gets, he simply rejects it. But backed into a corner, Inhofe's arguments have necessarily grown more and more desperate.
|
Is this the pathetic idiot you are trying to emulate?
So whereaway, Jerome? Are you going to continue this ridiculous circle game? I ask because I've lost patience with it.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Is Global Warming a Scam (part 2)
Topic Locked
