Page 13 of 210 FirstFirst ... 3910111213141516172363113 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 325 of 5238
  1. #301
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    I can define "climate change denial" in the same manner as you define "alarmism".

    It is a convenient short-hand, and little else. Quibbling about the semantics... is generally the mark of a sophist, IMO.

    Definitions are important, generally, but people like you hyper-focus on them.
    It is illogical as you have worded it. I am defining "ACC/AGW Alarm" not "Climate Change Alarm".

    Getting the definition of words correct is not semantics it is important for communication. Your statement is illogical and wrong.

    Your carelessness at using words properly is very revealing about your arguments in general.

  2. #302
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Random...

    Tell me.

    Why do these isotopic studies disagree with what I say pertaining to solubility, temperature, and CO2.

  3. #303
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    We all know that for you their is only one way to look at things only one way to define things, aspie.

  4. #304
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Fuzzy...

    Tell me.

    Why do these isotopic studies disagree with what I say pertaining to solubility, temperature, and CO2.

  5. #305
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    You ing asshole.

    I am sick and tired of you reading my words so damn wrong. I know you aren't that stupid, so please stop being such an ass.

    The isotope studies in no way contradicts what I said.

    Again, I fail to understand why this isotope thing is something you wish to hang your hat on. It is meaningless.

    Why do you think these isotope studies contradict my points?

    Your failure to understand all the things going on at once, does not indicate may inability to understand.

    It is you inability.
    I have simply stopped trying to read much into your explanations. When I have in the past, they always turn out to be flawed thinking in some manner, usually because of your marked confirmation bias, and inability to sift out how that bias affects your starting assumptions.

    At this point I assume that if you can't explain it easily, simply, and coherently, you are wrong.

    From what I have seen, you are contradicting yourself.

    Again, I could very well be wrong about that, I have not taken the time to dig into it.

    It isn't really my intention to be obtuse, or an asshole here. I will drop it, since it is upsetting you, and go back into it when I have the time.

    Please accept my apologies for being a bit frustrating, it is merely due to my unwillingness to spend the time fully understanding your argument, and that is more on me, than you. (edit) I will go in and do some reading on the studies and get back to you on that.
    Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-26-2012 at 07:54 PM. Reason: (missed an honest question)

  6. #306
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    So the data that contradicts your theory is "inaccurate", but you don't have to spell out simply how that is, or show how it is based on what is in the study.
    What he said.

  7. #307
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    There is honest skepticism, and there are deniers.

    Your buddy Greenfyre and other legitimite skeptics have pointed this out.
    Is Greenfyre honest?

    Who is a "legitimate" skeptic?

  8. #308
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    double double toil and trouble

  9. #309
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    Fuzzy...

    Tell me.

    Why do these isotopic studies disagree with what I say pertaining to solubility, temperature, and CO2.
    They disagree with the conclusion of your Dr. EZ-Bake Dumbass 'thought experiment.'

    The ocean is like a BIG SODA!!

  10. #310
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    I have simply stopped trying to read much into your explanations. When I have in the past, they always turn out to be flawed thinking in some manner, usually because of your marked confirmation bias, and inability to sift out how that bias affects your starting assumptions.

    At this point I assume that if you can't explain it easily, simply, and coherently, you are wrong.

    From what I have seen, you are contradicting yourself.

    Again, I could very well be wrong about that, I have not taken the time to dig into it.

    It isn't really my intention to be obtuse, or an asshole here. I will drop it, since it is upsetting you, and go back into it when I have the time.

    Please accept my apologies for being a bit frustrating, it is merely due to my unwillingness to spend the time fully understanding your argument, and that is more on me, than you. (edit) I will go in and do some reading on the studies and get back to you on that.
    Excuses, excuses.

    I make simplified explanations so anyone with basic science skills can understand. I'm not quantifying the CO2 between the actual ocean and air here, just simplifying the way it works. Why is this so difficult?

    Post #144

    Using easier numbers just for an example. Let's assume we have balance of 98:2. We have 10,000 units. We have 9,800 units in water and 200 units in the air above the water. If we increase the temperature of the water enough to change the calculated balance to 97.6:2.4, then the system will equalize to that. Equalization will occur when the water has 9,760 units and the air has 240 units. We didn't add the 40 units. It was achieved by the change in temperature

    Now let's use the same 10,000 units and keep the temperature stable. Let's add another 100 units (man-made) into the system. Our 10,000 number now becomes 10,100. Since the equilibrium is at 98:2, the water will absorb 98 units leaving 2 in the air. Our new mix is now 10,098 to 202. We added 100, but 98% of it was dissolved.

    Now we do both. We increase temperature and we add 100 units. We have 10,100 units at a 97.6:2.4 ratio for equilibrium. We now have 9,857.2 units in the water and 242.4 units in the air. Only 2.4 more units out of 100 than if we didn't add the 100.
    Consider this.

    If I take a 100 gallon fish tank with 70 gallons of clear water in it, add 19 gallons of clear water, and add 1 gallon of water with 1 drop of dye in it, mix it up, then pour out 20 gallons to get the original 70 gallons, we will see some coloring in the water. The more we repeat this process of adding 19 clear and 1 colored, the darker the water will become, as we are slowly increasing the percentage of dye in the water.

    Now consider how this applies to what we see in the isotopic ratio changes.
    What needs to be explained farther?

  11. #311
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    They disagree with the conclusion of your Dr. EZ-Bake Dumbass 'thought experiment.'

    The ocean is like a BIG SODA!!
    I see...

    You have no evidence I'm wrong, so you resort to such bull again.

  12. #312
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    No it is completely illogical. Who denies the climate changes?


    So you now have the ability to redefine words? That is not the definition,

    climate change - "a change in the world's climate"
    Reordering the adjective and subject is fun I guess. You suck at arguing semantics.

  13. #313
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    It is illogical as you have worded it. I am defining "ACC/AGW Alarm" not "Climate Change Alarm".

    Getting the definition of words correct is not semantics it is important for communication. Your statement is illogical and wrong.

    Your carelessness at using words properly is very revealing about your arguments in general.
    Meh.

    I don't think you are all that capable of constructing a logical argument, and in the same manner, recognizing one when it is presented to you.

    Although I am not going to hammer on it as much as Fuzzy is, I genuinely think you are a broken mind.

    Further, the way I think you are broken would lead you to be somewhat sociopathic to people you are antagonisitic to.

    It was interesting to me to engage you on a topic in which I truly consider myself an expert in, i.e. the hydrocarbon thread, but you seem to recognize the asymetry and have withdrawn from that.

    Your narcissism will not let you place yourself in a position to be "shown up" by those you consider inferior, so I don't expect that to change.

    Given that I don't think you are capable of recognizing a logical argument, and I genuinely believe your mind is dysfunctional, what possible motivation would I have to humor your request?
    Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-26-2012 at 08:12 PM. Reason: it's all about cost/benefit.

  14. #314
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    I see...

    You have no evidence I'm wrong, so you resort to such bull again.
    Why do i have to prove something wrong when you have not even proven it right in the first place?

    I get that there might be some play as you increase atmospheric CO2 concentrations and alter the solubility of the ocean.

    But so far you have used made up numbers, a fresh water solubility chart, and napkin math. I'm not even sure you've used the chart this time. It looks like you are just pulling figures out of your ass.

    You are just going to have to accept that is not good enough to prove a point when you are talking about the behavior of any ocean much less all of them. Quantifying empirical observations and using empirically demonstrated solubility figures from the actual ocean would be compelling.

    That's what the scientists that you claim are 'innacurate.' Its really easy to be accurate when you just make up as you go along.

    Quite frankly I have seen much better analysis from middle schoolers. If nothing else, they do not make up and fill in the gaps gratuitously

  15. #315
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Excuses, excuses.

    I make simplified explanations so anyone with basic science skills can understand. I'm not quantifying the CO2 between the actual ocean and air here, just simplifying the way it works. Why is this so difficult?

    What needs to be explained farther?
    You are letting your anger drive, here. That generally doesn't help decent conversations.



    As I said, I haven't spent the time to get into it. I think you know me well enough to know I have "basic science skills", so I can let that go as frustration and not meant too seriously.

    I am tired. I am going to wander to the corner store, get a beer and watch a movie with the wife. You have my promise to get to it when I can.

    Take care.

  16. #316
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    Reordering the adjective and subject is fun I guess. You suck at arguing semantics.
    No matter the order of the phrase, it's definition is illogical in it's application. I ask again, Who denies the climate changes?

  17. #317
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    I don't think you are all that capable of constructing a logical argument, and in the same manner, recognizing one when it is presented to you.
    You have created an entirely illogical thread and cannot define the words you used improperly.

    Although I am not going to hammer on it as much as Fuzzy is, I genuinely think you are a broken mind.

    Further, the way I think you are broken would lead you to be somewhat sociopathic to people you are antagonisitic to.
    When you cannot debate logically you always fall back to this smear.

    It was interesting to me to engage you on a topic in which I truly consider myself an expert in, i.e. the hydrocarbon thread, but you seem to recognize the asymetry and have withdrawn from that.
    I have not "withdrawn" as in accepted your argument, I just have not bothered to read it recently. My arguments on the issue have not changed.

  18. #318
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Why do i have to prove something wrong when you have not even proven it right in the first place?

    I get that there might be some play as you increase atmospheric CO2 concentrations and alter the solubility of the ocean.

    But so far you have used made up numbers, a fresh water solubility chart, and napkin math. I'm not even sure you've used the chart this time. It looks like you are just pulling figures out of your ass.

    You are just going to have to accept that is not good enough to prove a point when you are talking about the behavior of any ocean much less all of them. Quantifying empirical observations and using empirically demonstrated solubility figures from the actual ocean would be compelling.

    That's what the scientists that you claim are 'innacurate.' Its really easy to be accurate when you just make up as you go along.

    Quite frankly I have seen much better analysis from middle schoolers. If nothing else, they do not make up and fill in the gaps gratuitously
    That's OK Fuzzy. I'm tired of you purposely skewing things. I tried to open a dialog with you again, but you simply refuse to acknowledge valid points. You continue to do so in rather obnoxious ways. I get pissed at random as well, but at least after a while, he "gets it." I'll probably put you on IGNORE again, and never take you off. You will never simply change your stance once you are shown to be wrong. Before I do so, please remember:

    You don't have to prove I'm wrong? I think you mean you are incapable of proving I am wrong, because solubility determined by partial pressure and temperature is an undisputed science. No skeptics in this part of science, except it appears you are a denier.

    Fresh water chart?
    Liar. I have furnished in the past and used a chart that applies to the oceans. It shows solubility in a matrix by temperature and salinity. Again, a known proven aspect of science, not in dispute, except for your denial of real science.

    Quantifying? I have repeatedly pointed out that this is a difficult task. Again, my examples are not trying to quantify real world situations. I am only showing those with basic understandings how these function.

    The inaccuracies I claim are fact. Of the several studies done of atmospheric 13C, the results from one study to another are all over the place. The only consistency is that they all show the same direction of ratio changes. The magnitudes are really far off though. Again how do these studies matter?

  19. #319
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    It is illogical as you have worded it. I am defining "ACC/AGW Alarm" not "Climate Change Alarm".

    Getting the definition of words correct is not semantics it is important for communication. Your statement is illogical and wrong.

    Your carelessness at using words properly is very revealing about your arguments in general.
    The definitions of words is semantics.

    Quite frankly who gives a what you are defining? This is not the 'Let's phrase things for easy interpretation for Poptech's mentally disordered mind.' thread. If you are confused by what he means by 'climate change' then ask him.

    If you are confused by it then that's your problem.No one else is having this problem. Have you considered that maybe YOU are the problem in your lack of understanding? Nope, its always someone else lying or otherwise maligning your 'irrefutable' interpretations.

    Its also very transparent that this is one of your narcissistic ploys. If the wording doesn't match YOUR definition then you can just discount it.

    You don't even live up to that as I have seen you argue that if the climate has changed it has only been insignificant and you are not even convinced of that.

    You are a cliche at this point.

  20. #320
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    That's OK Fuzzy. I'm tired of you purposely skewing things. I tried to open a dialog with you again, but you simply refuse to acknowledge valid points. You continue to do so in rather obnoxious ways. I get pissed at random as well, but at least after a while, he "gets it." I'll probably put you on IGNORE again, and never take you off. You will never simply change your stance once you are shown to be wrong. Before I do so, please remember:

    You don't have to prove I'm wrong? I think you mean you are incapable of proving I am wrong, because solubility determined by partial pressure and temperature is an undisputed science. No skeptics in this part of science, except it appears you are a denier.

    Fresh water chart?
    Liar. I have furnished in the past and used a chart that applies to the oceans. It shows solubility in a matrix by temperature and salinity. Again, a known proven aspect of science, not in dispute, except for your denial of real science.

    Quantifying? I have repeatedly pointed out that this is a difficult task. Again, my examples are not trying to quantify real world situations. I am only showing those with basic understandings how these function.

    The inaccuracies I claim are fact. Of the several studies done of atmospheric 13C, the results from one study to another are all over the place. The only consistency is that they all show the same direction of ratio changes. The magnitudes are really far off though. Again how do these studies matter?
    All of them show an upward trend but you get to simply dismiss that by claiming that the magnitudes are 'wildly all over the place' asif you have even attempted to demonstrate that.

    matrix. Sure seems like simultaneous functions to me. Its a chart. It's a chart of seawater tested in a lab its not describing the behavior of the ocean with all its thermal layers, salinity gradients, ocean currents algae plumes and other assorted wildlife.

    The problem with your matrix is the solubility formulas for CO2 and the actual mechanism. You are dumbing it down here. In essence what youa re claiming is that the sea temperature changes and poof the ocean fizzes out CO2.

    Again

    A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.
    Even then, the notion that climate science does not consider this is prima facia stupid but further it is easily demonstrable that they do. The IPCC details scientific work on it from 10 years ago in their 2001 report.

    http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/104.htm

    The annual two-way gross exchange of CO2 between the atmosphere and surface ocean is about 90 PgC/yr, mediated by molecular diffusion across the air-sea interface. Net CO2 transfer can occur whenever there is a partial pressure difference of CO2 across this interface. The flux can be estimated as the product of a gas transfer coefficient, the solubility of CO2, and the partial pressure difference of CO2 between air and water. The gas transfer coefficient incorporates effects of many physical factors but is usually expressed as a non-linear function of wind speed alone. There is considerable uncertainty about this function (Liss and Merlivat, 1986; Wanninkhof, 1992; Watson et al., 1995). Improvements in the ability to measure CO2 transfer directly e.g., Wanninkhof and McGillis, 1999) may lead to a better knowledge of gas transfer coefficients.

    Despite extensive global measurements conducted during the 1990s, measurements of surface water pCO2 remain sparse, and extensive spatial and temporal interpolation is required in order to produce global fields. Takahashi et al. (1999) interpolated data collected over three decades in order to derive monthly values of surface water pCO2 over the globe for a single "virtual" calendar year (1995). A wind speed dependent gas transfer coefficient was used to calculate monthly net CO2 fluxes. The resulting estimates, although subject to large uncertainty, revealed clear regional and seasonal patterns in net fluxes.

    Regional net CO2 transfers estimated from contemporary surface water pCO2 data should not be confused with the uptake of anthropogenic CO2. The uptake of anthropogenic CO2 is the increase in net transfer over the pre-industrial net transfer, and is therefore superimposed on a globally varying pattern of relatively large natural transfers. The natural transfers result from heating and cooling, and biological production and respiration. Carbon is transferred within the ocean from natural sink regions to natural source regions via ocean circulation and the sinking of carbon rich particles. This spatial separation of natural sources and sinks dominates the regional distribution of net annual air-sea fluxes.

    CO2 solubility is temperature dependent, hence air-sea heat transfer contributes to seasonal and regional patterns of air-sea CO2 transfer (Watson et al., 1995). Net cooling of surface waters tends to drive CO2 uptake; net warming drives outgassing. Regions of cooling and heating are linked via circulation, producing vertical gradients and north-south transports of carbon within the ocean (e.g., of the order 0.5 to 1 PgC/yr southward transport in the Atlantic Basin; Broecker and Peng, 1992; Keeling and Peng, 1995; Watson et al., 1995; Holfort et al., 1998).
    They quite obviously have extensively looked into it.

    What you are missing about the partial pressures is that CO2 doesn't just dissolve. It dissociates into a couple of different compounds and there are chemical reactions in the ocean that happen. This phenomenon is ongoing.

    HERE is a study that tries to discuss the empirical observations of said behavior, quantification thereof. Below is a discussion of some of the feedbacks involved.

    The chemistry of carbon dioxide in seawater has been the
    subject of considerable research and has been summarized
    by Zeebe and Wolf-Gladrow [2]. Dissolved inorganic
    carbon can be present in any of 4 forms, dissolved carbon
    dioxide (CO2), carbonic acid (H2CO3), bicarbonate ions
    (HCO3
    ) and carbonate ions (CO32). Addition of CO2 to
    seawater, by air–sea gas exchange due to increasing CO2
    in the atmosphere, leads initially to an increase in dissolved
    CO2 (equation 8.1). This dissolved carbon dioxide
    reacts with seawater to form carbonic acid (equation 8.2).
    Carbonic acid is not particularly stable in seawater and
    rapidly dissociates to form bicarbonate ions (equation 8.3),
    which can themselves further dissociate to form carbonate
    ions (equation 8.4). At a typical seawater pH of 8.1
    and salinity of 35, the dominant DIC species is HCO
    3
    with only 1% in the form of dissolved CO2. It is the relative
    proportions of the DIC species that control the pH of
    seawater on short to medium timescales.
    CO2(atmos) ⇔ CO2(aq) (8.1)

    CO2  H2O ⇔ H2CO3 (8.2)

    H2CO3 ⇔ H  HCO3  (8.3)

    HCO3  ⇔ H  CO3
    2 (8.4)
    It is also important to consider the interaction of calcium
    carbonate with the inorganic carbon system. Calcium
    carbonate (CaCO3) is usually found in the environment
    either as calcite or less commonly aragonite. Calcium
    carbonate dissolves in seawater forming carbonate ions
    (CO3
    2) which react with carbon dioxide as follows:
    CaCO3  CO2  H2O ⇔ Ca2  CO3

    2  CO2  H2O ⇔ Ca2  2HCO3  (8.5)

    This reaction represents a useful summary of what happens
    when anthropogenic carbon dioxide dissolves in seawater.
    The net effect is removal of carbonate ions and production
    of bicarbonate ions and a lowering in pH. This in turn will
    encourage the dissolution of more calcium carbonate.
    Indeed, the long-term sink for anthropogenic CO2 is dilution
    in the oceans and reaction with carbonate sediments.
    The science is so obviously so far beyond your Dr. EZ Bake Optics analysis and quite frankly you of all people thinking you got one over on the entirety of the scientific community is laughable.

  21. #321
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    What you are missing about the partial pressures is that CO2 doesn't just dissolve. It dissociates into a couple of different compounds and there are chemical reactions in the ocean that happen. This phenomenon is ongoing.
    Yes, I know the CO2 changes form. Just because I don't specify these changes doesn't mean I don't know about it. They have equilibrium as well based on pH, temperature, etc. This is one of my biggest dislike about you. You automatically assume things and respond with your inaccurate assumption, instead of asking. You make calloused remarks based on your ignorance of what other people know. Do you have any redeeming qualities as a person, or are you a waste of flesh?

    It does not change the fact the CO2 is both sinked and sourced with the ocean, and that the balance changes with temperature, salinity, etc.

    Are you going to deny that the warming of the ocean changes this balance?

  22. #322
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    Yes, I know the CO2 changes form. Just because I don't specify these changes doesn't mean I don't know about it. They have equilibrium as well based on pH, temperature, etc. This is one of my biggest dislike about you. You automatically assume things and respond with your inaccurate assumption, instead of asking. You make calloused remarks based on your ignorance of what other people know. Do you have any redeeming qualities as a person, or are you a waste of flesh?

    It does not change the fact the CO2 is both sinked and sourced with the ocean, and that the balance changes with temperature, salinity, etc.

    Are you going to deny that the warming of the ocean changes this balance?
    Whatever you claim to know or not know you do not even attempt to account for them in any way shape or form. I think you are pretty stupid and have demonstrated it time and again. If you cannot deal with it then put me on ignore because unless you demonstrate something significantly different, i will continue to do so.

    Additionally you have been claiming that the scientists do not consider this 'important scientific fact.' I just showed you where they had in their conferences. A simple google search pulled it up multiple times. That shows me that you are unwilling to even research what you claim but rather would 'suppose' or guess.' You have demonstrated that time and again as well.

    I deny that the scientific evidence does not consider it and that you're attempts to show otherwise have been anything other than ty. Quit supposing and start proving empirically and I will treat you differently.

  23. #323
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    within post # 413 of the original thread:

    Solution:

    CO2(atmospheric) ⇌ CO2(dissolved)

    Conversion to carbonic acid:

    CO2(dissolved) + H2O ⇌ H2CO3

    First ionization:

    H2CO3 ⇌ H+ + HCO3− (bicarbonate ion)

    Second ionization:

    HCO3− ⇌ H+ + CO3−− (carbonate ion)
    Also in the thread, posted by me:



    Please note that more than 90% of the carbon is in either CO2, or carbonic acid. They freely equalize as the conditions change.

    You need to really stop thinking other people are beneath you. Just because I don't specify these changes doesn't mean I don't know of them. It's still part of the 98% balance.

    You need to start giving people a little more credit as to their knowledge and ask for clarification rather than accuse.

    I really don't see how you could possible have any friends in real life.
    Last edited by Wild Cobra; 05-26-2012 at 10:14 PM.

  24. #324
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Whatever you claim to know or not know you do not even attempt to account for them in any way shape or form.
    And you do?
    I think you are pretty stupid and have demonstrated it time and again. If you cannot deal with it then put me on ignore because unless you demonstrate something significantly different, i will continue to do so.
    No, I put you on IGNORE because you are impossible to reason with.
    Additionally you have been claiming that the scientists do not consider this 'important scientific fact.' I just showed you where they had in their conferences.
    The linked materiel also supported what I said, yet you deny it.
    A simple google search pulled it up multiple times. That shows me that you are unwilling to even research what you claim but rather would 'suppose' or guess.' You have demonstrated that time and again as well.
    Which claim and I trying to quantify? I am showing why skepticism is proper. When have i said i try to quantify? I don't need to pull up studies that quantify when that isn't my goal. If you want that, find them yourself.
    I deny that the scientific evidence does not consider it and that you're attempts to show otherwise have been anything other than ty. Quit supposing and start proving empirically and I will treat you differently.
    I not sure what you are referring to here. How about refreshing my memory. I believe the last time I used such a meaning was saying they do not count the indirect solar energy in greenhouse gas forcing. Increases in solar energy directly increase the forcing of greenhouse gasses, but instead of assigning the extra forcing to the sun, they assign the extra forcing to the gasses.

    We are talking about solubility right now, right?

  25. #325
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    The definitions of words is semantics.

    Quite frankly who gives a what you are defining?
    Failure to properly define and use words means a failure to communicate. If the goal is to be incoherent then you have succeeded. Either provide a definition from a dictionary for the context of the words "Climate Change Deniers" or this thread is falsified as incoherent.

    If you are confused by what he means by 'climate change' then ask him.

    If you are confused by it then that's your problem.No one else is having this problem. Have you considered that maybe YOU are the problem in your lack of understanding? Nope, its always someone else lying or otherwise maligning your 'irrefutable' interpretations.
    Psychotic drug addict, I have no confusion about words that only have a certain range of definitions.

    If the wording doesn't match YOUR definition then you can just discount it.
    Please provide a definition from a dictionary of these words in the context used here. So far no such definition has been provided and the thread has been falsified as incoherent.

    You don't even live up to that as I have seen you argue that if the climate has changed it has only been insignificant and you are not even convinced of that.

    You are a cliche at this point.
    What?
    Last edited by Poptech; 05-27-2012 at 01:34 AM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •