Ocean's like a soda etc etc.
Now again, I ask where were you going with the question when you interjected ice sheet, when ice sheets had nothing to do with what was being discussed at the time? We were talking about sea ice.
Ocean's like a soda etc etc.
I have use a soda as a simplified example to explain how CO2 out gasses from the ocean.
Do you deny that the ocean is a CO2 source in the equatorial regions?
Do you deny that a soda holds more CO2 when cold over when it is warm?
I visited the tropics and the ocean went POP POP FIZZZZZZZZ
Just using a simplified explanation.
A soda doesn't need to fizz to lose CO2.
I guess you didn't know that either.
How about back to the sea ice. What where you trying to say when you interjected ice sheet?
Yes, an experience most people have witnessed by their beer or soda going from a crisp acid taste, to a flat ... ugghh... taste. An example those not knowing these particular sciences can relate to.
Well, that explains why you would want to use it.
I explained to you why I was discussing both ice sheets and sea ice. Apparently you still haven't looked at a globe since we talked about it last. This is why I ignore your stupid questions.
You didn't explain squat that I recall, and we were talking about sea ice.
Remind me then what your explanation was please.
So, about that face palm emoticon....
As I said, back then. I wish not to assume your intent, and you are asking me to assume your intent.
Why can't you give a strait answer? Afraid I might actually have an intelligent response?
I've given you countless straight answers in the past. I'm beyond the phase of slamming my head against a keyboard. I find this far more amusing now.
you.
Find a single question in this thread that I have "sidestepped". I also don't change topics unnecessarily.
, find a single fair question that I have ever sidestepped.
I will admit to occasionally missing one or two.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-30-2012 at 04:29 PM. Reason: backspace is your friend.
Quit using strawmen arguments to misrepresent my opinions.
Prevaricating again.It is possible to have a catastrophic impact on any given ecosystem that severely harms or kills a majority of species within that ecosystem, while having some species actually benefit from whatever change caused the damage?
Prevaricate:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/prevaricating
Either it is possible, or it is not.
Quibbling over semantics is evasive.
Please answer the question. If you like, provide definitions that you feel appropriate. The question hinges on overall principles, and is directly relevant to how much that paper supports what you call "skeptical" arguments.
Since this got lost in the shuffle, let's see if we can it answered.
It is possible to have a catastrophic impact on any given ecosystem that severely harms or kills a majority of species within that ecosystem, while having some species actually benefit from whatever change caused the damage?
The reply also suggests another important question.
I will accede and agree with the statement that species can adapt to changes.
Does the rate of change matter to whether or not a species can adapt to something that might otherwise be deleterious, as opposed to simply being wiped out?
Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-30-2012 at 04:54 PM.
I don't get why you guys dog him about that all the time. That analogy is frequently used.
What is that?
Here is another gem that PopTech probably didn't have time for.
So, with 900 papers all supporting the skepticism of a catastrophic outcome from AGW, it is still possible that we could see catastrophic outcomes from AGW?Does volume of papers published determine the scientific validity of a position?
Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-01-2012 at 05:52 PM. Reason: Civility and accuracy. PT didn't sidestep, and it was unfair to imply that.
Just like it is possible we will not. The list is simply a resource that skeptics can use to support the argument that it will not be catastrophic but the list is not making this determination as that is not it's purpose.
This was not side-stepped, I simply watching a movie and did not answer that yet.
Why are you lying? Where does the list say it supports "anti-AGW"? Nor have I claimed stupidity about anything. When you have nothing left to argue you obvious resort to ad hominem and lies. You would not be this defensive now if you had took the time to read things clearly before making careless statements like you did earlier in this discussion.
You are very bad at following a conversation as I said Randomguy cherry picked not Mig and it is the Village Voice nor "Choice. The purpose of the quote was to show irrefutable evidence that even liberal publications recognize the founders of Sourcewatch to be extreme left-wing. It was not cherry picked because the context as I used it did not change with removal of the rest of the content which was irrelevant to this argument.
More ad hominem lies.
Can anti-capitalists be classified as socialists or communists?
FuzzyDumbkins, we have zero donors and no association with any lobby or energy corporation. You will have to try harder.
I am well aware you have no interest in the truth.
This is irrelevant to the irrefutable fact that nothing is implied with the list.
You should be able to read this response multiple times already.
There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)