Page 12 of 210 FirstFirst ... 289101112131415162262112 ... LastLast
Results 276 to 300 of 5238
  1. #276
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    No Fuzzy.

    You are just trying to dismiss reality.

    What are you a scientific denier?

  2. #277
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    Yeah, that's what it is.

    Those more comprehensive studies that consider CO2 solubility too are wrong but you have it figured all out.

    It's irrefutable.

  3. #278
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Yeah, that's what it is.

    Those more comprehensive studies that consider CO2 solubility too are wrong but you have it figured all out.

    It's irrefutable.
    Are you denying that water holds more CO2 when colder than warmer?

    Are you saying Climate scientists say this as well?

  4. #279
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    Are you denying that water holds more CO2 when colder than warmer?

    Are you saying Climate scientists say this as well?
    I a not the one making these claims.

    Do you really think that they do not consider water solubility in their studies? Really?

  5. #280
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    I think that you should contact IPCC to let them know that they do not consider soot and water solubility in their conclusions. You are obviously extra-special in your intuition and should be recognized as the cutting edge of climate science.

  6. #281
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    I a not the one making these claims.

    Do you really think that they do not consider water solubility in their studies? Really?
    I don't know if they do or not. It seems as though they don't. They most certainly don't acknowledge a few simple truths about the process.

    have any studies to show they do properly account for the process?

  7. #282
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    I think that you should contact IPCC to let them know that they do not consider soot and water solubility in their conclusions. You are obviously extra-special in your intuition and should be recognized as the cutting edge of climate science.
    Think what ever you want. I have already come to understand you are so delusional, you wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on the ass. Besides. The IPCC has acknowledges, since AR4, that soot has a far greater forcing than previously published. I believe they have increased it's strength by a factor of three.

  8. #283
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    I realize you would just love to be a guy like Sherwood Idso or the like testing hypothesis to disprove AGW to confirm your bias but you do not even do that. Its "I suppose this" or "I bet if this were true" or some supposition based on an obnoxious oversimplification like your ocean as solubility chart equilibrium talk.
    I don't know if they do or not. It seems as though they don't. They most certainly don't acknowledge a few simple truths about the process.
    I believe they have increased it's strength by a factor of three.
    You are an idiot. Yeah I am delusional..... you only prove my point.

  9. #284
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    I have never seen them say they deny climate change, nor do I.

    It's this chronic lying you guys do that pisses us off. You paint us a lunatics when we are skeptics.
    I didn't say that Yonivore or Darren ever denied that the earth's climate changes.

    One of the common memes in the denier movement is that climate scientists claim that the earth will never naturally change, or that the earth has some "optimal temperature".

    Neither claim is ever really made by climate scientists. THat is why the argument is what is called a "strawman"



    "Oh, look at the climate alarmists, they claim that the earth's climate never changes, how dumb that is, look at how it has changed in the past!'

    there are variations on that, of course.

  10. #285
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Random...

    Do you now understand my point about the CO2 and ocean thing yet?

    I gave it one more attempt to answer your question, now you're silent.

    Did I waste my time?
    So the CO2 did come out of the water, and that would drastically affect the mixture of carbon isotopes, given how much CO2 came out of the water.

    Your hypothesis is testable, and has been found to be contradicted by the study of the isotope ratios since your theory cannot explain why the ratios are moving toward that found in the fossil fuels.

    If 97% of the extra carbon was coming out of the oceans from your warming, the "natural" carbon signature would completely overwhelm the "fossil fuel" carbon signature, and the air ratios would not be changing as much as has been observed.

    See, all you need is to formulate a testable hypothesis. Oh the places you will go.

  11. #286
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    "Oh, look at the climate alarmists, they claim that the earth's climate never changes, how dumb that is, look at how it has changed in the past!'
    Yes, it's a two way street. i think you would agree however, that "alarmist" was a term used after "denier." Seems to me it was a responsive action.

    When I continue reading, am I going to find where you understand my point about temperature and solubility?

  12. #287
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    So the CO2 did come out of the water, and that would drastically affect the mixture of carbon isotopes, given how much CO2 came out of the water.

    Your hypothesis is testable, and has been found to be contradicted by the study of the isotope ratios since your theory cannot explain why the ratios are moving toward that found in the fossil fuels.

    If 97% of the extra carbon was coming out of the oceans from your warming, the "natural" carbon signature would completely overwhelm the "fossil fuel" carbon signature, and the air ratios would not be changing as much as has been observed.

    See, all you need is to formulate a testable hypothesis. Oh the places you will go.
    I see you still don't understand. You need to stop trying to tie an inaccurate study to this. Maybe you should see how the math pans out too.
    Last edited by Wild Cobra; 05-26-2012 at 04:50 PM.

  13. #288
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    I see you still don't understand. You need to stop trying to tie an inaccurate study to this. Maybe you should see how the math pans out too.
    Inaccurate how?

  14. #289
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    I explained it already. Sorry that you don't know how to read into it.

    Too many variables, and different studies have been way off from each other on determined levels. They do all show the 13C/12C ratios changing, but have big discrepancies between studies.

    Nobody is denying that we are changing the ratio. This is not a point worth focusing on at all. The natural and anthropogenic CO2 is all in the same bucket for exchange purposes. Just because one process prefers a particular isotope doesn't mean the process has any change.

    How about trying to explain why the ratio makes a difference?

    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.

    Why are you guys so worked up over something so simple?

  15. #290
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    I don't know. Who does?

    I have seen Yonivore and Darrin claim that climate scientists seem to think that. I can probably find the links to their posts if you want.
    I didn't say that Yonivore or Darren ever denied that the earth's climate changes.

    One of the common memes in the denier movement is that climate scientists claim that the earth will never naturally change, or that the earth has some "optimal temperature".

    Neither claim is ever really made by climate scientists. THat is why the argument is what is called a "strawman"
    So who are you talking about in this thread? As it is led, "...Climate Change Denial..." So your thread is based on a strawman?

    What is the "denier movement"? This does not make any sense.

  16. #291
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    too many variable. I read that and see 'I cannot figure out what they are doing so just dismiss it.'

    We don't get worked up. We just think you are a moron. There is a difference.

    It has nothing to do with which isotope the system prefers and everything to do with the source of the CO2. You are obsessing with your thought experiment and refusing to acknowledge what he is talking about.

    They take CO2 samples from the air and lo and behold the isotope mixture is more and more weighted to the isotopes that are found from fossil fuel burning.

    You dye theory is ing stupid because in this case, the 'dye' dissolves too. The marker is the carbon in CO2. Think carbon dating. They are measuring the 'old' carbon that was burned from sitting in the ground for millions of years and the stuff that's been dynamic in the ecosystem. But even beyond that it fails to consider that its atmospheric CO2 that they are talking about.

    Even then you are doing a 'thought' experiment based on ty assumptions, using ty data, and a whole lot of wishful thinking and then you 'suppose' that the outcome will prove what you want it to prove.

    It's dumb.

  17. #292
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    So who are you talking about in this thread? As it is led, "...Climate Change Denial..." So your thread is based on a strawman?

    What is the "denier movement"? This does not make any sense.
    Yay a semantic obfuscation.

    I could define climate as the natural seasonal oscillations that happen without human interference at which point it would assume that the deviations from say the ENSO cycle like the BEST study correlated and demonstrated would be a climate change.

    We all know that for you their is only one way to look at things only one way to define things, aspie.

    I am not going to argue with you, I have read your canned answers on this particular 'refutation' of yours and have no desire to get you on another obsessing track. Go ahead and think that its really because I cannot argue your 'irrefutable' logic or rant about psychotic addicts.

    With that in mind the Mayo Clininc recommends the following:

    Medication
    There are no medications that specifically treat Asperger's syndrome. But some medications may improve specific symptoms — such as anxiety, depression or hyperactivity — that can occur in many children with Asperger's syndrome. Examples include:

    Aripiprazole (Abilify). This drug may be effective for treating irritability related to Asperger's syndrome. Side effects may include weight gain and an increase in blood sugar levels.

    Guanfacine (Intuniv). This medication may be helpful for the problems of hyperactivity and inattention in children with Asperger's syndrome. Side effects may include drowsiness, irritability, headache, constipation and bedwetting.

    Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Drugs such as fluvoxamine (Luvox) may be used to treat depression or to help control repe ive behaviors. Possible side effects include restlessness and agitation.

    Risperidone (Risperdal). This medication may be prescribed for agitation and irritability. It may cause trouble sleeping, a runny nose and an increased appe e. This drug has also been associated with an increase in cholesterol and blood sugar levels.

    Olanzapine (Zyprexa). Olanzapine is sometimes prescribed to reduce repe ive behaviors. Possible side effects include increased appe e, drowsiness, weight gain, and increased blood sugar and cholesterol levels.

    Naltrexone (Revia). This medication, which is sometimes used to help alcoholics stop drinking, may help reduce some of the repe ive behaviors associated with Asperger's syndrome. However, the use of low-dose naltrexone — in doses as low as two to four mg a day — has been gaining favor recently. But, there's no good evidence that such low doses have any effect on Asperger's syndrome.

  18. #293
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    I explained it already. Sorry that you don't know how to read into it.
    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.

    My, how convenient.

    "I don't like that data, (waves hand) POOF!!, it is inaccurate"

    I think your definition of "accurate" or "flawed" is anything that might contradict your theories.

    Your theory sounds less and less credible the more you explain it, or attempt to explain it.

    Either you can explain, very specifically, and explicitly, how the study is flawed, and show, with support, how it is in accurate, or you can't.

    To really demonstrate that, you would need to dig into the dataset directly.

    You are asking me to believe that someone with a scientific background and relevant degree didn't consider or minimized things that you, with no formal training, noted in their study. Futhermore, you alone found this when people far more qualified than you missed it, and didn't comment on that in the peer review process.

    Does that about sum up what you are asking me to believe?

  19. #294
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    Yay a semantic obfuscation.
    No it is completely illogical. Who denies the climate changes?

    I could define climate as the natural seasonal oscillations that happen without human interference at which point it would assume that the deviations from say the ENSO cycle like the BEST study correlated and demonstrated would be a climate change.
    So you now have the ability to redefine words? That is not the definition,

    climate change - "a change in the world's climate"

  20. #295
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    too many variable. I read that and see 'I cannot figure out what they are doing so just dismiss it.'

    We don't get worked up. We just think you are a moron. There is a difference.

    It has nothing to do with which isotope the system prefers and everything to do with the source of the CO2. You are obsessing with your thought experiment and refusing to acknowledge what he is talking about.

    They take CO2 samples from the air and lo and behold the isotope mixture is more and more weighted to the isotopes that are found from fossil fuel burning.

    You dye theory is ing stupid because in this case, the 'dye' dissolves too. The marker is the carbon in CO2. Think carbon dating. They are measuring the 'old' carbon that was burned from sitting in the ground for millions of years and the stuff that's been dynamic in the ecosystem. But even beyond that it fails to consider that its atmospheric CO2 that they are talking about.

    Even then you are doing a 'thought' experiment based on ty assumptions, using ty data, and a whole lot of wishful thinking and then you 'suppose' that the outcome will prove what you want it to prove.

    It's dumb.
    No Fuzzy, youare dumb.

    Again, nobody disagrees with the fact that the isotopic ratio is changing, and why.

    The disagreement is in the fact that these experiments, which have been done multiple times, keep yielding results so far off from each other, that it cannot properly be quantified. We are looking at 13C ratios around 1.1%, and trying to quantify differences made from a process that only discriminates about 20% of that.

    Tell me.

    Outside of us all agreeing that the isotopic ratios are changing, what significance do these numbers have? I really do not understand why you think there is anything else to see here.

  21. #296
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    So who are you talking about in this thread? As it is led, "...Climate Change Denial..." So your thread is based on a strawman?

    What is the "denier movement"? This does not make any sense.
    Denier = pseudoscientific skeptic, generally a hack with a definite political agenda.

    Deniers usually demonstrate flawed reasoning in the form of logical fallacies, as you have demonstrably done, and exhibit a rather obvious form of confirmation bias and intellectual dishonesty.

    There is honest skepticism, and there are deniers.

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

    It is VERY telling that the same groups of skeptics who generally refute the bull 9-11 truthers, lump many skeptics of AGW into this group, as I do.

    Why do you think it is that the people who generally have mercilessly debunked 9-11 theories and other pseudoscientific bull , generally classify people who profess skepticism of what you term as AGW alarmism in the same manner/group as twoofers?

  22. #297
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    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.
    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.

  23. #298
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    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"
    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.

    There is a point past which such quibbling serves an obvious bull purpose.

    By all means, keep demonstrating that. Ask the question again.

  24. #299
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    "I don't like that data, (waves hand) POOF!!, it is inaccurate"
    That was a minor point, and it doesn't matter. It's so infuriating trying to reason with someone who cherry picks a point that doesn't matter anyway. These studies have nothing to do with what I say.

    Again, all these studies do show the balance of 13C is changing.

    So ing what?

    I am not disagreeing with that.

  25. #300
    Irrefutable Poptech's Avatar
    My Team
    New Jersey Nets
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    694
    Denier = pseudoscientific skeptic, generally a hack with a definite political agenda.
    This is illogical. Can you provide a dictionary that includes this definition?

    It is VERY telling that the same groups of skeptics who generally refute the bull 9-11 truthers, lump many skeptics of AGW into this group, as I do.
    I debunk 911 conspiracy claims as well,

    Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

    I do not make any of these logical errors as you have.

    Why do you think it is that the people who generally have mercilessly debunked 9-11 theories and other pseudoscientific bull , generally classify people who profess skepticism of what you term as AGW alarmism in the same manner/group as twoofers?
    Because they are uneducated and emotional on the subject.

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
  •