- Banned
- #21
Abraham, let's get a few things straight.
Yes, let's.
1 - I created this thread. I know what the questions are here.
You do? Then why did you insist our exchange concerned O2 levels when the immediately prior exchange that prompted it was this:
Abraham3 said:Because, as I tried to point out, we could double our CO2 levels without using 0.16% of our O2.
SwimExpert said:So you're saying it's just not relevant?
Eh ? ? ?
You've done this over and over again on this forum. You insist on trying to control other people's responses and being the only person who can lay out the points for discussion.
Do you mean I've attempted to keep people on topic? Do you mean I have corrected blatantly faulty 'understandings' of basic physics, oceanography, meteorology and the scientific method? Well forgive the fuck out of me.
2 - When someone asks you to provide support for your position logic dictates that you must support your position. Simply saying that someone else has "proven" it is insufficient.
I note you avoid that issue by scrupulously avoiding the statement of any position to which someone might hold you. I have presented more supporting evidence - and more of it peer reviewed - than almost anyone here. How many references have YOU provided for your claims? One? I will NOT, however, respond to worthless and unreasonable demands for material that is in the public domain, that has already been provided or that the demand-er wouldn't have a clue what to do with were it provided. Kosh and his demand for a "dataset and source code". How many languages do you think Kosh knows how to read, compile and link? Hmm.. maybe NONE. Or RetiredGySgt? Or ANYONE's demand for "PROOF" on a question of natural science. Don't give me such shit. If you want to really get involved in this question, take some time to actually learn the science involved (because it's fairly obvious this is all new to you), see if it supports the position you've decided to assume on political grounds and then come back and talk REAL shop. Insult University didn't prep you for anything but being a bit of a dick. See how nice it made me?
We are not talking about established and universally accepted science.
97% of climate scientists accept AGW. That is about as established and as accepted as it is possible to get. The idea that there is still uncertainty or disagreement among the pertinent scientists on the major points of AGW or the IPCC's position is a falsehood perpetuated by the fossil fuel industry and its agents and by elements of political conservatives who view this issue as political and believe they are fighting off an attack by liberals on their friends and supporters in the energy sector.
So, in reality, we most certainly ARE talking about accepted science.
This entire discussion is about points of view having substantial disagreement over what conclusions are indicated by the information available.
What substantial points of disagreement? The Greenhouse Effect? The origin of the CO2 added to the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution? The actual value of the climate's temperature sensitivity to CO2? The history of global temperatures throughout the Holocene? The history of CO2 levels throughout the same period? And what available information makes ANY of those points uncertain or debatable?
You fail to admit that the cornerstone of the skeptical position regarding AGW is scientifically based misgivings regarding the validity of the "science" as it has been measured, collected, quantified, interpreted, and ultimately assembled toward the conclusions at hand.
Because I am unlikely to admit what I am quite certain is untrue.
3 - You continue to deliberately misrepresent what I and others say. It doesn't matter how many times you say it, I have never said th greenhouse effect does not exist. In fact, I have been quite explicit to the contrary.
I know you have. And I have used your central statement regarding the Greenhouse Effect to argue the point with other deniers who I thought might give your opinion more respect than they extend to mine. Thus I was a bit surprised to hear you say things like
"Prove it"
to this statement of mine:
"The primary driver is human GHG emissions. The warming that resulted from THAT has incited other sources of CO2"
and
"A "yes" answer implies affirmation that differences in "greenhouse" warming are directly or substantially due to differences in CO2 levels, despite such affirmation of the latter premise not being necessary for the former to be affirmed"
to my statement "Do you believe the difference between Greenhouse warming at 280 ppm and Greenhouse warming at 400 ppm is discernible?"
and to this:
"Do you believe the primary cause of global warming over the last 150 years has been human GHG emissions? If not, what do you believe is the cause?"
answering this:
"Insufficient data. Possible fallacy of complex question. Possible fallacy of equivocation".
I am well aware that you can weasel yourself away from these, but to me they really give the impression that you would like the denier audience here to believe you are with them in their opposition to the Greenhouse Effect
I gave you a chance here. You've blown it. Go away.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHahahahahahaaahaaahaaahaaaaaaaa you are such a ridiculous ass!
Last edited: