Irony of ironies, Gore's hometown Nashville Breaks 1877 Cold Temp Record...

[deafskeptic]

I am not going to respon to someone that can't quote properly in a reply. Finding your replies in red and make replies to them is tiresome. That's perhaps what you want, too, avoid making your funny replies stand out? So, if you want reply from me, quit that red thing and use the QUOTE tag. A highly acclaimed scientists like you should be able to do that.

Read your own posts to figure out if it's logarithmic or exponential. Help me someone..

I think koko wants to wear them down so he can think he "won" the debate.

 

[flip]

I think koko wants to wear them down so he can think he "won" the debate.

One can wonder about that yes. Tiring out folk with red comments and long articles with major f*ck ups that he don't read himself nor can explain the point with. He also don't admit errors or ignore questions that gives him trouble. It's telling how he pulled up that ozone post with graphs from the arctic, where the ozone layer never have been a big concern to anyone. A real scientists, talking science, would never do something that funny. Think it was post #241.

 

[deafskeptic]

One can wonder about that yes. Tiring out folk with red comments and long articles with major f*ck ups that he don't read himself nor can explain the point with. He also don't admit errors or ignore questions that gives him trouble. It's telling how he pulled up that ozone post with graphs from the arctic, where the ozone layer never have been a big concern to anyone. A real scientists, talking science, would never do something that funny. Think it was post #241.

For the record, though I don't have the exterprise in this subject or anything that's related to scienific stuff despite a working knowledge in ecology and biology (two members in my family have worked in fields related to it in the past and my niece is a biologist), I do know enough to spot red flags. Of course, the red flags aren't always a sign of bogus science but I don't think this applies here.

I used to lurk at the forums at infidels.org but rarely delurked there so I can tell if someone is just spouting bs or if he's for real. From what I can tell, if you want to counter an accepted theory or an accepted consenus, the burden is on you to provide convincing evidence . I think the burden is on koko.

I was under the impression that the ozone is of concern? I'm a bit puzzled. if it's to do with the Artic circle, why isn't it of concern?

 

[deafskeptic]

Here's a link that you might like, Flip. I think this thread needs some laughs.

 

[kokonut]

Hmmm, so poking fun at the expense of a person is the answer to a debate? Argue the on the basis of science itself, not about the person. Not doing can signify a lack of confidence in the subject of science. Mocking does not help in a debate. Please, keep it up.

Secondly, I have provided numerous evidences that showed otherwise that CO2 cannot be the primary driver of global warming. Such would be peer reviewed articles on isotope studies of seabed cores showed conclusively that temperature rose first then the rise of CO2 followed. Other supporting peer reviewed articles support that. If you are claiming that increasing CO2 concentration is the primary driver of global warming that has a direct correlation on the direct influence on temperature rise then it would be logical to ask the question as to why temperature has not gone up over the last 11 years while CO2 concentration continued to rise. Global warming has not warmed 1° F as forecasted by the IPCC. Instead it has cooled slightly over the last several years (static if you want a window of 10 years) until 2007-08 when global temperatures turned sharply downward. And to really poke holes into your lack of knowledge, NASA satellite imagery confirmed that the Pacific Ocean had switched from the warm mode it had been in since 1977 to its cool mode, similar to that of the 1945-1977 global cooling period. The shift strongly suggests that the next several decades will be cooler, not warmer as predicted by the IPCC.
Global Cooling is Here

On long term ocean cooling and warming in a 2002 article- Pacific Ocean Temperature Changes Point to Natural Climate Variability : News

Climatic fluctuations over the past several hundred years suggest ~30 year climatic cycles of global warming and cooling on a generally rising trend from the Little Ice Age about 500 years ago. Alternating warm and cool cycles since 1470 AD. Blue = cool, red = warm. Based on oxygen isotope ratios from the GISP2 Greenland ice cores.
Global Cooling is Here

You have failed to take scale into consideration. You have failed to take lag time into consideration. You have failed to take into consideration the natural variabilities that have major influences and impacts on global warming and cooling phases. You have failed to take into consideration the peer reviewed articles on those subjects. You have failed to take into consideration short term cyclical warming and cooling phases, both long and short terms. Yet, the hoot comes when a non-scientist with little knowlege in the field of EArth science choose to berate and belittle a scientist in that same field.

Next time, either debate and/or discuss on the merits of science itself and not the person. If you cannot do that then you are woefully unprepared then.

 

[netrox]

just ignore Kokonut... he just HAS to have the last word on EVERYTHING. He did that with me all the time... annoying.

 

[sequoias]

Kokonut needs to go and start a meeting with the worldwide politics including America and see what he has to say about his facts of climate change. There's no need to force someone to believe this or that.

 

[Hwy99]

just ignore Kokonut... he just HAS to have the last word on EVERYTHING. He did that with me all the time... annoying.

Same here, I am ignoring him. It is not worth my time to do the "it do" and "it doesn't" kind of debate. It is just take forever.

 

[sequoias]

Same here, I am ignoring him. It is not worth my time to do the "it do" and "it doesn't" kind of debate. It is just take forever.

Yes, like a broken record or something.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Well, that's him.

 

[kokonut]

Well, that's him.

Yep. That's me. At least I do know my subjects. But this isn't about me. The discussion is about "global warming" with the claim that man is solely responsible for it.

Gotta laugh at that idea.

 

[flip]

For the record, though I don't have the exterprise in this subject or anything that's related to scienific stuff despite a working knowledge in ecology and biology (two members in my family have worked in fields related to it in the past and my niece is a biologist), I do know enough to spot red flags. Of course, the red flags aren't always a sign of bogus science but I don't think this applies here.

I used to lurk at the forums at infidels.org but rarely delurked there so I can tell if someone is just spouting bs or if he's for real. From what I can tell, if you want to counter an accepted theory or an accepted consenus, the burden is on you to provide convincing evidence . I think the burden is on koko.

I was under the impression that the ozone is of concern? I'm a bit puzzled. if it's to do with the Artic circle, why isn't it of concern?

The way he is arguing is telling enough. Some background in science, like you and I got is perhaps needed to spot some of the red flags, though some of the techniques I have seen here don't have much with science to do.

The link you provided in post 484 was very good, thanks! Followed the content and discovered a new term to me, "denial industry". It's interesting how the denial industry is using the same terms and way of arguing they did in tobaacco lobbying, in lobbying aginst global warming policies. The same denial techniques is used against evolution and holocaust according to some posters on the link you provided. Heartland Institute was also mentioned on an article about denial industry.

The antarctic ozone layer is improving greatly at the moment, and hopefully, the thinning problem will be gone soon. CO2 have some impact on the ozone layer, but is not considered a big threat, if a threat at all. Scientist did lab tests on ozone in the eighties and nineties, and discovered what chemicals ruined the ozone layer. Those chemicals was banned worldwide in the nineties for industry use. Due to winds, geography and how the earth transport atmosphere, the arctic ozone layer wasn't hit by those gases, like the antarctic ozone layer.

Interesting image of chain of arguing.

Image of how deniers go through stages to publish arguments, with many boxes with text and arrows.

 

[flip]

Hmmm, so poking fun at the expense of a person is the answer to a debate? Argue the on the basis of science itself, not about the person. Not doing can signify a lack of confidence in the subject of science. Mocking does not help in a debate. Please, keep it up.

It's not my intention to mock you, but you are arguing in a style that makes it natural to comment your way of arguing.

 

[deafskeptic]

The antarctic ozone layer is improving greatly at the moment, and hopefully, the thinning problem will be gone soon. CO2 have some impact on the ozone layer, but is not considered a big threat, if a threat at all. Scientist did lab tests on ozone in the eighties and nineties, and discovered what chemicals ruined the ozone layer. Those chemicals was banned worldwide in the nineties for industry use. Due to winds, geography and how the earth transport atmosphere, the arctic ozone layer wasn't hit by those gases, like the antarctic ozone layer.

Interesting image of chain of arguing.

Image of how deniers go through stages to publish arguments, with many boxes with text and arrows.

Thanks for the clarifying this for me. I understand this much better now.

I will have to check out the link you provided.

As you said in your earlier posts, I have to agree that some of the environments are naive and at one time I was one of them. I used to be a fan of organic gardening but I've become skeptical of it and I've been skeptical of it for while now.

From I understand, the issues regarding climate change will require changes in how we use energy and transportation among other things. I can't remember what other changes we need atm.

 

[deafskeptic]

It's not my intention to mock you, but you are arguing in a style that makes it natural to comment your way of arguing.

Normally I don't mock other people's style of arguing but this link was too good to pass up and I think others are on the same page as me.

 

[deafskeptic]

Same here, I am ignoring him. It is not worth my time to do the "it do" and "it doesn't" kind of debate. It is just take forever.

Too bad we don't have an ignore feature on this forum.

 

[kokonut]

Kokonut needs to go and start a meeting with the worldwide politics including America and see what he has to say about his facts of climate change. There's no need to force someone to believe this or that.

It is quite amusing when you use say "no need to force someone to believe this or that." There is no forcing. Anymore than Flip or DS can force me to believe this is or that that we're gonna drown. Either you agree with it, you are skeptical about it, or you don't believe the arguments. Simple. How am I forcing you. You *do* have a choice on not to read my postings on this subject.

 

[kokonut]

Efficient use of energy has nothing to do with climate change, er, global warming. Pollution, yes. Global warming, no. And, no, CO2 is not a pollutant either since we, too, exhale CO2. Global warming is simply a scapegoat and a strawman to get people to change by using fear as the motivator.

As for argument style, each to his/her own. So, let's not go about an imply And, yes, it was your intention to mock me, attack me, in various but subtle ways. The focus is about the environment, not the person.

As for Ozone, it's cyclical as far as I can tell. Why should we worry about this nonsense, too?

 

[Jiro]

Well, that's him.

and you as well

 

[Jiro]

Belive me, everything he has posted so far got at least one major f*ck up. He also have posted stuff from climate scientists that goes against his own claims.

you seem to have a serious boner for climate scientists. I'm guessing you're married to one?