Atheist Statist wrote:
I googled this phrase just for laughs; "WHO THINKS THE EXCESS CO2 IS NOT ANTHROPOGENIC" and found all sorts of stuff, including lots of answers.
I expected I'd have to eventually retract my claim about that POLITICAL issue, but, you know, the power of honest curiosity.
Well at least you're trying (slightly) now.
Well, that's nice to hear from you - perhaps one day I'll aspire to reach your consistently trying
Perhaps you;d like to try
to explain what you found so convincing, as I sense you want to do.
The paper in no way contests any of the AGW consensus
Uh, sorry. You lost me there with that...jargon.
Would you be so kind as to elucidate
this 'consensus' you mentioned?
Perhaps once I know the (correct) consensus, then I'll be more adroit at applying that OTHER standard you prefer?
, let alone the little issue that you lied to us about.
You're saying I deliberately represented as true something I knew to be untrue? Or vice-versa?
Or did you 'accidentally' equivocate a mistake you can't seem to identify or explain for a nefarious intent you used your jedi mind-reading powers to 'discover'...the way a politician might do?
The whole paper even ASSUMES the standard hypotheses
Oops, there was that bulls...er, jargon again.
You really need to start explaining yourself if you honestly expect people to respond like you've explained yourself.
Perhaps you'd like to explain what you found so convincing?
, etc etc, to come to its conclusions.
"And then I thought some more, and prayed some more, and the more I prayed, the more sense it seemed to make!"
Again, there isn't much point to discussing the science until you start using the right standard of judgment.
Conclusions that come to themselves is convenient! Where have I heard of that stratagem before?
Oh, right - from DOGMATIC EVIDENCE-FREE traditions of 'thought.'
Nevertheless the paper has generated excitement among deniers
Uh, sorry. I know, I know...that glossary didn't really cover all the intro stuff, and I took my degree when...things were different.
What do the 'deniers' deny, exactly? I just want to have at least, you know, some idea what you are talking about, as I've been pointing out for approximately the entire time you've been discussing it with me.
because it points out that AIRBORNE FRACTION has not changed significantly.
As I recall, part of the dogm...er, hypothesis, was that the fraction would increase because of the inputs from humans - that the CO2 was 'building up' in the atmosphere, and various projections were being made about the airborne concentration increasing 'catastrophically' because it was staying there instead of driving the carbon cycle faster. That's the source of that "Day After Tomorrow" 'bifurcation' model, right? Did you learn a different one in school, or what?
That the airborne fraction hasn't increased debunks a large chunk of the 'catastrophic' model I remember first thinking was a load of horseshit. Such models in fact attract more funding, as has been amply documented, and the vast majority do not qualify as science
in the 'falsifiable theory about reality' sense. They start by ASSUMING AGW, they do not TEST it, the way SCIENTISTS do. Your consistently occultish and snarky attitude strongly suggests that you don't know how to make empirical judgments, even if you were to decide to try
Unless I'm way off base, that paper showed it to be likely that the various sinks all increased their operation approximately proportional to the relevant concentrations, which is entirely reasonable and plausible. And as I recall, that disproved a piece of the dogma. Putting the goal posts on wheels constitutes protecting
a hypothesis, not testing
it; a political, not scientific endeavor.
That's why I keep asking you to explain what you found so convincing, if you want to talk about the AGW theory with, you know, some conviction.
I could be totally off base about lots of things. More data is always coming in, and its often steeped in jargon. There is also the fact that the frankly occult nature of much of the research means you, with a bit more 'inside' knowledge, might easily outexplain anyone else here about how this-or-that idea has been vetted by being empirically tested.
Perhaps if I asked someone who knew better to explain what they found so convincing...
They don't know the difference between the airborne fraction of anthropogenic co2 and the co2 LEVEL in the atmosphere. Do you?
Perhaps if I asked someone who knew better...
But what is that thick jargon discussing? It is discussing ANTHROPOGENIC CO2 IN THE ATMOSPHERE. Duh.
Yes, it was rather dumb of you to think anyone believed that THE TOPIC was different, in addition to overlooking the obvious point that the jargon made it difficult to know WHAT WAS ACTUALLY BEING SAID, which is what someone who was honestly curious, like me or vertigo, would care about.
Someone who was honestly curious, or honestly trying to be informative, would have recognized and responded to that attitude in one or the other of us, presumably the one he isn't trying to score ideological points with, such as vertigo, instead of pretending that being deliberately insulting would impress anyone.
Perhaps if vertigo
asked someone who knew better to explain what they found so convincing...
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.htm wrote:Atmospheric CO2 concentrations rose from 288 ppmv in 1850 to 369.5 ppmv in 2000, for an increase of 81.5 ppmv, or 174 PgC. In other words, about 40% (174/441.5) of the additional carbon has remained in the atmosphere, while the remaining 60% has been transferred to the oceans and terrestrial biosphere.
It can help destroy your claim, yes.
Which of 'my' claims was destroyed, exactly?
WHO THINKS THAT THE EXCESS CO2 IS NOT ANTHROPOGENIC?
You've already mentioned two of them, dude.
Look, are you blacking out while you type, or suffering from multiple personality disorder or something? Its very strange the way you can't seem to focus enough to notice that you keep answering your own questions, overlooking my answers, and still demanding an answer from me, even though you've had ample opportunity to discover the relevant point; someone who wasn't 'terribly interested' in a ranting competition wouldn't pursue a patently political question, let alone doing such a stellar job of it.
I don't know what you are trying to prove, but what you are proving is that like most people who trust the AGW hypothesis, you don't speak the language of science, you don't apply the correct standards, you're basically an unreasonable schmuck, you use rhetoric as a substitute for explaining yourself (contrary to the way Dil, Mustang, Franc, and I for multiple examples, have explained ourselves many times upon precisely this topic) and so you are functionally indistinguishable from a theologian promoting their faith.
Like I already said, I'm sold.
If it smells like a goose and steps like a goose....
The issue is and has always been your standards of judgment, as it usually is with AGW protectors
; that is why you are demanding an answer for a *political* question about *who,* instead of talking about the *science* by which we might find out *what is true.*
I challenged you upon a totally useless point; the amount of controversy is not how we decide what is true.
It was and always has been rhetorical bullshit and you've gone to the mat with me just to establish...what, exactly? That you apply the wrong standards of judgment, and can't seem to turn it off.
Lets consider the political question, settled, then - I retract my claim that there is "some controversy" about the source of any recent CO2 increases.
(hint: there's one guy that you're missing)
I don't get it. Are you now saying there is some controversy?
Are you going to talk about 'real' scientists, again?
I can hardly wait to see which criticism of AGW you debunk 'easily', now that the vastly more important POLITICAL issues have been settled.
If the person making a decision is not the one assuming the risks of a potential mistake, then the decision is more often a poor one. -T.Sowell
I hate tmaq so much that I completely misread his post.