NationStates Jolt Archive

G_n_i and Free Soviets are better informed and can explain it better than I.

But I believe the answer to your question is that they haven't happened before on a much larger scale. You think they have because of your goofy sources. G_n_i and Free Soviets will correct me if I am wrong -- just as they have done with your every post.

I see, so you are here arguing about something you know little or nothing about...

That explains a lot!

Regards,
Gaar

What's the problem Cat, having problems reading the Thread?

I have stated my premise many times now; I am not going to be bothered to re-state it just because you couldn't be bothered to read it the first time I posted it.

If you are unable to find it for yourself, with as many times as I have stated it here, I don't know how else I can help you.

Again, I am not going to repeat myself because you want me to.

Or how about this...

You "address" the single question asked of you and then I will post links to each place I have stated my premise here.

Unless you are willing to do as you are requesting of others then your requests will fall on deaf ears.

Regards,
Gaar

EDIT: Not supporting his position seems to be a specialty of The Cat-Tribe... It seems making a cogent argument may be beyond him.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8531035&postcount=86
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8531059&postcount=89

And look at who is accusing who of "Hijacking" a Thread. Quite amusing.

<sigh>

As you want to be so playground about it: I showed you mine. Now show us yours.

I see, so you are here arguing about something you know little or nothing about...

That explains a lot!

Regards,
Gaar

Unlike some people, I am willing to admit it when others know more about a subject than I do.

Grave_n_idle and Free Soviets know much more than I do. So?

But I believe the answer to your question is that they haven't happened before on a much larger scale. You think they have because of your goofy sources. G_n_i and Free Soviets will correct me if I am wrong -- just as they have done with your every post.

Hmmmm....

I believe we have been over this before...

http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~jordi/fsgw/lect6.html

Models of climate at this epoch explain this warmer world better if the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere was as high as 10 times the present value (2000 or 3000 ppmv).

http://calspace.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1.shtml

While scientists are fairly certain that a 100 million years ago carbon dioxide values were many times higher than now, the exact value is in doubt. In very general terms, long-term reconstructions of atmospheric CO2 levels going back in time show that 500 million years ago atmospheric CO2 was some 20 times higher than present values. It dropped, then rose again some 200 million years ago to 4-5 times present levels--a period that saw the rise of giant fern forests--and then continued a slow decline until recent pre-industrial time.

http://www.fortfreedom.org/s22.htm
http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/Warm.html

Is that enough references? Just don't want to be accused of using just one Source...

Regards,
Gaar

Hmmmm....

I believe we have been over this before...

http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~jordi/fsgw/lect6.html

Models of climate at this epoch explain this warmer world better if the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere was as high as 10 times the present value (2000 or 3000 ppmv).

http://calspace.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1.shtml

While scientists are fairly certain that a 100 million years ago carbon dioxide values were many times higher than now, the exact value is in doubt. In very general terms, long-term reconstructions of atmospheric CO2 levels going back in time show that 500 million years ago atmospheric CO2 was some 20 times higher than present values. It dropped, then rose again some 200 million years ago to 4-5 times present levels--a period that saw the rise of giant fern forests--and then continued a slow decline until recent pre-industrial time.

http://www.fortfreedom.org/s22.htm
http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/Warm.html

Is that enough references? Just don't want to be accused of using just one Source...

Regards,
Gaar

Can you state in your own words what your premise is?

If so, please do.

Unlike some people, I am willing to admit it when others know more about a subject than I do.

Grave_n_idle and Free Soviets know much more than I do. So?

And just what people might that be?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8530922&postcount=25

I also believe you should admit when you are ill informed on a subject.

So what's your point? That you are trying to argue something you know little about?

Regards,
Gaar

<sigh>

As you want to be so playground about it: I showed you mine. Now show us yours.

As I want to be so playground?

You come here, time and again, to make your snide remarks without making any point what-so-ever and then accuse me of being "playground" when I begin to return the insults?

What's wrong Cat, can't take as good as you give?

It's ok for you to offer up your snide remarks as some sort of debating tactic, but once it is thrown back in your face you become condescending about the very behavior you have started?

How does that work Cat, could you please explain that to me?

Regards,
Gaar

Science Has Spoken:
Global Warming Is a Myth (http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm)

Another interesting read against global warming!

Chapter 3: Global Warming: Messy Models, Decent Data, and Pointless Policy
Chapter Highlights (http://ourdecline.com/aginatur/pointlss.htm)

Another good read.

Can you state in your own words what your premise is?

If so, please do.

That's like asking a cat to come to you. It'll take a messege and get back to you later. LOL :D

As I want to be so playground?

You come here, time and again, to make your snide remarks without making any point what-so-ever and then accuse me of being "playground" when I begin to return the insults?

What's wrong Cat, can't take as good as you give?

It's ok for you to offer up your snide remarks as some sort of debating tactic, but once it is thrown back in your face you become condescending about the very behavior you have started?

How does that work Cat, could you please explain that to me?

Regards,
Gaar

Fine. You cannot state your position. Clear enough.

Debate over.

EDIT: I have no authority to close this thread. I am merely stating that I will no longer debate Gaar in this thread.

Fine. You cannot state your position. Clear enough.

Debate over.

Again, it is stated here many times...

And you saying you are too ill informed to answer the questioned posed of you is not your keeping your end so I have to now.

It was you, just as always, avoiding a question and changing the subject, just as you have done here.

Again, my position has been stated here quite clearly numerous times. If you are having a problem understanding it, might I suggest that it is your previously stated lack of understanding of the Issue and not my having not stated it here many times already.

Regards,
Gaar

Again, it is stated here many times...

And you saying you are too ill informed to answer the questioned posed of you is not your keeping your end so I have to now.

It was you, just as always, avoiding a question and changing the subject, just as you have done here.

Again, my position has been stated here quite clearly numerous times. If you are having a problem understanding it, might I suggest that your lack of understanding has more to do with your previously stated lack of understanding of the Issue and not my having not stated it here many times already.

Regards,
Gaar

Fine. You cannot state your position. Clear enough.

Debate over.

You can go away now.

EDIT: FYI, this is my last post in this thread.

EDIT2: I have no authority to close this thread. I am merely stating that I will no longer debate Gaar in this thread.

Fine. You cannot state your position. Clear enough.

Debate over.

You can go away now.

Obviously your lack of understanding is not limited to this subject.

Something about the position already having been stated and your inability to discern it that you aren't getting?

Yes, I can go away now, just as you can...

But I think I'll stay here, this is FUN!

Regards,
Gaar

Actually, at one time or another in this Thread I believe I have used the following references at one time or another...

http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/Warm.html
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WV...house_data.html
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/130.htm
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/131.htm
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/130.htm#tab41a
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/SHSU5BUM9T/$File/ghg_gwp.pdf

As well as a few from other people's links...
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_enviro...rming/index.cfm
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_enviro...cfm?pageID=1264


Simply placing the word 'Fact' before a collection of other words, doesn't grant some magical power on them, to transform them into articles of truth.

Some of your 'facts' are, I would say, very much arguable.

For example - "the short term problem is global warming however our primary concern is global cooling". Oversimplified, and erroneous in terms of spheres of impact. Colorado watersheds are not worried about global cooling... not now, not in a few thousand years. For Colorado watersheds, the longterm issue is the same as the short term... the loss of water through warming, and warming-related factors.

Also - you might expect to be questioned, if you state something as 'fact'... do you have a source that backs each of the claims you assert?

I think you need to learn to trust someone, and indeed I do, I shall quote a few passages form my University textbook Understanding Earth fourth edition by Press Siever and Grotzinger Jordan. It costs £30 to purchase at any good academic bookstore. Oh and please, feel free to criticise everything I write, being the only person here studying this phenomenon at Glasgow University; I shall enjoy a good slaughter.

Climate since the last Glaciation (Understanding Earth, by Press and Siever and Grotzinger Jordan, page 373.)

“we have learned from ice cores in Greenland that a complicated series of events took place before, during and after the relatively abrupt deglaciation that ended the most recent ice age. A fast warming seems to have occurred about 14,500 years ago. About 1000 years later, the climate started to cool again and started another period of glaciation about 12,500 years ago. This temporary return to glacial conditions called the Younger Drays period, lasted about 1000 years, then about 11,700 years ago the temperature increased again by about 6 degrees centigrade, and deglaciation proceeded the present state of shrunken polar ice caps and glaciers.

The transition form the cold Younger Dryas to the relative warmth of the present interglacial period occurred abruptly. It started with a sharp global temperature rise of 5 to 10 degrees centigrade and continued to have taken place in less than 10 years. The speed of the transition was a shock to many geologists who thought the transition to have taken place over many thousands of years. These and other fast changes in climate system operates like the rapid action of a switch, going from one state to another in a matter of a few years.”

Now that is a small extract from the text book which details how quickly our global climate can change. Now I can provide direct quotes proving everything which I have been telling you and you can argue about its credence, but I would suggest you believe me and listen and learn instead of holding crumbling ground.

And may I remind you that this is a text book which has been compiled by over one hundred leading authors in the field, and HAS been peer reviewed. Quoting websites is quaint, but hardly sound evidence for serious discussion. University professors are not always correct, and their works flawed. In a serious discussion, only peer reviewed articles and journals should be used.

So, I will say this on the subject. World rainfall averages have not been increasing or decreasing, it has been the regional variances, such as England receiving twice as much rain while Scotland has a drought. There is no credible evidence to suggest that the Earth is warming on a long term basis. We see reports of Glaciers retreating and Ice shelves breaking but the world average shows that Glaciation growth is nominal, it is merely high profiles glaciers that are retreating which features in the News, giving this hysteria over global warming.

*snip*

If I have used the term "fact" not in reference to empirical evidence then I apologize.

I do believe however that I have not used that term when addressing the Sources you quote and merely offered them as Sources of information which supported my assertions.

I believe I have always held that my statements here are a matter of my "opinion" which I try to support with "Sources of information" so that I am not asking anyone to take JUST my word for anything I am espousing.

If I have somehow made you to believe otherwise, again, I apologize. It was never my intent to do anything but state my own opinion as well as refute the statements of other as being incorrect or incomplete, from my own point of view.

I hope that helps...

Regards,
Gaar

No problems whatsoever, but if you have any further questions on Global warming or Geology and the Earths climate at all. Please feel free to tg me. I’ll help in whatever way I can.

It should be noted that CFC's contribute nothing to the Greenhouse effect. CO2 on the other hand does. CFC's are responsible for the destruction of the Ozone layer by converting it to oxygen, that in turn allows ultraviolet light to pass through which is finally quite toxic to all forms of life.

It should be noted that CFC's contribute nothing to the Greenhouse effect. CO2 on the other hand does. CFC's are responsible for the destruction of the Ozone layer by converting it to oxygen, that in turn allows ultraviolet light to pass through which is finally quite toxic to all forms of life.

Actually, I believe that CFC's are considered a GreenHouse Gas, just not a significant one...

And I am not trying to deny that it doesn't destroy the Ozone, only that it actually is considered a part of the GreenHouse gasses also.

Regards,
Gaar

I see, so you are here arguing about something you know little or nothing about...

That explains a lot!

Regards,
Gaar

When you lack any other point to make, you just launch into a personal attack?

Strange - it seems like you just lashed out at Cat because he said he would let someone 'better qualified' deal with your question...

And you perceive that as a weakness?

I find it especially amusing, of course... because, when I joined this thread, Cat-Tribes was serving you your proverbial beast-of-burden, on a silver platter...

Hmmmm....

I believe we have been over this before...

http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~jordi/fsgw/lect6.html

Models of climate at this epoch explain this warmer world better if the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere was as high as 10 times the present value (2000 or 3000 ppmv).

http://calspace.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1.shtml

While scientists are fairly certain that a 100 million years ago carbon dioxide values were many times higher than now, the exact value is in doubt. In very general terms, long-term reconstructions of atmospheric CO2 levels going back in time show that 500 million years ago atmospheric CO2 was some 20 times higher than present values. It dropped, then rose again some 200 million years ago to 4-5 times present levels--a period that saw the rise of giant fern forests--and then continued a slow decline until recent pre-industrial time.

http://www.fortfreedom.org/s22.htm
http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/Warm.html

Is that enough references? Just don't want to be accused of using just one Source...

Regards,
Gaar

Wouldn't want to be accused of actually having a point, either?

Still no point... just a couple of quotes from someone else's webpages...

Is that your argument?

That you have no ideas of your own?

Or is your argument that CO2 levels were much hiher previously, perhaps?

Or is your argument that CO2 levels fluctuate?

Or is your argument that the earlier water levels were higher?

Here's how it works...

You set your premise: explaining what it is that you are arguing.

Then: you show a source, or sources, that support your supposition.

You want to try that? Or are you really just wasting everyone's time, by trolling with no real point to make?

When you lack any other point to make, you just launch into a personal attack?

Strange - it seems like you just lashed out at Cat because he said he would let someone 'better qualified' deal with your question...

And you perceive that as a weakness?

I find it especially amusing, of course... because, when I joined this thread, Cat-Tribes was serving you your proverbial beast-of-burden, on a silver platter...

Or so you say...

And so, instead of dealing with the question that Cat couldn't address you yourself come barging into the conversation to add your "opinion" to the matter without addressing the subject for which you are posting?

How does that work? If you would like to address the question that Cat-Tribes was unable to, might I suggest you do it? Otherwise, your "opinion" is worth, to me, what I paid for it...

And might I suggest that if you are going to chastise someone for "attacking" someone, that you might like to not exhibit that very behavior yourself?

It looks very Hypocritical, to me at least.

Regards,
Gaar

I think you need to learn to trust someone, and indeed I do, I shall quote a few passages form my University textbook Understanding Earth fourth edition by Press Siever and Grotzinger Jordan. It costs £30 to purchase at any good academic bookstore. Oh and please, feel free to criticise everything I write, being the only person here studying this phenomenon at Glasgow University; I shall enjoy a good slaughter.

Climate since the last Glaciation (Understanding Earth, by Press and Siever and Grotzinger Jordan, page 373.)

“we have learned from ice cores in Greenland that a complicated series of events took place before, during and after the relatively abrupt deglaciation that ended the most recent ice age. A fast warming seems to have occurred about 14,500 years ago. About 1000 years later, the climate started to cool again and started another period of glaciation about 12,500 years ago. This temporary return to glacial conditions called the Younger Drays period, lasted about 1000 years, then about 11,700 years ago the temperature increased again by about 6 degrees centigrade, and deglaciation proceeded the present state of shrunken polar ice caps and glaciers.

The transition form the cold Younger Dryas to the relative warmth of the present interglacial period occurred abruptly. It started with a sharp global temperature rise of 5 to 10 degrees centigrade and continued to have taken place in less than 10 years. The speed of the transition was a shock to many geologists who thought the transition to have taken place over many thousands of years. These and other fast changes in climate system operates like the rapid action of a switch, going from one state to another in a matter of a few years.”

Now that is a small extract from the text book which details how quickly our global climate can change. Now I can provide direct quotes proving everything which I have been telling you and you can argue about its credence, but I would suggest you believe me and listen and learn instead of holding crumbling ground.

And may I remind you that this is a text book which has been compiled by over one hundred leading authors in the field, and HAS been peer reviewed. Quoting websites is quaint, but hardly sound evidence for serious discussion. University professors are not always correct, and their works flawed. In a serious discussion, only peer reviewed articles and journals should be used.

So, I will say this on the subject. World rainfall averages have not been increasing or decreasing, it has been the regional variances, such as England receiving twice as much rain while Scotland has a drought. There is no credible evidence to suggest that the Earth is warming on a long term basis. We see reports of Glaciers retreating and Ice shelves breaking but the world average shows that Glaciation growth is nominal, it is merely high profiles glaciers that are retreating which features in the News, giving this hysteria over global warming.

You are seriously expecting me to believe that you have a current, up-to-date, scientific (peer-reviewed, no less) text... which uses "Centigrade"?

Perhaps the problem is not that I need to trust more... perhaps certain people need to show more discernment in their material.

Or so you say...

And so, instead of dealing with the question that Cat couldn't address you yourself come barging into the conversation to add your "opinion" to the matter without addressing the subject for which you are posting?

How does that work? If you would like to address the question that Cat-Tribes was unable to, might I suggest you do it? Otherwise, your "opinion" is worth, to me, what I paid for it...

And might I suggest that if you are going to chastise someone for "attacking" someone, that you might like to not exhibit that very behavior yourself?

It looks very Hypocritical, to me at least.

Regards,
Gaar

Attacking you, indeed? Okay. Whatever helps you.

I'm still waiting for you to state what your point 'is', if indeed you have one.

I looked at your ohio-state link, and am actually looking forward to dissecting it - since I spotted obvious errors (that you should really have seen), straigh away...

However, I am not going to waste my time if this is nothing more than a troll-rampage.

All I ask of you, is that you state your case.

It really is that simple... and then we can continue, as you wish.

All this desperate reference to 'what you already said', is just making it sound like you have no coherent case.

Attacking you, indeed? Okay. Whatever helps you.

I'm still waiting for you to state what your point 'is', if indeed you have one.

I looked at your ohio-state link, and am actually looking forward to dissecting it - since I spotted obvious errors (that you should really have seen), straigh away...

However, I am not going to waste my time if this is nothing more than a troll-rampage.

All I ask of you, is that you state your case.

It really is that simple... and then we can continue, as you wish.

All this desperate reference to 'what you already said', is just making it sound like you have no coherent case.

Like I said to Cat...

If you can't be bothered to read what I have already posted to the Thread, why should I be bothered to "re-state" my position simply because you didn't get it the first time?

Here, perhaps this might help...
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8502289&postcount=27
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8503952&postcount=32
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8503960&postcount=33
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8503967&postcount=34
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8503979&postcount=35
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8503997&postcount=36
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8504386&postcount=41
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8505681&postcount=65
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8505900&postcount=69
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8505992&postcount=71
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8506045&postcount=73
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8506440&postcount=78
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8506496&postcount=81
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8506537&postcount=85
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8506636&postcount=87
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8506648&postcount=88
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8506673&postcount=92
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8506683&postcount=94
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8506732&postcount=100
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8510030&postcount=108
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8510286&postcount=113
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8510647&postcount=117
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8511053&postcount=119
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8511128&postcount=120
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8511324&postcount=122
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8512469&postcount=125
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8513115&postcount=127
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8513765&postcount=128
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8513926&postcount=130
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8515135&postcount=132
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8519294&postcount=134
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8520630&postcount=137
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8520728&postcount=142
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8520758&postcount=143
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8520898&postcount=146
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8521846&postcount=148
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8526799&postcount=151
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8527015&postcount=152
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8527321&postcount=154
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8527470&postcount=156
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8527603&postcount=158
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8527768&postcount=162
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8529136&postcount=166

Perhaps that will help "clarify" things for you?

And what I now find most interesting is... After 10+ pages of discussing my position and having each of you argue with it, you are now trying to claim I haven't made my position clear?

Then pray tell, how have you been arguing against something you don't understand? Why is it now that you are claiming to not understand the arguments I have made for some time now, when you have been trying to refute them all along?

Let me know if you need further assistance understanding my "opinion", ok?

Regards,
Gaar

You are seriously expecting me to believe that you have a current, up-to-date, scientific (peer-reviewed, no less) text... which uses "Centigrade"?

Perhaps the problem is not that I need to trust more... perhaps certain people need to show more discernment in their material.

You idiot, Centigrade is the same as Celsius, you know , the metric system of measuring temperature.

You idiot, Centigrade is the same as Celsius, you know , the metric system of measuring temperature.

though it hasn't been in use since 1948.

and the si (metric) system uses kelvin.

though it hasn't been in use since 1948.

and the si (metric) system uses kelvin.

Actually Centigrade and kelvin are both used in science so either one is correct and I also see that my posts have been ignored.

though it hasn't been in use since 1948.

and the si (metric) system uses kelvin.

Kelvin uses the same units as centigrade. It only makes sense to refer to something in Kelvins when it is close to absolute zero (-273.15 centigrade.)

However, for uniformity's sake many astronomers use Kelvin when estimating the internal temperature of a star (and it is very hot, so they have to add a lot of zeros!)

Well, so far in my career, training as an Earth scientist we refer to everything in centigrade. The method of temperature differs throughout the scientific professions, and if you disagree with my answers why don’t you go look up the book I provided? I listed page numbers, authors. Criticising my authentic, non web based source, which is the only one that has credence here is poor debate skills. If you ever make it into university, you will learn that using the internet to site information is in fact severely contested, as more often than not the information is flawed and incorrect.

Global warming is occurring, but what no one is able to answer is, if it is caused by us, or just a natural phenomenon, the Earths temperature is too cold, based on Geological averages, so we should expect temperature increases.

There is no proof, that Global warming is a human caused phenomenon.

Actually Centigrade and kelvin are both used in science so either one is correct and I also see that my posts have been ignored.

i was under the impression that the 9th general conference on weights and measures got rid of the name centigrade because it was causing confusion due to containing the si prefix centi-. a few years later they decided that the whole degree thing was also stupid and made the fundamental unit the kelvin.

and don't consider them ignored, consider me sick of this thread and willing to only put the most minimal input into it.

If you ever make it into university, you will learn that using the internet to site information is in fact severely contested, as more often than not the information is flawed and incorrect.

Although I have to agree with the rest of your post, on this issue we differ...

EDIT: I also do not believe that your non-Web based book is the only one with any "credence" here.

There are many Sites that are based on Books or used to support the efforts of doing the Research and development of Books or other Research papers. You can in fact find a lot of good material on the Web, given that many "Books" have been put on the Web.

For you to believe that the Web is a poor Source of information and that Books are a good Source means that you believe what someone is able to get into print but not something just posted on the Web. Just how does that work, logically?

I have read many "Web sites" that say essentially the same thing you just did, does that make them right or wrong simply because they agree with you, or does that make them someone elses opinion, that may or may not agree with what you believe, but may in fact be supported by something other than just their opinion, can it not?

I believe in reading all I can on both sides of the issue and let each bit of information play its own role in bringing me to the conclusions that I do...

In other words, I take in as much information as I can and weigh that information according to Logic and Reason and come to a conclusion.

I don't see anything wrong with being well informed, perhaps you do.

Regards,
Gaar

The problem with information gathered form the internet, and this has been promptly drilled into my head for over a year now is that the information has been

1) Reviewed by no one. How on Earth do you know its correct?

2)Anyone can edit it.

It is because of those two primary points that I have been made to disregard a lot of information on the internet. The Internet is a great pool of informative wealth, especially for scientific journals, however taking information from websites and basing an opinion of them is perhaps a little to prudent.

My information, based on lecture material, text books (I did say text books I have more than one.) has been developed by more than one person. In fact they have their names written over four pages at the front. It is because my information has been compiled by over 150 people, that I say it is the only one with decent credence here, as it will be the most accurate.

Text and information in a serious debate must be peer reviewed to insure the validity of your information, if not you are possibly teaching yourself flawed and incorrect information. Instead of doing a Google search on the internet that can give you how knows what go to University websites and move through their departmental listings. They often have loads of information, on almost everything.

The problem with information gathered form the internet, and this has been promptly drilled into my head for over a year now is that the information has been

1) Reviewed by no one. How on Earth do you know its correct?

Perhaps you hadn't noticed that many of the Sites referenced in this Thread have themselves been referenced, just like most Books?

2)Anyone can edit it.

Well, not really...

First off, hacking into a Website to simply "change" information is something that one would think is rarely done (since there would not likely be any financial gain for such an action), and even if it is...

While it is true that someone may "hack a site", it is also true that such "hacks" are discovered and the information corrected, so the integrity of the site itself may be retained.

It is because of those two primary points that I have been made to disregard a lot of information on the internet. The Internet is a great pool of informative wealth, especially for scientific journals, however taking information from websites and basing an opinion of them is perhaps a little to prudent.

My information, based on lecture material, text books (I did say text books I have more than one.) has been developed by more than one person. In fact they have their names written over four pages at the front. It is because my information has been compiled by over 150 people, that I say it is the only one with decent credence here, as it will be the most accurate.

Text and information in a serious debate must be peer reviewed to insure the validity of your information, if not you are possibly teaching yourself flawed and incorrect information. Instead of doing a Google search on the internet that can give you how knows what go to University websites and move through their departmental listings. They often have loads of information, on almost everything.

Ok, then perhaps you would be good enough to "review" the information provided by everyone in this Thread, examine the references given in each and compare what they all say to those "text books" of yours, would you please?

And when you have completed that, would you mind posting any discrepancies you find here? TIA

Regards,
Gaar

Well as the sun gets bigger and bigger [which it is] by that time we will have had to move off Earth or we'll be fried anyway. Regardless of how many CFCs we are putting into the air.

We have 4 billion years to get off this planet. It's time we did something to make this place more habitable in the future to buy some time or else we'll be joining the dinosaurs.

Like I said to Cat...

If you can't be bothered to read what I have already posted to the Thread, why should I be bothered to "re-state" my position simply because you didn't get it the first time?

Here, perhaps this might help...
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8502289&postcount=27
...
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8529136&postcount=166

Perhaps that will help "clarify" things for you?

And what I now find most interesting is... After 10+ pages of discussing my position and having each of you argue with it, you are now trying to claim I haven't made my position clear?

Then pray tell, how have you been arguing against something you don't understand? Why is it now that you are claiming to not understand the arguments I have made for some time now, when you have been trying to refute them all along?

Let me know if you need further assistance understanding my "opinion", ok?

Regards,
Gaar

Okay - perhaps you are confused.

I was asking what you thought your coherent point was, not "hey, why don't you list the posts you've made"?

There is a subtle difference, my friend.

I have looked back through your posts... and it seems like your ONLY point MUST be that water vapour is a greenhouse agent.

Other than that, it is difficult to keep straight quite what it is you are arguing... mostly - you seem to just be defending weak sources.

I'll ask you again - since I can not make out what it is you are supposed to be 'representing'... what is your coherent point?

You may have noticed - I haven't debated your 'point' in 10+ pages... I have offered differences of opinion on some of the things you have said, and I have questioned your sources and your information.

I cannot mount an actual response to your 'point', because I've yet to see any evidence of one.

This would be a good time to post your 'point'...

Otherwise, I'm forced to assume Cat-Tribes was right - and that you have nothing, except a couple of flawed sources, and a desire to 'argue'.

You idiot, Centigrade is the same as Celsius, you know , the metric system of measuring temperature.

Although I know GI has thick skin and can handle this, you really should consider not referring to him as being less than intelligent, simply because you disagree with his point of view. I often disagree with the man, but he is far from unintelligent.

You idiot, Centigrade is the same as Celsius, you know , the metric system of measuring temperature.

I don't know if I've ever debated with you before, friend - I certainly don't recognise you as someone I have crossed-wits with many times.

So - with no excuse of 'familiarity', how do you justify calling me 'Idiot'?

First: it's flaming - and thus, a breach of forum rules.

Second: You are wrong... I am not an idiot, quite the opposite, in fact.

Third: I suggest you go back to your books, because there are key reasons why centigrade is absolutely not the same thing as Celsius - although the two are similar.

Centigrade is based on the difference between 'freezing' and 'boiling' points of water. It is a 100 degree scale, over that range - with 0 degrees equal to 'freezing', and 100 degrees equal to 'boiling'.

Celsius is based on the difference between 'the triple point' and 'boiling points' of water. Over that range, it is actually divided into 99.99 degrees (not 100) - with 0.01 degrees equal to the 'triple point', and 100 degrees equal to the 'boiling point'.

I'd really like an apology.

Although I know GI has thick skin and can handle this, you really should consider not referring to him as being less than intelligent, simply because you disagree with his point of view. I often disagree with the man, but he is far from unintelligent.

Why thank you, PR!

That was part of the point I was just about to make, although it appears you beat me too it... and used less words doing so. :)

My hat is off to you, sir.

(And this is just one of the reasons I appreciate debating with you so much - you are capable of having an opposing view, without immediate accusations of inferiority. My thanks again, friend).

I have looked back through your posts... and it seems like your ONLY point MUST be that water vapour is a greenhouse agent.

I'll ask you again - since I can not make out what it is you are supposed to be 'representing'... what is your coherent point?

I cannot mount an actual response to your 'point', because I've yet to see any evidence of one.

This would be a good time to post your 'point'...

Otherwise, I'm forced to assume Cat-Tribes was right - and that you have nothing, except a couple of flawed sources, and a desire to 'argue'.

Water is not just a GreenHouse Gas, it is by FAR the most abundant GreenHouse Gas.

Any discussion which excludes water vapor as a factor and instead concentrates solely on the Human aspect is moot without discussing the affects of water vapor.

I have also pointed out that the Earth has had atmospheric CO2 contents far in excess of what we are experiencing today. Which is fairly good proof that these cycles are going to happen with, or without Human assistance.

Now, while I say that Humans are not a significant factor in the GreenHouse Effect, I do contend that there are reasons, other than the GreenHouse Effect, for us to do all we can to limit our output of fuel emissions. That reasoning is based on Polluting and not the warming of the planet.

So, while I may agree that we should address our emissions of pollutants, that is not because of a supposed GreenHouse Effect, it is because I believe we should do what we can to not pollute.

Is that clear enough for you?

Is there anything you need me to state more clearly for you?

Regards,
Gaar

I'd really like an apology.

As long as you don't expect one. You deserve one granted, but given where we are, expecting one might actually make the acquisation accurate :p ;)

Well, so far in my career, training as an Earth scientist we refer to everything in centigrade. The method of temperature differs throughout the scientific professions, and if you disagree with my answers why don’t you go look up the book I provided? I listed page numbers, authors. Criticising my authentic, non web based source, which is the only one that has credence here is poor debate skills. If you ever make it into university, you will learn that using the internet to site information is in fact severely contested, as more often than not the information is flawed and incorrect.

Global warming is occurring, but what no one is able to answer is, if it is caused by us, or just a natural phenomenon, the Earths temperature is too cold, based on Geological averages, so we should expect temperature increases.

There is no proof, that Global warming is a human caused phenomenon.

I wonder who the "if you ever make it into university" comment was aimed at?

When I began my research on Global Warming, it was in my first year at University (studying Chemistry - so I have some familiarity with 'science' text books... especially the fact that they have a limited 'shelf-life').

That was more than a decade ago, now.

Why thank you, PR!

That was part of the point I was just about to make, although it appears you beat me too it... and used less words doing so. :)

My hat is off to you, sir.

(And this is just one of the reasons I appreciate debating with you so much - you are capable of having an opposing view, without immediate accusations of inferiority. My thanks again, friend).

(Insert blushing smilie) no problem. But I hope you get a kick out of my followup post... :p ;)

I looked at your ohio-state link, and am actually looking forward to dissecting it - since I spotted obvious errors (that you should really have seen), straigh away...

However, I am not going to waste my time if this is nothing more than a troll-rampage.

Have at it...

To suggest you can, and then not even make an attempt is a bit insincere, is it not?

Kind of like me saying you haven't made a cogent argument, without stating why I believe it to be non-cogent, don't you think?

Regards,
Gaar

As long as you don't expect one. You deserve one granted, but given where we are, expecting one might actually make the acquisation accurate :p ;)

:)

Note: I didn't say I 'expect' an apology.

If I thought I had flamed someone, or even just gratuitiously misjudged them... I like to think I would have the good grace to apologise.

Our erstwhile compatriot here has definitely flamed me... but I don't really expect an apology to be forthcoming.

It would have been a nice gesture, though.

(Insert blushing smilie) no problem. But I hope you get a kick out of my followup post... :p ;)

(Yes, it gave me a giggle :)... although your wit may be wasted on some).

Have at it...

To suggest you can, and then not even make an attempt is a bit insincere, is it not?

Kind of like me saying you haven't made a cogent argument, without stating why I believe it to be non-cogent, don't you think?

Regards,
Gaar

I don't think it would be insincere... I just don't see any point in wasting my time. So - if you were not going to actually state an argument, I was not going to waste any further time dissecting your sources... simple efficiency of effort.

I do have other things to do.

(studying Chemistry - so I have some familiarity with 'science' text books... especially the fact that they have a limited 'shelf-life').

That was more than a decade ago, now.

No, say it ain't so. I'm certian that every detail of my precious 8-12 year old psychology textbooks is 100% accurate and up to date... LOL

So - if you were not going to actually state an argument, I was not going to waste any further time dissecting your sources... simple efficiency of effort.

I do have other things to do.

Perhaps you should look UP!

^^^^^^^^

EDIT: Perhaps you missed it during your "love fest"? :p

Anything else I can do for you?

Regards,
Gaar

I don't think it would be insincere... I just don't see any point in wasting my time. So - if you were not going to actually state an argument, I was not going to waste any further time dissecting your sources... simple efficiency of effort.

I do have other things to do.

In his defense, GI, it looks like he's saying that he doesn't believe that the human contribution to the "greenhouse" gases is of sufficient significance to warrant changes in policy regarding their creation or consumption, but rather that the issue of pollution is sufficient grounds for said policy changes. I would guess that that is his point or something to that effect.

Water is not just a GreenHouse Gas, it is by FAR the most abundant GreenHouse Gas.

Any discussion which excludes water vapor as a factor and instead concentrates solely on the Human aspect is moot without discussing the affects of water vapor.

I have also pointed out that the Earth has had atmospheric CO2 contents far in excess of what we are experiencing today. Which is fairly good proof that these cycles are going to happen with, or without Human assistance.

Now, while I say that Humans are not a significant factor in the GreenHouse Effect, I do contend that there are reasons, other than the GreenHouse Effect, for us to do all we can to limit our output of fuel emissions. That reasoning is based on Polluting and not the warming of the planet.

So, while I may agree that we should address our emissions of pollutants, that is not because of a supposed GreenHouse Effect, it is because I believe we should do what we can to not pollute.

Is that clear enough for you?

Is there anything you need me to state more clearly for you?

Regards,
Gaar

That was actually rather clearly, and even elegantly, stated.

I find myself wondering why you refused to provide such an argument, for so long a time.

'Greenhouse' aside - I agree with you on one point; which is the necessity to address problems of atmospheric pollution. Arguments levied on the basis of 'expense' are usually groundless - since greater pollution control usually equates to greater process efficiency.

I think your arguments about water vapour are missing something, though - that being the secondary nature of water vapour as an agent... being caused by other anthropogenic pollutants. (Not to say that H2O is solely a secondary agent, obviously - but it should not be ignored that water vapour is being produced as a side-effect of, for example, CO2 concentrations).

Why is it you believe that CO2 has been 'much higher' previously?

(Not debating, for the moment, whether that claim is 'true', empirically. Just trying to work out how you justify that assumption).

No, say it ain't so. I'm certian that every detail of my precious 8-12 year old psychology textbooks is 100% accurate and up to date... LOL

Indeed. Perhaps it is exaggerated in Chemistry, in regard to other sciences... but it is a constant campaign just to keep up-to-date... since perceived mechanisms change, theories are revised...

No - to be honest - that sounds like it should apply regardless of the discipline.

Perhaps you should look UP!

^^^^^^^^

EDIT: Perhaps you missed it during your "love fest"? :p

Anything else I can do for you?

Regards,
Gaar

Somehow, my appreciation of the courtesy of another poster offends you?

'Love fest'?

Why is it you believe that CO2 has been 'much higher' previously?

(Not debating, for the moment, whether that claim is 'true', empirically. Just trying to work out how you justify that assumption).

Just when I thought we were getting somewhere...

Your question only brings me to believe that you really haven't been reading what I post.

I have posted, several times, the..... Man, this is much easier if you would just read the information I have supplied. Shall we try one more time?

http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/Warm.html

The CO2 content in the atmosphere and atmospheric temperature have never been stable; they have fluctuated since the dawn of time. Geological evidence shows that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 which is now about 350 ppmv, was about 5,600 ppmv in the late Ordovician, 440 million years ago;36 340 million years ago, in the Carboniferous period, it was 4,000 ppmv; and about 90 million years ago, in the Cretaceous period, it was about 2,600 ppmv. These extremely high concentrations were obviously not associated with a "runaway greenhouse effect," the mantra of the global warming propagandists.
__________________________________

If you need additional sites to support this assertion let me know, this is just the most succinct explanation I have found.

Regards,
Gaar

In his defense, GI, it looks like he's saying that he doesn't believe that the human contribution to the "greenhouse" gases is of sufficient significance to warrant changes in policy regarding their creation or consumption, but rather that the issue of pollution is sufficient grounds for said policy changes. I would guess that that is his point or something to that effect.

That's about what I'm getting from it, now... I have just been asking for this clarification for about a half-dozen pages...

Somehow, my appreciation of the courtesy of another poster offends you?

'Love fest'?

No, I was a bit put off that you would once again ask for an explanation when one had already been posted...

I had to assume that you were too busy complimenting one another to recognize that it had.

Regards,
Gaar

Just when I thought we were getting somewhere...

Your question only brings me to believe that you really haven't been reading what I post.

I have posted, several times, the..... Man, this is much easier if you would just read the information I have supplied. Shall we try one more time?

http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/Warm.html

The CO2 content in the atmosphere and atmospheric temperature have never been stable; they have fluctuated since the dawn of time. Geological evidence shows that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 which is now about 350 ppmv, was about 5,600 ppmv in the late Ordovician, 440 million years ago;36 340 million years ago, in the Carboniferous period, it was 4,000 ppmv; and about 90 million years ago, in the Cretaceous period, it was about 2,600 ppmv. These extremely high concentrations were obviously not associated with a "runaway greenhouse effect," the mantra of the global warming propagandists.
__________________________________

If you need additional sites to support this assertion let me know, this is just the most succinct explanation I have found.

Regards,
Gaar

No need to be 'touchy'.

I think you are missing my point there, and after I tried to phrase it so carefully....

Why do you believe those figures?

That's pretty much the root here, I guess... what is it that is helping you to believe that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was "5,600 ppmv in the late Ordovician"?

No, I was a bit put off that you would once again ask for an explanation when one had already been posted...

I had to assume that you were too busy complimenting one another to recognize that it had.

Regards,
Gaar

"Too busy complimenting each other"?

Something about civility really does seem to 'rub you up the wrong way'...?

I wasn't asking for an explanation - I was highlighting why I hadn't already spent my time on addressing the ohio-state source.

Re-read it in that context.

Why do you believe those figures?

That's pretty much the root here, I guess... what is it that is helping you to believe that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was "5,600 ppmv in the late Ordovician"?

I don't necessarily believe "those figures" but I have read from several different Sources that the levels were much higher during these time...

There is a bit of a debate at just how much higher, and hence the reason I don't necessarily believe "those numbers", but even the low end numbers that I have seen are on the order of some 8 times what we see today.

Is there some reason you do not believe these numbers?

Regards,
Gaar

"Too busy complimenting each other"?

Something about civility really does seem to 'rub you up the wrong way'...?

I wasn't asking for an explanation - I was highlighting why I hadn't already spent my time on addressing the ohio-state source.

Re-read it in that context.

And I was merely addressing why I used the term "love-fest", as you asked.

Regards,
Gaar

Indeed. Perhaps it is exaggerated in Chemistry, in regard to other sciences... but it is a constant campaign just to keep up-to-date... since perceived mechanisms change, theories are revised...

No - to be honest - that sounds like it should apply regardless of the discipline.

Believe me, I was being completely facitious. Psych. theory changes every other day and that is assuming that you can find agreement on a given theory to begin with. That's one of the reasons I'm so skeptical of long standing theories.

You know GI, I have a sneaking suspicion that you and "Gaar" will have much more in common than we do from the looks of things. I think once you two get over poking at each other you'll find you have much in common.

I don't think it would be insincere... I just don't see any point in wasting my time. So - if you were not going to actually state an argument, I was not going to waste any further time dissecting your sources... simple efficiency of effort.

I do have other things to do.

Don't waste it GnI. I'm on his side and he attacked me. No matter what you say, he'll post a website saying this debunks it without giving a reason why.

Don't waste it GnI. I'm on his side and he attacked me. No matter what you say, he'll post a website saying this debunks it without giving a reason why.

You might like to go check and see who was attacking who and who was merely supporting their position...

Do we need to do this, again?

Regards,
Gaar

You might like to go check and see who was attacking who and who was merely supporting their position...

Do we need to do this, again?

Regards,
Gaar

Dude don't get me going. I'm in no mood for your idiocy.

You did attack me and it is in this thread. You never seemed to realize that I am on your side because you continously attacked me.

Dude don't get me going. I'm in no mood for your idiocy.

You did attack me and it is in this thread. You never seemed to realize that I am on your side because you continously attacked me.

You know, you should learn to quit while you are ahead. I was perfectly willing to drop this and you just need to keep it going...

So, let us look at each of our first posts to this Thread, shall we?

My first...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8502289&postcount=27

That looks like it pretty much states the case I have made here, time and again, does it not?

And your first post...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8527604&postcount=159

I think that pretty much says it all as far as who attacked who, don't you think?

Shall we continue, or can we put this thing to bed now?

Regards,
Gaar

You know, you should learn to quit while you are ahead. I was perfectly willing to drop this and you just need to keep it going...

So, let us look at each of our first posts to this Thread, shall we?

My first...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8502289&postcount=27

That looks like it pretty much states the case I have made here, time and again, does it not?

And a case that was beaten up time and time again!

And your first post...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8527604&postcount=159

I think that pretty much says it all as far as who attacked who, don't you think?

care to point out the attack in the post please?

Shall we continue, or can we put this thing to bed now?

Put to the rest the fact that you've been hammered? Yep! I'm willing to put that fact to bed now.

And a case that was beaten up time and time again!

care to point out the attack in the post please?

Put to the rest the fact that you've been hammered? Yep! I'm willing to put that fact to bed now.

You just never learn, do you?

Shall we ask how many people here say that the assertion that Water Vapor isn't the main GreenHouse Gas?

**Please, everyone who believes that Water Vapor is NOT the predominate GreenHouse Gas please post saying so.**

The attack? How about...

"Urantia II,

Give up. You've lost on so many levels ain't even funny. Your arguing like you did in your friggin Constitution-Unconstitional Thread.

Meaning that you've been throughly hammered and debunked.

Even I can quote sources backing up Global Warming and I don't even believe in it. I could destroy your arguements myself but alas, that'll violate my principles in fighting unarmed opponets.

*Grabs popcorn and continues to watch the show*

Perhaps you would like to explain how that is anything but flamebait?

You claim that I have been debunked, without suggesting how, and then go on to say that you "could" do something, but instead resort to an ad hominem attack...

Care to explain how that DOESN'T rate as just an attack from you? You offer "nothing" to the discussion but your "opinion", which you are entitled to, and then use ad hominems as some sort of "proof"?!?!

How does that work, in your mind?

Regards,
Gaar

You just never learn, do you?

Shall we ask how many people here say that the assertion that Water Vapor isn't the main GreenHouse Gas?

**Please, everyone who believes that Water Vapor is NOT the predominate GreenHouse Gas please post saying so.**

It isn't the main Green House Gas. The main Green House gas is Carbon Dioxide.

The attack? How about...



Perhaps you would like to explain how that is anything but flamebait?

You claim that I have been debunked, without suggesting how, and then go on to say that you "could" do something, but instead resort to an ad hominem attack...

Again, where did I attack you? All I can see is giving you advice. Care to point it out?

Care to explain how that DOESN'T rate as just an attack from you? You offer "nothing" to the discussion but your "opinion", which you are entitled to, and then use ad hominems as some sort of "proof"?!?!

How does that work, in your mind?

It isn't. An attack would be to waylay into you for your stupidity. Since I haven't insulted you or called you names, I haven't attacked you. The attack is only in your mind my young padawan.

As for my contributions, I have posted several websites and gave my opinion on them. You have posted websites and gave no opinion on them. Who is doing what to whom?

As for my contributions, I have posted several websites and gave my opinion on them. You have posted websites and gave no opinion on them. Who is doing what to whom?

I believe I am going to leave you to familiarize yourself with the content of this Thread, especially the last few pages where I HAVE fully explained my premise here and believe that everything I have posted has supported my assertions.

It is obvious to me that you are unable to look at the content presented here in an objective manner and your only reason for posting is to attempt to get me to respond in an inappropriate manner, by questioning your inability to even discern what I believe almost everyone has agreed to here now.

Perhaps you should go re-read the Thread or leave it alone, either way I am through discussing this with someone who so obviously isn't going to be objective or read what has been posted.

Your posts are now nothing but attacks which are not addressing any issue regarding the GreenHouse Effect, and I am going to cease and desist in helping you bring this Thread Off-Topic.

Regards,
Gaar

Did you read the links that I posted Gaar?

Did you read the links that I posted Gaar?

Yes, and you know what is the most interesting thing about that?

Shall we compare?

This is the post you offered your link in...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8533011&postcount=258

Go take a look at both of those links, and then take a look at this one, AGAIN...

http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/Warm.html

that is one of the links I used mainly in this discussion, the one YOU say has been totally debunked and proven false, right?

Care to compare the graphs used in each of those links?

They are the exact same graphs using the exact same information, right!?!?

So now, would you please explain how it is you were refuting the information I provided with these links?

Shall we continue?

Oh wait, we can't because those are the only 2 links you provided here... Shall we revisit all of the links I have supplied, to see how you may be able to refute the information presented in them?

Regards,
Gaar

So now, would you please explain how it is you were refuting the information I provided with these links?

Who says I was trying to refute you? I guess you never bothered to read the fact that I am:

I'M AGAINST GLOBAL WARMING AND WAS TRYING TO LEND A BIT MORE CREDENCE TO YOUR WORDS

Who says I was trying to refute you?

You were, or did you forget what your first post said already?

Again...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8527604&postcount=159

Urantia II,

Give up. You've lost on so many levels ain't even funny. Your arguing like you did in your friggin Constitution-Unconstitional Thread.

Meaning that you've been throughly hammered and debunked.

Even I can quote sources backing up Global Warming and I don't even believe in it. I could destroy your arguements myself but alas, that'll violate my principles in fighting unarmed opponets.

*Grabs popcorn and continues to watch the show*

Care to explain what you meant by that then?

Regards,
Gaar

You were, or did you forget what your first post said already?

Again...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8527604&postcount=159



Care to explain what you meant by that then?

Regards,
Gaar

Even I can quote sources backing up Global Warming and I don't even believe in it. I could destroy your arguements myself but alas, that'll violate my principles in fighting unarmed opponets.

Did you not read all of it? Here, I bolded and underline a key phrase in there to help.

Worry worry worry
listen to them worry
worry worry we're gonna die!

Worry worry worry
man they gonna worry
worry that we're all gonna fry!


to be sung to the tune Rawhide.

I don't necessarily believe "those figures" but I have read from several different Sources that the levels were much higher during these time...

There is a bit of a debate at just how much higher, and hence the reason I don't necessarily believe "those numbers", but even the low end numbers that I have seen are on the order of some 8 times what we see today.

Is there some reason you do not believe these numbers?

Regards,
Gaar

Still not getting it... let me try to make it even more .... I don't know what...


Okay:

Why do you believe ANY figures for atmospheric CO2, for 100 million years ago?

You know GI, I have a sneaking suspicion that you and "Gaar" will have much more in common than we do from the looks of things. I think once you two get over poking at each other you'll find you have much in common.

I'd rather have opposition I can respect, than an ally I can 'tolerate'.

Don't waste it GnI. I'm on his side and he attacked me. No matter what you say, he'll post a website saying this debunks it without giving a reason why.
Like I said before, having debated this very issue with you before, you are, without a doubt, the greatest advantage Urantia has in this matter...

And, as you say - he attacks his own defence.

It's not so much that he shoots himself in the foot, more... in the head.

Like I said before, having debated this very issue with you before, you are, without a doubt, the greatest advantage Urantia has in this matter...

And, as you say - he attacks his own defence.

It's not so much that he shoots himself in the foot, more... in the head.

I do have to agree with you. I posted sites that are more credible to help him back up his theories and he attacks them saying how does this disprove my points.

I told him numerous occassions that I'm on his side and he blatantly ignores it. Your quite good yourself in these debates.

I do have to agree with you. I posted sites that are more credible to help him back up his theories and he attacks them saying how does this disprove my points.

I told him numerous occassions that I'm on his side and he blatantly ignores it. Your quite good yourself in these debates.

It strikes me as curious that the most profound effect our associate has had, is managing to institute unity in opposing factions... :)

I did notice that he savaged your attempts at assistance - it's almost comical, the degree of self-sabotage.

It strikes me as curious that the most profound effect our associate has had, is managing to institute unity in opposing factions... :)

I did notice that he savaged your attempts at assistance - it's almost comical, the degree of self-sabotage.

Yea considering I pointed out that I've been on his side the whole time. He tried to make a case against that till I bolded the part where I said "And I don't even believe in it."

He really doesn't have comprehension in that regard. Now I'm off to work. Hopefully, I won't have much to do so I will be able to post.

Still not getting it... let me try to make it even more .... I don't know what...

Okay:

Why do you believe ANY figures for atmospheric CO2, for 100 million years ago?

Ice core samples seem pretty reliable...

Why do you NOT accept them?

Reagrds,
Gaar

Like I said before, having debated this very issue with you before, you are, without a doubt, the greatest advantage Urantia has in this matter...

And, as you say - he attacks his own defence.

It's not so much that he shoots himself in the foot, more... in the head.

Yes, yes...

And if either of you cared to address the facts, rather than spew your rhetoric and ad Hominems, then we may be able to have a cogent discussion on the SUBJECT the Thread is about... Instead of you two continuing this pissing contest ad nauseum!

But hey, I guess when people’s ego's get bruised a bit; you should expect them to strike out?!?!

Either of you guys wish to talk about the subject, or are you just going to sit here and attack me so I will respond in kind?

Either way, I am willing to work with you, but YOU have to want to try.

Regards,
Gaar

Ice core samples seem pretty reliable...

Why do you NOT accept them?

Reagrds,
Gaar

Perfect.

Mr. Argument, meet Mr. Hole.

Do you really need me to explain this one?

I will if I have to... but I really think you should try on your own, first.

(It'll be less embarrassing, if you work it out yourself).

Yes, yes...

And if either of you cared to address the facts, rather than spew your rhetoric and ad Hominems, then we may be able to have a cogent discussion on the SUBJECT the Thread is about... Instead of you two continuing this pissing contest ad nauseum!

But hey, I guess when people’s ego's get bruised a bit; you should expect them to strike out?!?!

Either of you guys wish to talk about the subject, or are you just going to sit here and attack me so I will respond in kind?

Either way, I am willing to work with you, but YOU have to want to try.

Regards,
Gaar

You make me laugh.

So - me telling an opponent (other than yourself), that he is the best thing to happen to your side of the debate.... is an ad hominem attack on you?

Delusions of grandeur, much?

I do have to agree with you. I posted sites that are more credible to help him back up his theories and he attacks them saying how does this disprove my points.

I told him numerous occassions that I'm on his side and he blatantly ignores it. Your quite good yourself in these debates.

Actually, if you had bothered to read your own post you would see that you said you could 'refute' my assertions, not back them up.

I understand the side you are on, and am left to assume that you either didn't read the material I posted that you claimed was incorrect but ended up being exactly what you offered to say how wrong the things were that I had already posted.

So please, could you explain how you have "helped" support anything I have said with any information that I had not already supplied?

I have pointed out, several times now, exactly what you posted versus what I did. If you would like to point out how your information varies from that which I posted I would be very interested in seeing you address the actual information, something you haven't really done, although you keep asking me to do just that...

Why is that? Having a problem supporting even ONE of the assertions you have made? Cause I have no problem addressing mine.

Care to get back on subject, or are we going to continue with the attacks?

By the way guys... Anytime you are unable to address the ISSUE and instead address the messenger, that is known as an ad Hominem, or an "attack" on the character, instead of actually discussing the issue at hand.

Get it yet?

Regards,
Gaar

You make me laugh.

So - me telling an opponent (other than yourself), that he is the best thing to happen to your side of the debate.... is an ad hominem attack on you?

Delusions of grandeur, much?

No, I believe it was the part where you said it was akin to putting a gun to my head...

But I can see where you wouldn't consider that an attack and some sort of legitimate point. I however do not.

Would you care to discuss the Issue instead of me? Otherwise, I am lost as to what your purpose is posting here?

Regards,
Gaar

No, I believe it was the part where you said it was akin to putting a gun to my head...

But I can see where you wouldn't consider that an attack and some sort of legitimate point. I however do not.

Would you care to discuss the Issue instead of me? Otherwise, I am lost as to what your purpose is posting here?

Regards,
Gaar

Sorry, friend - but pointing out that 'attacking your allies is self-destructive' just doesn't constitute an 'ad hominem' attack.... not by my reckoning.

I see no response to my previous comment... ball + court = yours.

Perfect.

Mr. Argument, meet Mr. Hole.

Do you really need me to explain this one?

I will if I have to... but I really think you should try on your own, first.

(It'll be less embarrassing, if you work it out yourself).

Please do.

But first, perhaps you would like to familiarize yourself with the subject...

http://www.nicl-smo.sr.unh.edu/documents/pdf/USICSExSumm.pdf
http://www.polar.org/antsun/oldissues2002-2003/Sun110302/icecore-t.html
http://www.polar.org/antsun/oldissues2002-2003/Sun110302/icecore.html
http://thule.oulu.fi/narp/Projects/a_natural/Isaksson.htm
http://www.cea.fr/gb/magazine/Climates/past.htm
http://www-bprc.mps.ohio-state.edu/Icecore/facilities.html
http://www.glaciology.gfy.ku.dk/ngrip/hovedside_eng.htm
http://mulliken.chem.hope.edu/~polik/warming/IceCore/IceCore2.html

Whenever you are ready.

Regards,
Gaar

Sorry, friend - but pointing out that 'attacking your allies is self-destructive' just doesn't constitute an 'ad hominem' attack.... not by my reckoning.

I see no response to my previous comment... ball + court = yours.

Yeah, I don't consider the manner in which he asserted himself here any type of "support" for my position...

Perhaps you do.

Regards,
Gaar

Yeah, I don't consider the manner in which he asserted himself here any type of "support" for my position...

Perhaps you do.

Regards,
Gaar

'Not liking' someone else's approach, is not the same as ME attacking you on an ad hominem basis.

I get the feeling you have heard the phrase 'ad hominem', but are unsure as to how to strictly apply it.

'Not liking' someone else's approach, is not the same as ME attacking you on an ad hominem basis.

I get the feeling you have heard the phrase 'ad hominem', but are unsure as to how to strictly apply it.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

EDIT: I am pretty sure that, any time you concentrate the discussion on the person rather than the discussion, it is an ad Hominem. Perhpaps you feel differently...

Yes, yes...

Yes yes...

And if either of you cared to address the facts, rather than spew your rhetoric and ad Hominems, then we may be able to have a cogent discussion on the SUBJECT the Thread is about... Instead of you two continuing this pissing contest ad nauseum!

Why when you decide to attack me? I was trying to assist your facts but you decided to attack me. I have come up with arguements against it and posted websites against Global Warming. And how are we in a pissing contest?

But hey, I guess when people’s ego's get bruised a bit; you should expect them to strike out?!?!

The only ego getting bruised here is yours! You have gone out on strikes as well as fly balls. Most of your opinions are someone else's from a website. Quote a website then state why you think it disputes something.

Either of you guys wish to talk about the subject, or are you just going to sit here and attack me so I will respond in kind?

I've debated him on this topic before. Quite well too if I remember right. How have I attacked you?

Either way, I am willing to work with you, but YOU have to want to try.

I am willing to work with you too but you have to stop attacking me!

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

EDIT: I am pretty sure that, any time you concentrate the discussion on the person rather than the discussion, it is an ad Hominem. Perhpaps you feel differently...

Aha. It all becomes clear.

You don't even read the sources that you post...

And - the funny thing is... even if you had used 'ad hominem' in anything like it's defined manner... you would still have been wrong.

That is - my saying that you were wasting a valuable resource, is still not an 'ad hominem' attack... since it does not try to 'weaken' your 'argument' (such as it is), by reference of commentary on your character or actions.

Actually, if you had bothered to read your own post you would see that you said you could 'refute' my assertions, not back them up.

And I told you that I won't because I am against Global Warming and thus violate my principles! Did you read that last part of that statement?

I understand the side you are on, and am left to assume that you either didn't read the material I posted that you claimed was incorrect but ended up being exactly what you offered to say how wrong the things were that I had already posted.

*yawns*

I guess you haven't read any of the things I posted here because if you did then you would understand the fact that I wasn't trying to refute but assist you in getting your messege across. Nice runon sentence too.

So please, could you explain how you have "helped" support anything I have said with any information that I had not already supplied?

I posted websites that people actually have heard about? Have been given more credence and I know what websites they'll accept. The ones I've posted, they will accept. YOurs, people really won't accept.

I have pointed out, several times now, exactly what you posted versus what I did. If you would like to point out how your information varies from that which I posted I would be very interested in seeing you address the actual information, something you haven't really done, although you keep asking me to do just that...

I am not even going to go there because it ain't worth the hastle.

Why is that? Having a problem supporting even ONE of the assertions you have made? Cause I have no problem addressing mine.

Nope!

Care to get back on subject, or are we going to continue with the attacks?

What attacks?

By the way guys... Anytime you are unable to address the ISSUE and instead address the messenger, that is known as an ad Hominem, or an "attack" on the character, instead of actually discussing the issue at hand.

We have then you brush it aside. Your guilty of ad Hominem attacks so don't try to place the blame on us people that actually know how to debate.

Get it yet?

Do you?

Please do.

But first, perhaps you would like to familiarize yourself with the subject...

...

Whenever you are ready.

Regards,
Gaar

Feel free to patronise me by 'posting me helpful links'... I really don't mind.

I assume you haven't worked out the 'Hole' in your 'Argument', then?

Quite simply... your numbers are rubbish.

Utter nonsense.

Invalid. Useless. Irrelevent. They serve no purpose.

They are imaginary. Speculation.

They are nothing.

Why? I hear you ask?

Shall I give you the benefit of the doubt one more time? See if you can work it out on your own?

I'll give you a clue... let's see how you do...

***Clue: Ice. Global Warming. ***

I guess you haven't read any of the things I posted here because if you did then you would understand the fact that I wasn't trying to refute but assist you in getting your messege across. Nice runon sentence too.

Ad Hominem, attacking the person and not the argument.

I posted websites that people actually have heard about? Have been given more credence and I know what websites they'll accept. The ones I've posted, they will accept. YOurs, people really won't accept.

Yours say the same thing mine did and yours are somehow more "acceptable"? would you like to explain the logic used to get to that conclusion?

I am not even going to go there because it ain't worth the hastle.

Lecture me on Debate and then dismiss addressing a valid point because it "ain't worth the hastle."(sp) Is that a new Debate technique I missed learning about?

What attacks?

When you attempt to refute a point by making an argument against the person and not the point, it is known as an ad Hominem, I will drop the "attack and we shall just call your ad Hominems, ad Hominems ok?

We have then you brush it aside. Your guilty of ad Hominem attacks so don't try to place the blame on us people that actually know how to debate.

Please point out any time that I try and divert any Issue by making an example of you rather than the Issue, I will gladly admit when I have done it, how about you?

Shall we talk about your continued ad Hominems, or would you actually like to address the statement you made, that is now in my sig?

Regards,
Gaar

Feel free to patronise me by 'posting me helpful links'... I really don't mind.

Funny how someone as patronizing as yourself needs to complain when someone has been patronizing right back...

I assume you haven't worked out the 'Hole' in your 'Argument', then?

Quite simply... your numbers are rubbish.

Utter nonsense.

Invalid. Useless. Irrelevent. They serve no purpose.

They are imaginary. Speculation.

They are nothing.

Why? I hear you ask?

Shall I give you the benefit of the doubt one more time? See if you can work it out on your own?

I'll give you a clue... let's see how you do...

***Clue: Ice. Global Warming. ***

Shall we talk about patronizing or actually about the process you are saying is "rubbish"?

I believe you may like to actually read some of the information from this site before we have any further discussion...

http://www.cea.fr/gb/magazine/Climates/past.htm

If that doesn't help, and you believe there is something I am missing here, perhaps you could state it outright so we could have a cogent discussion that we can both identify? Or am I going to be expected to "read your mind" from here on out?

If there is something I think will refute something you say, I will make sure I state it as clearly as possible, so you may comment on it, and not have to run around trying to figure out what I am talking about, ok?

Regards,
Gaar

Aha. It all becomes clear.

You don't even read the sources that you post...

And - the funny thing is... even if you had used 'ad hominem' in anything like it's defined manner... you would still have been wrong.

That is - my saying that you were wasting a valuable resource, is still not an 'ad hominem' attack... since it does not try to 'weaken' your 'argument' (such as it is), by reference of commentary on your character or actions.

Sure you are...

You are trying to say that he is trying to support me and "my" actions, and not his, are preventing that.

Ad Hominem... Your opinion and it has nothing to do with what is being discussed.

Something about that you are missing?

Regards,
Gaar

EDIT: It could also be described as an attempt to divert the discussion. Instead of addressing any information provided you are trying to make me, or him, the subject. Yet another fallacious Debate technique...

Ad Hominem, attacking the person and not the argument.

Where?

Yours say the same thing mine did and yours are somehow more "acceptable"? would you like to explain the logic used to get to that conclusion?

Because mine actually comes from a website that people have actually heard about!

Lecture me on Debate and then dismiss addressing a valid point because it "ain't worth the hastle."(sp) Is that a new Debate technique I missed learning about?

Nope. I was making a point.

When you attempt to refute a point by making an argument against the person and not the point, it is known as an ad Hominem, I will drop the "attack and we shall just call your ad Hominems, ad Hominems ok?

what attacks?

Please point out any time that I try and divert any Issue by making an example of you rather than the Issue, I will gladly admit when I have done it, how about you?

Take a look throughout this thread!

Shall we talk about your continued ad Hominems, or would you actually like to address the statement you made, that is now in my sig?

Where is the attack?

who needs the green house effect.... the amount of flaming on this forum will heat the planet up!!!

Because mine actually comes from a website that people have actually heard about!

So now you are going to try a different fallacious argument?

http://datanation.com/fallacies/pop.htm

Appeal to Popularity
(argumentum ad populum)

Definition:
A proposition is held to be true because it is widely held to
be true or is held to be true by some (usually upper crust)
sector of the population.
This fallacy is sometimes also called the "Appeal to Emotion"
because emotional appeals often sway the population as a
whole.

Nope. I was making a point.

You made no point that I hadn't already made.

what attacks?

Ad Hominems, any time you have to address me or my actions instead of the Issue it is an Ad Hominem, that's what we're going to call it now, so you aren't confused any longer. I believe I explained that already, something about that you don't understand?

This is getting good, care to continue?

Regards,
Gaar

So now you are going to try a different fallacious argument?

http://datanation.com/fallacies/pop.htm

Appeal to Popularity
(argumentum ad populum)

Definition:
A proposition is held to be true because it is widely held to
be true or is held to be true by some (usually upper crust)
sector of the population.
This fallacy is sometimes also called the "Appeal to Emotion"
because emotional appeals often sway the population as a
whole.



You made no point that I hadn't already made.



Ad Hominems, any time you have to address me or my actions instead of the Issue it is an Ad Hominem, that's what we're going to call it now, so you aren't confused any longer. I believe I explained that already, something about that you don't understand?

This is getting good, care to continue?

Regards,
Gaar

Your idea of what constitutes an ad hominem attack is flawed... even by the source you cited on this matter.

I'll clear up your error, and then could you please try to stay on topic?

"An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:


Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).


The mistake you are making here, is in understanding what is required for an 'ad hominem' attack: that is - a claim must be made that an argument you make is false, because of some personal reason.

If Corneliu says he thinks you are a potplant - that may be insulting... but it isn't an 'ad hominem' unless he says your argument is false because you are a potplant.

Please - tell me you understand this - so we can leave your erroneous assertions behind, and get back on topic.

Oh - and regarding the 'argumentum ad populum'... I think you missed the point. I believe the point Corneliu was trying to make is that his chosen sources are 'better' sources than your because they are 'more reputable', by virtue of being less easily discredited.

Sure you are...

You are trying to say that he is trying to support me and "my" actions, and not his, are preventing that.

Ad Hominem... Your opinion and it has nothing to do with what is being discussed.

Something about that you are missing?

Regards,
Gaar

EDIT: It could also be described as an attempt to divert the discussion. Instead of addressing any information provided you are trying to make me, or him, the subject. Yet another fallacious Debate technique...

You are giving me quite a problem here - since you seem to have only the sketchiest of ideas of what a 'fallacy' is, or how it applies.

Saying that 'you attacking Corneliu' is the reason why he is not as much of a boon to you as he might be is NOT an 'ad hominem'.

Not only that - but it was originally only mentioned in a post directed to Corneliu, and didn't claim to be about the content of a post... more about the nature of the debate itself.

Funny how someone as patronizing as yourself needs to complain when someone has been patronizing right back...



Shall we talk about patronizing or actually about the process you are saying is "rubbish"?

I believe you may like to actually read some of the information from this site before we have any further discussion...

http://www.cea.fr/gb/magazine/Climates/past.htm

If that doesn't help, and you believe there is something I am missing here, perhaps you could state it outright so we could have a cogent discussion that we can both identify? Or am I going to be expected to "read your mind" from here on out?

If there is something I think will refute something you say, I will make sure I state it as clearly as possible, so you may comment on it, and not have to run around trying to figure out what I am talking about, ok?

Regards,
Gaar

Okay - I really did hope you could arrive at it yourself, but I guess not.

How about the fact that you are trying to support atmospheric concentrations (circa 100 million years ago) using ice samples (circa. maximum of 450, 000 years old)?

You don't see the logical error in trying to make assertions of heightened CO2 (and thus, 'warm earth' conditions) by virtue of evidence that might be found in a material that dissociates at 'zero' Celsius?

I'd rather have opposition I can respect, than an ally I can 'tolerate'.

Thank you. I'm, at least, taking that as a compliment.

Thank you. I'm, at least, taking that as a compliment.

I do too!

Him and I have battled over this issue before but never hurled serious insults though. Just friendly ones :D

The mistake you are making here, is in understanding what is required for an 'ad hominem' attack: that is - a claim must be made that an argument you make is false, because of some personal reason.

If Corneliu says he thinks you are a potplant - that may be insulting... but it isn't an 'ad hominem' unless he says your argument is false because you are a potplant.

Please - tell me you understand this - so we can leave your erroneous assertions behind, and get back on topic.

Oh - and regarding the 'argumentum ad populum'... I think you missed the point. I believe the point Corneliu was trying to make is that his chosen sources are 'better' sources than your because they are 'more reputable', by virtue of being less easily discredited.

No sorry, addressing you argument to the person rather than the issues of the discussion, in whatever form it takes, is ad Hominem...

http://datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm

Attacking the Person
(argumentum ad hominem)

Definition:
The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the
argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the
person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked.
Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to
gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be
attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.
There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:
(1) ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion,
the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.
(2) ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an
assertion the author points to the relationship between the
person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.
(3) ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the
person notes that a person does not practise what he
preaches.
____________________________

Anything else I can help you with?

Regards,
Gaar

Saying that 'you attacking Corneliu' is the reason why he is not as much of a boon to you as he might be is NOT an 'ad hominem'.

Not only that - but it was originally only mentioned in a post directed to Corneliu, and didn't claim to be about the content of a post... more about the nature of the debate itself.

What?

Perhaps you could show me where I attacked him?

No one has done that yet.

Whereas I have shown where his first post directed an ad Hominem towards me.

So, unless you would like to support your assertion, as I have, with empirical evidence I am not even going to address such nonsense.

Regards,
Gaar

Okay - I really did hope you could arrive at it yourself, but I guess not.

How about the fact that you are trying to support atmospheric concentrations (circa 100 million years ago) using ice samples (circa. maximum of 450, 000 years old)?

You don't see the logical error in trying to make assertions of heightened CO2 (and thus, 'warm earth' conditions) by virtue of evidence that might be found in a material that dissociates at 'zero' Celsius?

Obviously you haven't read the reports I offered...

I tried to help by even pointing to the very report that had the information you required, but either you didn't read it or didn't understand it.

http://www.cea.fr/gb/magazine/Climates/past.htm

It is not only ice which retains a memory of the climate. In the depths of the oceans, marine sediment deposited over the ages also holds valuable information. In fact it allows us to go even further back into the past. On board the oceanographic vessel Marion Dufresne, scientists take core-samples of the sediment some 60 meters long, which enable them to look up to a million years into the past. And the drillings of several hundred meters, reaching the oceanic crust, provide data on several tens of millions of years of climatology.

Thank you. I'm, at least, taking that as a compliment.

For the Attention of: Personal Responsibilit:

Please do not feel cheated - but I am going to copy and paste this result into my "Corneliu" reply, also. The same sentiment exactly holds true in both cases.

You should. :)

We may not agree... even have fundamentally different opinions on some issues - but I hold your 'technique' and abilities in the highest esteem.

There's a quote somewhere about judging a man by his opponents - in which case I consider myself far improved by any occasion on which we two disagree.

(I appreciate some people object to what might be termed as my 'love-in'... but I feel people should comment on the positive aspects of other debators, as well as the negative).

For the Attention of: Personal Responsibilit:

Please do not feel cheated - but I am going to copy and paste this result into my "Corneliu" reply, also. The same sentiment exactly holds true in both cases.

You should. :)

We may not agree... even have fundamentally different opinions on some issues - but I hold your 'technique' and abilities in the highest esteem.

There's a quote somewhere about judging a man by his opponents - in which case I consider myself far improved by any occasion on which we two disagree.

(I appreciate some people object to what might be termed as my 'love-in'... but I feel people should comment on the positive aspects of other debators, as well as the negative).

it was "Love Fest" snookums...... ;)

I do too!

Him and I have battled over this issue before but never hurled serious insults though. Just friendly ones :D

For the Attention of Corneliu:

Please do not feel cheated - but I have copied and pasted this result into my "Personal Responsibilit" reply, also. The same sentiment exactly holds true in both cases.

You should. :)

We may not agree... even have fundamentally different opinions on some issues - but I hold your 'technique' and abilities in the highest esteem.

There's a quote somewhere about judging a man by his opponents - in which case I consider myself far improved by any occasion on which we two disagree.

(I appreciate some people object to what might be termed as my 'love-in'... but I feel people should comment on the positive aspects of other debators, as well as the negative).

it was "Love Fest" snookums...... ;)

Ooh! Where did you come from!

On the subject of the luminaries of NS, hello Peech! :)

Obviously you haven't read the reports I offered...

I tried to help by even pointing to the very report that had the information you required, but either you didn't read it or didn't understand it.

http://www.cea.fr/gb/magazine/Climates/past.htm

It is not only ice which retains a memory of the climate. In the depths of the oceans, marine sediment deposited over the ages also holds valuable information. In fact it allows us to go even further back into the past. On board the oceanographic vessel Marion Dufresne, scientists take core-samples of the sediment some 60 meters long, which enable them to look up to a million years into the past. And the drillings of several hundred meters, reaching the oceanic crust, provide data on several tens of millions of years of climatology.

Even assuming that everything you have said is incontrovertable fact...

Tens of millions of years of climatology (not even debating the reliability of such efforts, just assuming 100% accuracy, for the sake of argument...

One hundred million years (or more) figure for CO2 content.

Incompatible figures, anyway, no?

Ooh! Where did you come from!

On the subject of the luminaries of NS, hello Peech! :)

Peech has obviously been following the Thread...

I believe that was what could be called a "direct quote" of what "I" said.

Otherwise known as evidence of the first order, or empirical evidence.

;)

And thanks for clearing that up Peech, you know how I hate it when someone tells me what I said... :D

Regards,
Gaar

What?

Perhaps you could show me where I attacked him?

No one has done that yet.

Whereas I have shown where his first post directed an ad Hominem towards me.

So, unless you would like to support your assertion, as I have, with empirical evidence I am not even going to address such nonsense.

Regards,
Gaar

Trolling or revisionism, I no longer care.

Follow your little meander as far as you please.

Even assuming that everything you have said is incontrovertable fact...

Tens of millions of years of climatology (not even debating the reliability of such efforts, just assuming 100% accuracy, for the sake of argument...

One hundred million years (or more) figure for CO2 content.

Incompatible figures, anyway, no?

http://www.cea.fr/gb/magazine/Climates/past.htm

"And the drillings of several hundred meters, reaching the oceanic crust, provide data on several tens of millions of years of climatology. "

Something about "several" tens of millions you are having problems with? And that area is "below" the area that got us tens of millions, so shall we add all that up now?

Where's my calculator...

Regards,
Gaar

No sorry, addressing you argument to the person rather than the issues of the discussion, in whatever form it takes, is ad Hominem...

http://datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm

Attacking the Person
(argumentum ad hominem)

Definition:
The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the
argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the
person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked.
Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to
gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be
attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.
There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:
(1) ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion,
the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.
(2) ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an
assertion the author points to the relationship between the
person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.
(3) ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the
person notes that a person does not practise what he
preaches.
____________________________

Anything else I can help you with?

Regards,
Gaar

I believe your definition is flawed, since it fails to appreciate how 'ad hominem' requires the interaction of the 'ad hominem' attack with the veracity or reliability of the argument.

I don't know who sponsored your source, but I prefer the "Philosophical Dictionary" definition - especially since I think that is more likely to be a reliable site, on THIS subject.

"ad hominem argument (argument against the person)
The informal fallacy of supposing that a proposition should be denied because of some disqualifying feature of the person who affirms it. This fallacy is the mirror image of the appeal to authority. In its abusive form, ad hominem is a direct (and often inflammatory) attack on the appearance, character, or personality of the individual.

Example: "Jeremy claims that Susan was at the party, but since Jeremy is the kind of person who has to ride to work on the city bus, it must be false that she was there."

A circumstantial ad hominem accuses the person of having an alternative motive for defending the proposition or points out its inconsistency with the person's other views. Tu quoque (the "so do you" fallacy) uses a similar method in response to criticism of a position already held.


(http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/a.htm)

http://www.cea.fr/gb/magazine/Climates/past.htm

"And the drillings of several hundred meters, reaching the oceanic crust, provide data on several tens of millions of years of climatology. "

Something about "several" tens of millions you are having problems with? And that area is "below" the area that got us tens of millions, so shall we add all that up now?

Where's my calculator...

Regards,
Gaar

You are quibbling semantics.

If the source meant 'hundreds of millions of years' of data - it would say 'hundreds of millions'. It doesn't. It refers to 'tens of millions', severally - which implies more than two iterations - but certainly does not imply 'hundreds of millions' of years.

As well you know.

Your assertion was flawed, and now you are scrabbling desperately.

First - you claimed ice samples supported your claims for atmospheric CO2 a hundred million years ago... and maintained that claim while I desperately hoped you would spot the flaw for yourself.

Then - you claimed 'deeper ice', although I do not recall any samples older than 450, 000 years - to be honest... perhaps you do?

Thus - your figures for one hundred million years are still unsupportable.

Now, you desperately claw away at 'oceanic sediment'? And, even that is failing to offer evidence in the time frame for which you are asserting factual evidence.

I find this sad.

I believe your definition is flawed, since it fails to appreciate how 'ad hominem' requires the interaction of the 'ad hominem' attack with the veracity or reliability of the argument.

I don't know who sponsored your source, but I prefer the "Philosophical Dictionary" definition - especially since I think that is more likely to be a reliable site, on THIS subject.

(http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/a.htm)

It's the source "stickied" to this Forum...

And so you do want to continue going round? I could have sworn you were saying you didn't earlier.

And if you care to go look at the one “stickied” on the Forum, you will also see that questioning the authority of the information is also a fallacious argument.

Might I suggest that you go read the link supplied in the Forum before you continue?

Regards,
Gaar

You are quibbling semantics.

If the source meant 'hundreds of millions of years' of data - it would say 'hundreds of millions'. It doesn't. It refers to 'tens of millions', severally - which implies more than two iterations - but certainly does not imply 'hundreds of millions' of years.

As well you know.

Your assertion was flawed, and now you are scrabbling desperately.

Shall we go look at the data they derive from such things and "see" just who is mistaken?

First - you claimed ice samples supported your claims for atmospheric CO2 a hundred million years ago... and maintained that claim while I desperately hoped you would spot the flaw for yourself.

Then - you claimed 'deeper ice', although I do not recall any samples older than 450, 000 years - to be honest... perhaps you do?

When did I say anything about "deeper Ice"? Again, unless you would like to quote me, I would appreciate if you didn't put words in my mouth so that you can refute them, doing such things doesn't require my presence in the discussion.

Secondly, did I ever say that Ice core was the "only" such drilling? I don't believe so, and if you had bothered to look at ALL of the sites I supplied links to you would have seen that there were other forms of drilling that supplied longer term data...

And I have never suggested that it was anywhere near 100% accurate, and even cited some of the discrepancies in earlier posts.

Thus - your figures for one hundred million years are still unsupportable.

Now, you desperately claw away at 'oceanic sediment'? And, even that is failing to offer evidence in the time frame for which you are asserting factual evidence.

I find this sad.

Would you mind doing just a bit of the "legwork" on your own on this one, it is getting tiresome linking all this information for you and you just ignore it in the discussion?

Besides, I am curious as to whether you actually can do any research before you state your opinion as some type of fact.

Regards,
Gaar

It's the source "stickied" to this Forum...

And so you do want to continue going round? I could have sworn you were saying you didn't earlier.

And if you care to go look at the one “stickied” on the Forum, you will also see that questioning the authority of the information is also a fallacious argument.

Might I suggest that you go read the link supplied in the Forum before you continue?

Regards,
Gaar

'Sticky' is not the same as 'ordained by god'.

The 'definitions' 'stickied' on NS are not law - and they are open to flaws or omissions. There seems to be an omission that it doesn't explain HOW 'ad hominem' works... just what the 'nature' of the fallacy is.

I think perhaps you have spent too much time studying what you think are the 'tools' of debate, and not enough time coming up with any real arguments.

Questioning the source is essential. If I tell you I have evidence that the world is flat, and I show you a scanned copy of a letter from some guy I met at the pub, as my evidence - you must take account of the origins of the information.... certainly if uncorroborated.

I attempted to corroborate the source you cited, and find it flawed - thus your material is not 'reliable'.

When did I say anything about "deeper Ice"?


I said 'deeper ice', not "deeper ice".

Adding your own interpretation doesn't change the fact.


...it is getting tiresome linking all this information for you and you just ignore it in the discussion?


I don't ignore your data.

Your sources are not supporting the arguments you claim.

I am disregarding sources, but only because they are not worthy of consideration.

Questioning the source is essential. If I tell you I have evidence that the world is flat, and I show you a scanned copy of a letter from some guy I met at the pub, as my evidence - you must take account of the origins of the information.... certainly if uncorroborated.

I attempted to corroborate the source you cited, and find it flawed - thus your material is not 'reliable'.

Yeah, that's where empirical data comes in; I can traverse the World in one direction and not fall off...

So you are wrong, it isn't flat.

Just like the "reasoning" is the same in the fallacious argument. The intent is to divert the discussion so as not to have to address points made about the subject and instead address something other than the subject, whatever it is.

It's not my fault YOU won't go look at empirical evidence, is it? It’s not my fault you wont address the evidence and instead attack the source of said evidence, is it? Perhaps if you can make the evidence look silly, like I did your “flat Earth” then we can talk about the Source. But until you have even taken a look at the evidence, how do you feel you have any basis to attack the credentials of those supplying it?

Regards,
Gaar

I said 'deeper ice', not "deeper ice".

Adding your own interpretation doesn't change the fact.

I never said it, either way you would like to represent it. So how did that address arguing with yourself exactly?

I don't ignore your data.

Your sources are not supporting the arguments you claim.

I am disregarding sources, but only because they are not worthy of consideration.

How do you know? Have you looked? And if you have... perhaps you would be good enough to explain how they are not worthy, instead of just saying it and expecting us to accept your word for it?

You have not offered ONE link to any information which refutes anything I have asserted here, why is that?

Regards,
Gaar

Yeah, that's where empirical data comes in; I can traverse the World in one direction and not fall off...

So you are wrong, it isn't flat.

Just like the "reasoning" is the same in the fallacious argument. The intent is to divert the discussion so as not to have to address points made about the subject and instead address something other than the subject, whatever it is.

It's not my fault YOU won't go look at empirical evidence, is it? It’s not my fault you wont address the evidence and instead attack the source of said evidence, is it? Perhaps if you can make the evidence look silly, like I did your “flat Earth” then we can talk about the Source. But until you have even taken a look at the evidence, how do you feel you have any basis to attack the credentials of those supplying it?

Regards,
Gaar

What on earth are you talking about?

I am now getting the feeling you are having this debate with yourself, and I'm halfway tempted to take that as my cue to leave.

I looked at your empirical evidence. The numbers do not match.

That is not any type of fallacious argument, 'ad hominem' or otherwise... the numbers just do not add up with what you claim.

You claimed certain high levels of CO2 long ago - and part of your claim was a period of time... 100 million years. That wasn't the earliest epoch you claimed, nor the latest.

However - it is far out of the reach of evidence supplied by any of the sources you also cited.

I do not see anywhere, in any of the sources you provided, an IRONCLAD evidence of higher CO2 levels, from a data-source that could be relied upon over that period... or, in most cases... even relied upon to give ANY response for that period.

The ONLY expert I attacked is our friend Jaworowski (spell?) because I believe his claims to be false (demonstrably), and that fits in with a pattern of bogus claims from that same source.

I also questioned the amount of faith we should put in a report specifically comissioned by a mass polluter, in terms of bias.

But the problem with your sources hasn't really been who set them up.

The big problem has been that your arguments are not supported by the sources you cite, or the sources have been heavily flawed.

Example: on a re-reading of the Stephen Downes 'Fallacy' site - I spotted the fact that the Examples clearly showed how 'ad hominem' works, although it isn't specifically stated in the Definition.

Thus - your use of that source was the flaw - you missed the part of the source that explained the 'data'.

:headbang: AAGGHH the ignorace is astounding!
Then again you have all been controled by a damn near socailist media.
THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING!!!
let me say it again
THERE IS NOT ANY SUCH THING AS GLOBAL WARMING!!!
The temperature of the Earth has been known to fluctuate by huge ammounts.

Want Proof:
1. The Ice Ages
2. The fact that the earth has been warming up since the last Ice Age (before the industrial revolution)

There are even some scientists who say that the warm up that we are experiancing now could be a precurser to a new ice age!

Global Warming is a farce to get people to hate capitalist nations Enviromentalists for the most part are in fact what is left of the Communist/ Socialist movement.

And for those who still believe that there is global warming do I have a fix for you just BLOW UP the Middle East. You eliminate many squablling groups that are causing destabliztion and the resulting Nuclear winter cancells out Global Warming. And when it warms up again we can take out the Balkans of N Korea :D :sniper:

:headbang: AAGGHH the ignorace is astounding!
Then again you have all been controled by a damn near socailist media.
THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING!!!
let me say it again
THERE IS NOT ANY SUCH THING AS GLOBAL WARMING!!!
The temperature of the Earth has been known to fluctuate by huge ammounts.

Want Proof:
1. The Ice Ages
2. The fact that the earth has been warming up since the last Ice Age (before the industrial revolution)

Wasn't this what I stated earlier? I think it was.

There are even some scientists who say that the warm up that we are experiancing now could be a precurser to a new ice age!

yep heard this too. Do I believe that? Somewhat.

Global Warming is a farce to get people to hate capitalist nations Enviromentalists for the most part are in fact what is left of the Communist/ Socialist movement.[/quote]

Could be! Or another attempt to blame the US for the world's problems.

And for those who still believe that there is global warming do I have a fix for you just BLOW UP the Middle East. You eliminate many squablling groups that are causing destabliztion and the resulting Nuclear winter cancells out Global Warming. And when it warms up again we can take out the Balkans of N Korea :D :sniper:

LOL :D

:headbang: AAGGHH the ignorace is astounding!
Then again you have all been controled by a damn near socailist media.
THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING!!!
let me say it again
THERE IS NOT ANY SUCH THING AS GLOBAL WARMING!!!
The temperature of the Earth has been known to fluctuate by huge ammounts.

Want Proof:
1. The Ice Ages
2. The fact that the earth has been warming up since the last Ice Age (before the industrial revolution)

There are even some scientists who say that the warm up that we are experiancing now could be a precurser to a new ice age!

Global Warming is a farce to get people to hate capitalist nations Enviromentalists for the most part are in fact what is left of the Communist/ Socialist movement.

And for those who still believe that there is global warming do I have a fix for you just BLOW UP the Middle East. You eliminate many squablling groups that are causing destabliztion and the resulting Nuclear winter cancells out Global Warming. And when it warms up again we can take out the Balkans of N Korea :D :sniper:

I agree. Green house affect is so the enviromentalists have another thing to ruin

I never said it, either way you would like to represent it. So how did that address arguing with yourself exactly?


I am willing to admit 'my bad' on this one, if you did not imply what I saw as the implication in your post.

You said: "It is not only ice which retains a memory of the climate. In the depths of the oceans, marine sediment deposited over the ages also holds valuable information".

If the implication of that was NOT the sediments BELOW the ice (mentioned in the previous clause), then this is me misreading your intent, or your post not being clear enough.

Either way, if that is not what your 'implication' was, then I retract my 'deep ice' - but not the fact that those numbers are STILL insufficient.


How do you know? Have you looked? And if you have... perhaps you would be good enough to explain how they are not worthy, instead of just saying it and expecting us to accept your word for it?


Re-read my post - I have showed why they are not worthy.

The numbers don't add up to what you claim.

That simple.

How about you provide us an evidence that shows where you get your speculative figures for the CO2 levels of 100 million years ago, and longer?


You have not offered ONE link to any information which refutes anything I have asserted here, why is that?

I have.

In regards to most of your 'sources' - since they visibly don't support your argument, I have yet to have need of an outside source.

:headbang: AAGGHH the ignorace is astounding!
Then again you have all been controled by a damn near socailist media.
THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING!!!
let me say it again
THERE IS NOT ANY SUCH THING AS GLOBAL WARMING!!!
The temperature of the Earth has been known to fluctuate by huge ammounts.

Want Proof:
1. The Ice Ages
2. The fact that the earth has been warming up since the last Ice Age (before the industrial revolution)

There are even some scientists who say that the warm up that we are experiancing now could be a precurser to a new ice age!

Global Warming is a farce to get people to hate capitalist nations Enviromentalists for the most part are in fact what is left of the Communist/ Socialist movement.

And for those who still believe that there is global warming do I have a fix for you just BLOW UP the Middle East. You eliminate many squablling groups that are causing destabliztion and the resulting Nuclear winter cancells out Global Warming. And when it warms up again we can take out the Balkans of N Korea :D :sniper:

We really are running to our doom

Just look around you...
-My grandparents worked all theire life outside without any sun protection and all died around 75-80 years
-In the late 70's my mom was taking sunbath OILING up ursell so she could burn now
-Now, 25 years later, we need half a inch of cream before going outside to prevent skin cancer

In Ice age climatic variation took many many many years to happen. Going that fast is nothing but normal and the ecosystem will never have time t adapt itself

*snip*

http://tea.armadaproject.org/hindman/6.23.2000.html

Some very technical and complicated measurements can be completed to determine very specific information about the climate in which the samples were deposited. By comparing the ratio of oxygen isotopes 16O and 18O in calcium carbonate shells of foramimfera, the temperature in which organisms grew can be determined. This can help scientists map out climate changes over the past 150,000 years, for samples collected in Greenland or Antarctica. Samples of carbonates can help determine climatic conditions as far back as 100,000,000 years ago.
_____________________________________________

Shall we continue?

Regards,
Gaar

EDIT: And again, it is getting just a bit tiresome being the one to do all of the "legwork" here, you wouldn't mind doing just a bit, would you?

It seems to me that many people believe that humans are the cause of the greenhouse effect. I can't see how this could be true because of a few things....

1) The sun is heating up. This heat comes in the form of greater radiation, and so more gets through the atmosphere and becomes trapped than 'normal'
2) A single volcanic eruption puts our more CFC's than humans have for many years (if not our entire time producing them)
3) There is an interesting thing happening in our atmospher that few people are aware of. Ozone is decayed by solar radiation. The decay lets more solar radiation into our atmosphere. That radiation will then hit some non-ozone oxygen and convert it into ozone, thus blocking more radiation. Unfortunately, this is an imperfect system and so long as the sun continues to warm up the atmosphere will lose out.

Humans are so prideful to think they can destroy the atmosphere more efficiently than the sun....

Global Warming will be more than a fundraising scare-tactic, when you can walk on the Viking Fields of Greenland. It will be more than a scare tactic, when Great Britain has a climate suitable for growing wine-grapes. It will be more than a fundraising scare tactic, when you can successfully grow warm-weather crops in Nova Scotia. All of these things and more were present around 700 AD, and ended around 1200 A.D.

Since the mid-1980s, we've been hearing nothing but "Global Warming will destroy the climate by...." usually a number within fifteen years.
We've passed most of those predictions without significant changes. Two degrees warmer highs in Siberia don't make for a global catastrophe, especially in mid-summer.
The output of the Pinatoubo burp in 1987 exceeded the entire output of green house gasses and pollutants by all the industries in operation since around 1730 or so. One Eruption.
This doesn't touch Mt. St. Helens, or the other ring-of-fire volcanoes, nearly all of which vent more in a single day of activity than the entire industrialized world does in a century.

The Global Warming Hypothesis deserves further study, but more than that, it deserves serious study, not half-assed headline-grabbing, mother-earth-must-be-protected-cause-the-sky-is-falling bullshit studies, which are meant mainly for use in scaring funding out of Politicians.

http://tea.armadaproject.org/hindman/6.23.2000.html

Some very technical and complicated measurements can be completed to determine very specific information about the climate in which the samples were deposited. By comparing the ratio of oxygen isotopes 16O and 18O in calcium carbonate shells of foramimfera, the temperature in which organisms grew can be determined. This can help scientists map out climate changes over the past 150,000 years, for samples collected in Greenland or Antarctica. Samples of carbonates can help determine climatic conditions as far back as 100,000,000 years ago.
_____________________________________________

Shall we continue?

Regards,
Gaar

EDIT: And again, it is getting just a bit tiresome being the one to do all of the "legwork" here, you wouldn't mind doing just a bit, would you?

Not my argument, friend. I am merely refuting your (easily refuted claims).

You made the claims, the onus of proof is on you. Sorry - that's just how it is.

but - back to the content of the post...

First: carbonate content can 'help' determine climatic conditions as far back as 100,000,000 years ago.

Only 'help' - cannot be conclusive... there are good reasons for that, too.

Second: your source doesn't explain how an ice core that is only 450,000 years old (which are, as far as I know - the OLDEST ice cores available), can support climatic data for 100,000,000 years ago.

Third: you also claimed CO2 data for periods considerably earlier than 100 million years. Your source does nothing to support those figures.

Fourth: Data stored in ice cores is not stored at the time of the formation of the ice. So - an ice core 'made' 100 million years ago, will actually not have any data for 100 million years ago.

Fifth: O16 to O18 comparison is flawed - since it doesn't account for the possible transitions of materials (either living or inanimate) that might 'pollute' the expected O16 proportion.

Not my argument, friend. I am merely refuting your (easily refuted claims).

You made the claims, the onus of proof is on you. Sorry - that's just how it is.

but - back to the content of the post...

First: carbonate content can 'help' determine climatic conditions as far back as 100,000,000 years ago.

Only 'help' - cannot be conclusive... there are good reasons for that, too.

Second: your source doesn't explain how an ice core that is only 450,000 years old (which are, as far as I know - the OLDEST ice cores available), can support climatic data for 100,000,000 years ago.

Third: you also claimed CO2 data for periods considerably earlier than 100 million years. Your source does nothing to support those figures.

Fourth: Data stored in ice cores is not stored at the time of the formation of the ice. So - an ice core 'made' 100 million years ago, will actually not have any data for 100 million years ago.

Fifth: O16 to O18 comparison is flawed - since it doesn't account for the possible transitions of materials (either living or inanimate) that might 'pollute' the expected O16 proportion.

What's all the reference to "Ice core"?

Did you read the information?

We are on to Sedimentary samples now, try to keep up please.

And ok, they are only able to generate 100,000,000 year records, does that refute them at all?

I see you didn't bother to address the Science behind it. And I was merely showing you where references to information that old was, you claimed it wasn't there, right?

Regards,
Gaar

Fourth: Data stored in ice cores is not stored at the time of the formation of the ice. So - an ice core 'made' 100 million years ago, will actually not have any data for 100 million years ago.

And yes, they account for up to a 4,000 year difference in ages, again that is stated within the report.

Regards,
Gaar

What's all the reference to "Ice core"?

Did you read the information?

We are on to Sedimentary samples now, try to keep up please.

And ok, they are only able to generate 100,000,000 year records, does that refute them at all?

I see you didn't bother to address the Science behind it. And I was merely showing you where references to information that old was, you claimed it wasn't there, right?

Regards,
Gaar

I still claim that information for 100 million years ago, and beyond is speculative, at best. And, you still remain to prove otherwise.

Your source is unclear - it doesn't say that it is a sedimentary core... although it does discuss sedimentary matter - but ice contains sediments, too.

"Try to keep up"? Try to keep a civil tongue in your head, please.

It doesn't say they were able to generate 100 million year records - you have assumed that, it isn't in the text.

Try going back and answering my posts as pertinent, e.g.:

First: carbonate content can 'help' determine climatic conditions as far back as 100,000,000 years ago.

Second point 'retired', if this source is indeed dealing with non-ice samples - although I am inclined to believe ice might be a factor, in a polar sample... even a polar pure-sediment sample.

Third: you also claimed CO2 data for periods considerably earlier than 100 million years. Your source does nothing to support those figures.

Fourth: Data stored in ANY core, is not stored solely at the time of the formation of the ice. So - a core 'made' 100 million years ago, will actually not have any data for 100 million years ago.

Fifth: O16 to O18 comparison is flawed - since it doesn't account for the possible transitions of materials (either living or inanimate) that might 'pollute' the expected O16 proportion.

And yes, they account for up to a 4,000 year difference in ages, again that is stated within the report.

Regards,
Gaar

Where?

Where?

You know what...

Let's see if you can find it for yourself.

If not, I will supply a link in a day or two, to show how you don't bother reading the information supplied to you.

Like I said, it is getting tiresome.

Regards,
Gaar

EDIT: Or maybe you can get Peech to show you, she seems to be paying attention at least. ;)

...to show how you don't bother reading the information supplied to you.

I read that source. It didn't state anything regarding 4,000 years error margin.

You'll supply a link?

I assumes this means that the information you are talking about wasn't IN the article you cited, but somewhere else on the same server?

Clumsy.

Or deliberately difficult.

Hard to tell, really.

I read that source. It didn't state anything regarding 4,000 years error margin.

You'll supply a link?

I assumes this means that the information you are talking about wasn't IN the article you cited, but somewhere else on the same server?

Clumsy.

Or deliberately difficult.

Hard to tell, really.

You "assume" wrong my friend...

The information is within a previously cited Source provided here on more than one occassion.

If you couldn't be bothered to read the information and still feel like you can comment on the information without looking into how it was obtained, that is your problem and not mine.

It becomes mine as you ask for the information and link, yet again, in the same discussion.

Like I said, it's getting tiresome.

Regards,
Gaar

When Bush was asked what he'd do about global warming he said he'd crank up his air-conditioning :rolleyes:

When Bush was asked what he'd do about global warming he said he'd crank up his air-conditioning :rolleyes:

And with as much as Humans affect Global warming, that just may work... :rolleyes:

The information is within a previously cited Source provided here on more than one occassion.


You directed me to a source: http://tea.armadaproject.org/hindman/6.23.2000.html

Which we were then discussing - I listed five point (one later retracted) about the flaws in that report.

(I also note, you have chosen not to respond to those flaws, but are instead trying to pursue the margin-of-error. Strawman Fallacy).

You then said, in the context of my rebuttal:

"Fourth: Data stored in ice cores is not stored at the time of the formation of the ice. So - an ice core 'made' 100 million years ago, will actually not have any data for 100 million years ago"

...about the 'delay' of materials in cores...

"...And yes, they account for up to a 4,000 year difference in ages, again that is stated within the report".

Which is clearly not true - that information is not in the report in question.

Just being wrong was bad enough. Dishonesty makes the debate mere mockery.

You directed me to a source: http://tea.armadaproject.org/hindman/6.23.2000.html

Which we were then discussing - I listed five point (one later retracted) about the flaws in that report.

(I also note, you have chosen not to respond to those flaws, but are instead trying to pursue the margin-of-error. Strawman Fallacy).

You then said, in the context of my rebuttal:

"Fourth: Data stored in ice cores is not stored at the time of the formation of the ice. So - an ice core 'made' 100 million years ago, will actually not have any data for 100 million years ago"

...about the 'delay' of materials in cores...

"...And yes, they account for up to a 4,000 year difference in ages, again that is stated within the report".

Which is clearly not true - that information is not in the report in question.

Just being wrong was bad enough. Dishonesty makes the debate mere mockery.

Dishonesty? Are you accusing me of lying here?

from the original link supplied to you in this discussion...

http://www.cea.fr/gb/magazine/Climates/past.htm#

"However, measurement is not enough to date the gases… Because, contrary to what our intuition would tell us, the air bubbles are not the same age as the ice around them: they are younger. The snow which falls year after year traps the air. Little by little, it is compressed by the weight of successive precipitations and slowly transformed into ice. During this process, which can last for several thousand years, the air can still move around. Finally the pores of the ice close up. Modeling of this phenomenon has revealed that ice which is 4,000 years old can hold air which is virtually contemporary."

Again, this is just a bit tiresome, you “baiting me”, by accusing me of lying, into supplying yet again information which was JUST supplied to you is on the verge of unacceptable behavior, is it not?

Regards,
Gaar

EDIT: By the way, the other link, in case you weren't paying attention, was to sedimentary core drilling, not Ice core, like I pointed out earlier. So it wouldn't likely reference anything to do with Ice-core drilling, that was the link I had provided just prior to the one you cited.

Dishonesty? Are you accusing me of lying here?

from the original link supplied to you in this discussion...

http://www.cea.fr/gb/magazine/Climates/past.htm#

"However, measurement is not enough to date the gases… Because, contrary to what our intuition would tell us, the air bubbles are not the same age as the ice around them: they are younger. The snow which falls year after year traps the air. Little by little, it is compressed by the weight of successive precipitations and slowly transformed into ice. During this process, which can last for several thousand years, the air can still move around. Finally the pores of the ice close up. Modeling of this phenomenon has revealed that ice which is 4,000 years old can hold air which is virtually contemporary."

Again, this is just a bit tiresome, you “baiting me”, by accusing me of lying, into supplying yet again information which was JUST supplied to you is on the verge of unacceptable behavior, is it not?

Regards,
Gaar

Re-read my last post.

We were clearly debating one report.

You claimed information was "within the report".

Explain that how you like.

I notice you still stick to the Strawman, rather than confront the other points.

Can't we all just get along?!

Re-read my last post.

We were clearly debating one report.

You claimed information was "within the report".

Explain that how you like.

I notice you still stick to the Strawman, rather than confront the other points.

What other points?

You are the one trying to divert attention away from facts that I said were there, and won't address yourself now.

Regards,
Gaar

What other points?

You are the one trying to divert attention away from facts that I said were there, and won't address yourself now.

Regards,
Gaar

I have reposted those points once...

I'm not trying to divert anything... you said the 'facts' were somewhere, which, clearly they were not. You stated, in the context of a discussion about a report, that the facts were "within the report".

You appear to be pursuing this (despite your obvious fault in this issue) particular idea purely as a means to not touch the other points from that same original post - which is a Strawman Fallacy.

Anyway - here are the points again, in condensed format, if you will deign to answer them, this time:

First: carbonate content can 'help' determine climatic conditions as far back as 100,000,000 years ago.

Second point 'retired'.

Third: you also claimed CO2 data for periods considerably earlier than 100 million years. Your source does nothing to support those figures.

Fourth: Data stored in ANY core, is not stored solely at the time of the formation of the ice. So - a core 'made' 100 million years ago, will actually not have any data for 100 million years ago.

Fifth: O16 to O18 comparison is flawed - since it doesn't account for the possible transitions of materials (either living or inanimate) that might 'pollute' the expected O16 proportion.

I have reposted those points once...

Doesn't it suck when you are asked to repost the same thing?

I'm not trying to divert anything... you said the 'facts' were somewhere, which, clearly they were not. You stated, in the context of a discussion about a report, that the facts were "within the report".

Is it my fault you don't recognize the difference between Ice-core and sedimentary-core Reports. I am fairly sure I pointed out the differences several times now.

You appear to be pursuing this (despite your obvious fault in this issue) particular idea purely as a means to not touch the other points from that same original post - which is a Strawman Fallacy.

Actually, I was waiting for you to catch up and recognize the difference in the Reports you were looking at. I guess that was too much to ask.

First: carbonate content can 'help' determine climatic conditions as far back as 100,000,000 years ago.

Asked and answered. Something you don’t understand about the answer?

Second point 'retired'.

Third: you also claimed CO2 data for periods considerably earlier than 100 million years. Your source does nothing to support those figures.

Something about modeling beyond that that confuses you?

Fourth: Data stored in ANY core, is not stored solely at the time of the formation of the ice. So - a core 'made' 100 million years ago, will actually not have any data for 100 million years ago.

Correct, it would be about 99,996,000 years ago. Glad we finally cleared that part up.

Fifth: O16 to O18 comparison is flawed - since it doesn't account for the possible transitions of materials (either living or inanimate) that might 'pollute' the expected O16 proportion.

And this last one we are going to leave in your court...

It is you assertion, so you supply the evidence that it would disrupt the data and to what extent. Please provide links to information, from any source you like, so I don't have to take you word for anything. If you can prove to me it has some type of significant affect, I am always open minded. But it is YOU that is going to do the leg work on this one, otherwise it is I that is just going to dismiss YOUR assertion since you won't support it.

Regards,
Gaar

Regards,
Gaar

Insulting...

Patronising...

Didn't answer any of the questions...

You are wasting my time, and you are no longer even amusing.

I'm bored with you now, and I'm done here.


Enjoy your Pyrrhic victory.

Insulting...

Patronising...

Didn't answer any of the questions...

You are wasting my time, and you are no longer even amusing.

I'm bored with you now, and I'm done here.


Enjoy your Pyrrhic victory.

Take Care GnI!

Take Care GnI!

Thanks, maybe we can approach this subject again at some future date, but right now - for some reason - all the appeal has gone.

I appreciate your contribution to this thread, greatly.

Thanks, maybe we can approach this subject again at some future date, but right now - for some reason - all the appeal has gone.

I appreciate your contribution to this thread, greatly.

Thanks. And I'm sure we will if I decide to get involved that is! LOL

Damnit I don't care. I have read many papers on this and it is my belief that Global Warming, promulgated by countries such as the USA and China mainly, are causing a rise in the planet's temperature and it is corporate PR people that spread the fact that this is not the case.

Anyone else ever read State of Fear? It is a pretty good book. While the novel is fiction, the footnotes and charts are real. Some of the points brought up include:

1. In most places, it is actually getting colder, or no change is observed. How can this be global warming if it doesn't affect the entire planet?

2. The accuracy of the data is questionable. After all, some places have gaps in their records, and in others, cities have sprung up around the collecting site. Cities produce a fair amount of heat, which may skew results.

3. The sea level has not risen so much as an inch.

4. The last El Nino actually increased the growing season, resulting in a net gain, not loss.

The question is, do humans really have that much of an impact? And if we do, is global warming really such a bad thing?

Damnit I don't care. I have read many papers on this and it is my belief that Global Warming, promulgated by countries such as the USA and China mainly, are causing a rise in the planet's temperature and it is corporate PR people that spread the fact that this is not the case.

Interesting that you would use such language...

"spread the FACT that this is not the case".

Hmmmm....

Regards,
Gaar