#ourocean2014

[Crick]

"Mathematical sleight of hand" again? What amazes me is that you seem oblivious to how ignorant AND pigheaded you appear to EVERYONE, no matter which side of this argument they're on.

 

[flacaltenn]

They show that isotopic analysis reveals an anthropogenic fingerprint, which SSDD had claimed didn't exist. Do you also assert that no anthropogenic fingerprint may be discerned by an isotopic analysis of environmental carbon dioxide?

You've got to be smart enough to realize throwing your lot in with SSDD cannot be to your benefit.

Don't make me choose between you two..
Where's my answer CrickHam? What did you find in the first 2 papers that CONTRADICTS what either of us has said? You wont..

This is NOT a definitive analysis. There are assumptions made that are always in favor of the FAVORED theory. The largest faulty assumption is that man can be charged with all the "old carbon" concentrations. It also doesn't detect SMALL differences very well at all. So the use of isotopic methods is best over 100s of YEARS of relative changes --- not to track what's happened in the past 60 years.. The isotopic ratio changes more DIURNALLY and SEASONALLY, than it has over your lifetime..

Read those papers -- you might learn a thin or two..

 

[Crick]

I don't really give a damn what you have to say. You inserted yourself into a conversation of which you were not a participant and not wanted. SSDD claims there is no fingerprint of anthropogenicity in atmospheric carbon dioxide. That point is clearly made in both papers. He's wrong. About you I couldn't care less.

 

[SSDD]

I don't really give a damn what you have to say. You inserted yourself into a conversation of which you were not a participant and not wanted. SSDD claims there is no fingerprint of anthropogenicity in atmospheric carbon dioxide. That point is clearly made in both papers. He's wrong. About you I couldn't care less.

There is no anthropogenic fingerprint on the global climate...there is data manipulation...there is warming bias...there are all sorts of fabrication, and outright lies...but no actual fingerprint. And who the hell are you to say who enters a conversation on a public board? Why don't you answer his question? Let me guess...because you have no answer...what you have is ad hominems and insult.....and nothing else. You get more like rolling thunder every day... When might you start typing in big red letters as if that makes your points more valid?

 

[Crick]

I don't really give a damn what you have to say. You inserted yourself into a conversation of which you were not a participant and not wanted. SSDD claims there is no fingerprint of anthropogenicity in atmospheric carbon dioxide. That point is clearly made in both papers. He's wrong. About you I couldn't care less.

There is no anthropogenic fingerprint on the global climate...there is data manipulation...there is warming bias...there are all sorts of fabrication, and outright lies...but no actual fingerprint.

You are as full of nonsense as you always are.

And who the hell are you to say who enters a conversation on a public board?

I was responding to you. He made a response based on his claim that I was addressing him as well. I was not. It was effectively, a misquote. And who are you to tell me I can't tell who to fuck off?

Why don't you answer his question? Let me guess...because you have no answer...what you have is ad hominems and insult.....and nothing else.

I'm the one who keeps posting links to the peer reviewed studies on which my positions are based. You and your buddies are the ones who DO NOT.

 

[SSDD]

I was responding to you.

My my, aren't you prissy? How often do you enter conversations as if you were involved? Should I take a look back to see how big a hypocrite you are? Pathetic crick...just pathetic. Playing the prissy little girl in a pink dress with hurt feelings rather than just answering flacalten's question...which we all know you can't answer anyway.

Do you think playing a prissy little girl makes you look better than simply admitting that you can't answer his question?

the one who keeps posting links to the peer reviewed studies on which my positions are based. You and your buddies are the ones who DO NOT.

Sure you posted a couple of studies...but it is clear that like charts, you didn't understand them. So again, can you point out anything in any of the studies you posted which contradicts anything that myself, or flacalten has said regarding anthropogenic CO2 vs CO2 from natural sources.

If you actually read them, then you should have no problem pointing us to specific sections.

 

[Crick]

Still waiting for any peer reviewed studies contradicting the determination of multiple, peer reviewed, isotopic analyses that fossil fuels are the source of almost every bit of the CO2 added to the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

Still waiting for any peer reviewed studies contradicting the acceleration of warming in the deep ocean since the turn of the century.

Still waiting for any peer reviewed studies contradicting the imbalance of radiative energy at the ToA showing that the planet is still accumulating solar energy.

 

[SSDD]

Still waiting for any peer reviewed studies contradicting the determination of multiple, peer reviewed, isotopic analyses that fossil fuels are the source of almost every bit of the CO2 added to the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

Still waiting for any peer reviewed studies contradicting the acceleration of warming in the deep ocean since the turn of the century.

Still waiting for any peer reviewed studies contradicting the imbalance of radiative energy at the ToA showing that the planet is still accumulating solar energy.

Your own studies prove my point crick....again, point to anything in your own studies that contradicts what either I or flacalten said....there is no need for more studies if your own support our point....

Getting more girly all the time crick...

 

[Crick]

You need to identify a specific point if you actually want to discuss something.

And if you'd like to demonstrate that you're a homophobic bigot as well, I'm not going to stop you.

 

[SSDD]

You need to identify a specific point if you actually want to discuss something.

And if you'd like to demonstrate that you're a homophobic bigot as well, I'm not going to stop you.

Noting how prissy you are when you get your panties in a wad makes me a homophobe?....You get further out there all the time....it must really suck to be you...or someone like you.

 

[jc456]

Still waiting for any peer reviewed studies contradicting the determination of multiple, peer reviewed, isotopic analyses that fossil fuels are the source of almost every bit of the CO2 added to the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

Still waiting for any peer reviewed studies contradicting the acceleration of warming in the deep ocean since the turn of the century.

Still waiting for any peer reviewed studies contradicting the imbalance of radiative energy at the ToA showing that the planet is still accumulating solar energy.

still waiting for those experiments.

still waiting for those experiments

still waiting for those experiments.

See anyone can do it.

 

[Crick]

I'm amazed it took you that long to figure that out. ;-)

The problem is that we HAVE shown you those experiments. You've seen them. We all know this to be a fact. You've just chosen to lie about them. On the other hand, no one has posted any peer reviewed work refuting the fossil fuel source of our added CO2. No one has posted any peer reviewed work refuting recent acceleration of warming in the deep occean. Finally, no one has posted any peer reviewed work refuting continued imbalance in radiative transfer at the ToA.

So, when I do it, it's an honest and objective description of the different qualities of our arguments. When you do it, it's simply more lying. So, apparently, you can not do it.

 

[Dot Com]

They show that isotopic analysis reveals an anthropogenic fingerprint, which SSDD had claimed didn't exist. Do you also assert that no anthropogenic fingerprint may be discerned by an isotopic analysis of environmental carbon dioxide?

You've got to be smart enough to realize throwing your lot in with SSDD cannot be to your benefit.

deniers on this board seem to rely on gang mentality for them to be able to spread their yabut "know-nothing" agenda.

 

[jc456]

I'm amazed it took you that long to figure that out. ;-)

The problem is that we HAVE shown you those experiments. You've seen them. We all know this to be a fact. You've just chosen to lie about them. On the other hand, no one has posted any peer reviewed work refuting the fossil fuel source of our added CO2. No one has posted any peer reviewed work refuting recent acceleration of warming in the deep occean. Finally, no one has posted any peer reviewed work refuting continued imbalance in radiative transfer at the ToA.

So, when I do it, it's an honest and objective description of the different qualities of our arguments. When you do it, it's simply more lying. So, apparently, you can not do it.

And cricket, I've asked for the exact line out of the hundred of experiments that you've shown that show it. Why can't you just breakout the lines of this so called experiment and post it? Why are you acting like an ass and just complaining you already provided it. Isn't it obvious we didn't see it? Or are you not intelligent enough to know how to address it?

 

[IanC]

The problem is not that experiments and data collection haven't taken place, the problem is the conclusions that are being drawn from them. Climate science is more like an adversarial court case where one side is trying to 'win', rather than an honest search for the truth based on the evidence rather than the assumptions.

 

[jc456]

The problem is not that experiments and data collection haven't taken place, the problem is the conclusions that are being drawn from them. Climate science is more like an adversarial court case where one side is trying to 'win', rather than an honest search for the truth based on the evidence rather than the assumptions.

How geniune would it be for him to just make a statement that there aren't any. That's all I need. Then, he can go away since his point for me would be useless.

 

[Crick]

Isn't it obvious we didn't see it?

Did you note the comment from Ian: "The problem is not that experiments and data collection haven't taken place". Now why don't you spend the next two months bitching to him instead. I'm not going to post you shit. I at least have the intellect required to learn from my experiences and my experiences with you tell me you are a liar and that whatever I might do, you will continue to lie. Not a game in which I have any interest in playing.

 

[SSDD]

Isn't it obvious we didn't see it?

Did you note the comment from Ian: "The problem is not that experiments and data collection haven't taken place". Now why don't you spend the next two months bitching to him instead. I'm not going to post you shit. I at least have the intellect required to learn from my experiences and my experiences with you tell me you are a liar and that whatever I might do, you will continue to lie. Not a game in which I have any interest in playing.

As usual...you don't get the point...you apparently don't read words any better than you read graphs...he said that plenty of experiments have been done the problem is that they don't show what you claim they show...Do you ever say anything that isn't a lie?..or an omission?..

 

[Crick]

I'm infinitely more honest than you. I have actually admitted my mistakes and corrected them. You've had more mistakes shown to you point blank than all the king's army could gather. Yet you won't give the first inkling that you might be willing to consider the possibility that you could be wrong about anything.

 

[SSDD]

I'm infinitely more honest than you. I have actually admitted my mistakes and corrected them. You've had more mistakes shown to you point blank than all the king's army could gather. Yet you won't give the first inkling that you might be willing to consider the possibility that you could be wrong about anything.

And yet, every word you type in support of your belief in climate science is a lie. As to my being wrong... I keep asking for observed measured examples and none have been forthcoming.