Climate Change Discussion/ split from What is the purpose of a Taekwondo form?

[Gerry Seymour11]

I don't consider a smiley face that says, "This made me laugh" mocking.

Trust me, I have not yet begun to mock!

So, openly laughing at a serious comment isn’t mocking. Not sure what could be, then.

 

[Gerry Seymour11]

In this case though, I do not believe it was thread drift. Rather, political nonsense was put forth as somehow being an answer in a discussion on the science of climate change. That isn’t thread drift. That is gobbly-gook

In any case, it did yield a brief discussion that was mature and congenial. However it started, the thread drifted to that topic.

 

[elder999]

So, openly laughing at a serious comment isn’t mocking. Not sure what could be, then.

No. I laughed at its irrelevancy

Irrelevancy makes me laugh. Lots of odd things do, like porn......

 

[Flying Crane]

In any case, it did yield a brief discussion that was mature and congenial. However it started, the thread drifted to that topic.

Yeah. But it was originally put up as a distraction.

 

[Gerry Seymour11]

Yeah. But it was originally put up as a distraction.

Many times, there’s good discussion to be had, even where it was meant as a distraction.

 

[Flying Crane]

Many times, there’s good discussion to be had, even where it was meant as a distraction.

See post 62 by @Tony Dismukes. He is correct, there is an active campaign of misinformation on the climate change issue in a deliberate attempt to discredit the science. Distraction from the issue is a common and widespread tactic used in that campaign.

This is not just internet banter. Climate change is an important issue and I do not feel inclined to give a pass to anybody who is either actively participating in the misinformation campaign, or is (perhaps) unwittingly passing along and regurgitating the message of that campaign. When I see false and misleading statements about climate change, or the common tactics of distraction and smokescreens, I feel it ought to be called out.

 

[DaveB]

That is just hilarious. I am right, and you are wrong. What are you 12 years old?

You see it doesn't take long for the veneer of "reasonable debate" to fall away when views are based on fears instead of facts.

Elder posted a detailed explanation of science and DV replies by fixating on a single, not incorrect line, and mocking it.

No counter point. No questions. No acquiescence. Just a poor attempt at deflection away from that which he cannot argue with.

This is your brain on politics people.

 

[elder999]

What book did you get that out of? One from the sixties, no doubt, due to underfunding of your public school, or perhaps "quality" homeschooling...

As I've posted elsewhere, many times in these discussions:

Because isotopic fractions of the heavier oxygen-18 (18O) and deuterium (D) in snowfall are temperature-dependent and a strong spatial correlation exists between the annual mean temperature and the mean isotopic ratio (18O or D) of precipitation, it is possible to derive ice-core climate records. The record based on an ice core drilled at the Russian Vostok station in central east Antarctica was obtained during a series of drillings in the early 1970s and 1980s and was the result of collaboration between French and former-Soviet scientists. Drilling continued at Vostok and was completed in January 1998, reaching a depth of 3623 m, the deepest ice core ever recovered . The resulting core allows the ice core record of climate properties at Vostok to be extended to about 420,000 years.

The strong correlation between atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations and Antarctic temperature,is confirmed by the extension of the Vostok ice-core record. From the extended Vostok record, scientists have concluded that present-day atmospheric burdens of carbon dioxide and methane seem to have been unprecedented during the past 420,000 years. Temperature variations estimated from deuterium were similar for the last two glacial periods.

You can see a lot about it here, because we don't just "disagree," or "agree to disagree":

I'm right, and you're wrong.

And, er....everyone here knows who I am, and what I've done for my career. You should have a look, and start basing scientific arguments on scientific facts, instead of ....whatever it is you're basing them upon.

Apparently, my embedded link doesn't work. If you're interested in the Vostok ice core (you know, the one that goes back 420000 years, much further back than the mere 2000 someone else cited incorrectly (wrongly?) as the limit) you can find some of that info here :Historical Carbon Dioxide Record from the Vostok Ice Core

and here: Ice Core Data Help Solve a Global Warming Mystery

and here:The Vostok Ice Core | EARTH 104: Earth and the Environment

 

[Gerry Seymour11]

See post 62 by @Tony Dismukes. He is correct, there is an active campaign of misinformation on the climate change issue in a deliberate attempt to discredit the science. Distraction from the issue is a common and widespread tactic used in that campaign.

This is not just internet banter. Climate change is an important issue and I do not feel inclined to give a pass to anybody who is either actively participating in the misinformation campaign, or is (perhaps) unwittingly passing along and regurgitating the message of that campaign. When I see false and misleading statements about climate change, or the common tactics of distraction and smokescreens, I feel it ought to be called out.

Discussing and clarifying those pieces of incorrect information is part of the solution to stopping their spread. And sometimes those bits also involve other important issues that affect the climate change problem.