Tropical forests have flipped from sponges to sources of carbon dioxide

Heated discussions on a hot topic.
User avatar
Phoenix76
Poster
Posts: 346
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:16 am
Custom Title: Phoenix76
Location: Qld, Australia

Tropical forests have flipped from sponges to sources of carbon dioxide

Postby Phoenix76 » Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:33 am

This is an interesting article from Science News.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/tro ... ide?tgt=nr

Another idea that may go to explaining today's climate change. I'm sure my friend Bobbo will have some interesting comments to make on this article. But it does take me back to my early school days where we learned this theory of vegetation absorbing CO2 and emitting O.

But if nothing else, it helps to explain my skepticism of the whole subject. Do I believe what the article suggests? No, not entirely. There is certainly logic in what it says, but even within the article itself, there is debate. The second last para puts up a negative view although accepting that the theory needs accommodating.

So, as I've said elsewhere, there are so many for and against arguments/theories that perhaps the real causes of our current climate change are getting lost in the over-burden.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10698
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Tropical forests have flipped from sponges to sources of carbon dioxide

Postby xouper » Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:02 am

Phoenix76 wrote:So, as I've said elsewhere, there are so many for and against arguments/theories that perhaps the real causes of our current climate change are getting lost in the over-burden.


That is pretty much my position as well.

Perhaps a relevant question might be: How well have the climate predictions been working out? Is the climate today anywhere near what it was predicted to be? It seems not.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Tropical forests have flipped from sponges to sources of carbon dioxide

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Sep 29, 2017 8:39 am

Good example of "not seeing the forest for the trees." Must apply to jungles too?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Tropical forests have flipped from sponges to sources of carbon dioxide

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Sep 29, 2017 9:14 am

Back from some computer maintenance, read the article.

NOTHING HAS "FLIPPED." Stupid BS article. It always has been and always will be the OBVIOUS CASE that when plants grow they take in carbon, and when they die, get cut down, they release carbon===========>DUH!!!!!!

Its also well known that some plants absorb/grow/die differently than others so teh carbon intake/release would vary based on that as well. Again:==========> DUH!!!!!!!!!!!

could either of you state what the "for and against" issue is you spotted?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10698
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Tropical forests have flipped from sponges to sources of carbon dioxide

Postby xouper » Fri Sep 29, 2017 9:31 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:. . . could either of you state what the "for and against" issue is you spotted?


I only read it once, but I didn't see anything in that article that I would consider useful either for or against. Maybe I missed something.

And, apparently it is just one study and it remains to be seen if their methods and results stand up to scrutiny.

Also, my previous reply was not about the article, I was responding only to the snippet I quoted. I thought that went without saying.

User avatar
Phoenix76
Poster
Posts: 346
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:16 am
Custom Title: Phoenix76
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Tropical forests have flipped from sponges to sources of carbon dioxide

Postby Phoenix76 » Fri Sep 29, 2017 9:54 am

Well as I thought, Bobbo has come out firing on this one. If the theory/argument doesn't align with his cast in stone beliefs on this subject, he just pours scorn on it. His mind is closed to any other ideas or suggestions. Perhaps he is skeptic in reverse? Nothing anyone says against his hard set ideas will be considered by him. Very narrow minded in my opinion.

And Bobbo, please excuse my ignorance, but can you give us the meaning of the word "DUH"? I can't find it in my dictionary.

And one more thing Bobbo. I put the article up in the hope that it might engender some intelligent discussion, not the bellicose diatribe that you came up with. You appear to be a very negative person.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Tropical forests have flipped from sponges to sources of carbon dioxide

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Sep 29, 2017 1:44 pm

Phoenix: please offer something substantive?

1. "But it does take me back to my early school days where we learned this theory of vegetation absorbing CO2 and emitting O." /// Do you think this is a "theory?" How is it not an observable FACT just as I put forth?

2. "Do I believe what the article suggests? No, not entirely. There is certainly logic in what it says, but even within the article itself, there is debate. ////What is the debate??? I don't see one....just as I put forth.

3. "So, as I've said elsewhere, there are so many for and against arguments/theories that perhaps the real causes of our current climate change are getting lost in the over-burden." //// ABSOLUTELY NOT. The cause: man burning fossil fuels. What you dither on about is seriously the smallest detail, as stated SO MANY TIMES: ignorantly demanding a precision that the subject cannot give. Its like not believing in cancer because the Doc can't tell you for sure how many months you have to live................ plain silly.

4. "The second last para puts up a negative view although accepting that the theory needs accommodating." //// Good, something specific. Lets go find it: "But terrestrial ecosystem scientist Joshua Fisher of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., notes that this forest biomass study doesn’t fully gel with atmospheric observations of carbon emissions from tropical forests, which still show that the forests are taking up more carbon than they are emitting overall. That may be because the new study focuses on above ground biomass and doesn’t include what’s absorbed in soils, he says." /////// I don't see anything "negative" here..........is that how you describe anything not agreeing with you 100% with an extra helping of praise???? That would explain you constant whining about my objective analyses===> OH MY!!!!!!!! He is only remarking the data doesn't jive with the simpler explanation AND IMMEDIATELY provides the mostly likely answer to the question. Why is THAT "negative"? What makes you think I am negative?

Ha, ha...........................

What you and X are doing is confusing being mindlessly negative with being insightful, critical, or skeptical whereas you miss the relevant points so widely that my corrections strike you as negative as opposed to informative and corrective.

Silly Hoomans.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
True Skeptic
Posts: 10523
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: Tropical forests have flipped from sponges to sources of carbon dioxide

Postby OlegTheBatty » Fri Sep 29, 2017 8:48 pm

A few million years ago, climate change caused the east African rainforest to change over to a more open savanna. One of the consequences was that an ape evolved into a protohuman.

That climate change can convert tropical rainforest Into a more open flora is part of the paleontological record. Savannas are not particulary good carbon sinks, tropical rainforests are. At some point in changing to a more open flora, the carbon sink characteristic has to change.

All this study is saying is that, by their calculation, the studied forests have reached that cusp. They estimate that climate change is a significant factor, but not as important as other human activity.

There is no new science here.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Tropical forests have flipped from sponges to sources of carbon dioxide

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Sep 29, 2017 10:23 pm

.............Nothing new here. No theory. No pro and con. Nothing to debate.

Ain't that something for Deniers to understand about THEMSELVES a bit more deeply than they do. (No ? there. A declarative sentence.)
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Phoenix76
Poster
Posts: 346
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:16 am
Custom Title: Phoenix76
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Tropical forests have flipped from sponges to sources of carbon dioxide

Postby Phoenix76 » Sat Sep 30, 2017 7:40 am

Oleg said:

All this study is saying is that, by their calculation, the studied forests have reached that cusp. They estimate that climate change is a significant factor, but not as important as other human activity.


Thank you Oleg, although not in the way Bobbo gave you a thumbs up. Everything seems to be a contest to him. All I am looking for is some intelligent input and obviously that is something we rarely get from "Bobbo The Clown".

Simply an article I came across in a reputable publication that I thought might generate some intelligent conversation. As usual, BTC just uses childish put downs, but never puts up a link to support those put downs.

Ah well, what did I really expect.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10698
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Tropical forests have flipped from sponges to sources of carbon dioxide

Postby xouper » Sat Sep 30, 2017 8:27 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:What you and X are doing is confusing being mindlessly negative with being insightful, critical, or skeptical whereas you miss the relevant points so widely that my corrections strike you as negative as opposed to informative and corrective.


I did no such thing.

Silly booboo.

User avatar
Phoenix76
Poster
Posts: 346
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:16 am
Custom Title: Phoenix76
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Tropical forests have flipped from sponges to sources of carbon dioxide

Postby Phoenix76 » Sat Sep 30, 2017 10:27 am

Bobbo, you are giving me, and it seems many others on this forum, the SHEETS.

Will you, can you, simply come back and support your argument that current climate change is solely due to man's burning of fossil fuels. Nothing else, just your belief that burning of fossil fuels is the cause of global warming.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Tropical forests have flipped from sponges to sources of carbon dioxide

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Sep 30, 2017 9:45 pm

Phoenix76 wrote:Bobbo, you are giving me, and it seems many others on this forum, the SHEETS.

Will you, can you, simply come back and support your argument that current climate change is solely due to man's burning of fossil fuels. Nothing else, just your belief that burning of fossil fuels is the cause of global warming.


Its not "my" opinion but the written report from 97% of qualified scientists as set forth in multiple IPCC public reports linked to many times in this subforum. Your expressed doubt and skepticism is NOT a call for "intelligent discussion" but rather is a crying out for your need to come up to speed with basic information.

I gave you 4 specific bullet points. You continue your whining response on a personal level rather than engage in that intelligent discussion you claim to want. It does take two. I started----why don't you respond?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Tropical forests have flipped from sponges to sources of carbon dioxide

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Sep 30, 2017 9:47 pm

X==yes you do.

Same 4 points to you.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10698
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Tropical forests have flipped from sponges to sources of carbon dioxide

Postby xouper » Sun Oct 01, 2017 8:08 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:X==yes you do.


No I don't.


bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Same 4 points to you.


Why am I required to answer for something written by someone else? They have nothing to do with me.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7621
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Tropical forests have flipped from sponges to sources of carbon dioxide

Postby TJrandom » Sun Oct 01, 2017 8:51 am

The second paragraph says...

Much of that carbon contribution is due to deforestation


So it seems to me that it isn`t a case of tropical forest carbon direction having flipped - but rather the tropical forest no longer being a tropical forest since it is being converted by man into farmland and roadways, or is otherwise selectively being stripped of trees.

User avatar
Phoenix76
Poster
Posts: 346
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:16 am
Custom Title: Phoenix76
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Tropical forests have flipped from sponges to sources of carbon dioxide

Postby Phoenix76 » Sun Oct 01, 2017 9:12 am

Well read Tj. I believe that this is really the thrust of the article. The more of our forests, particularly our tropical forests, that we cut down, so we lose the benefits of absorbing carbon.

I don't know how much carbon rain forests can absorb, or sub-tropical or temperate forests. But logic says that as we produce more and more carbon, we need more and more forests to absorb it.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7621
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Tropical forests have flipped from sponges to sources of carbon dioxide

Postby TJrandom » Sun Oct 01, 2017 9:22 am

It has been a long time since I have heard of planting trees to address climate change, but believe it needed to be done on a massive basis to have any real impact.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Tropical forests have flipped from sponges to sources of carbon dioxide

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Oct 01, 2017 10:05 am

xouper wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:X==yes you do.


No I don't.


bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Same 4 points to you.


Why am I required to answer for something written by someone else? They have nothing to do with me.

Ha, ha..........I was going to put those very words into a spoiler box. So predictable in your posing.

If you were honest, you became bound when first stating: "That is pretty much my position as well." with the follow up confirmation of: "And, apparently it is just one study and it remains to be seen if their methods and results stand up to scrutiny." /// IOW-you joined Phoenix in the Whine Symphony offering up bogus attitudes of skepticism when what is on display is a failure to understand the basics of what the link was about. Thats not too terrible a fault on youse two parts as the link itself suffered from the same defect.

Posing an attitude of skepticism..........instead of analyzing what is actually right there in front of you: bogus.
Last edited by bobbo_the_Pragmatist on Sun Oct 01, 2017 10:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Tropical forests have flipped from sponges to sources of carbon dioxide

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Oct 01, 2017 10:10 am

Phoenix76 wrote:Well read Tj. I believe that this is really the thrust of the article. The more of our forests, particularly our tropical forests, that we cut down, so we lose the benefits of absorbing carbon.


THERE YOU GO!!!---an actual understanding of what the article said. Now...... review your original post.... how does your analysis stand up????


Phoenix76 wrote: I don't know how much carbon rain forests can absorb, or sub-tropical or temperate forests. But logic says that as we produce more and more carbon, we need more and more forests to absorb it.


Well...............its a slow process isn't it? NO. Logic does not tell us that. Guess again.....or just read what I posted.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10698
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Tropical forests have flipped from sponges to sources of carbon dioxide

Postby xouper » Sun Oct 01, 2017 10:27 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
xouper wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:X==yes you do.


No I don't.


bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Same 4 points to you.


Why am I required to answer for something written by someone else? They have nothing to do with me.

Ha, ha..........I was going to put those very words into a spoiler box. So predictable in your posing.

If you were honest, you became bound when first stating: "That is pretty much my position as well." with the follow up confirmation of: "And, apparently it is just one study and it remains to be seen if their methods and results stand up to scrutiny." /// IOW-you joined Phoenix in the Whine Symphony offering up bogus attitudes of skepticism when what is on display is a failure to understand the basics of what the link was about. Thats not too terrible a fault on youse two parts as the link itself suffered from the same defect.

Posing an attitude of skepticism..........instead of analyzing what is actually right there in front of you: bogus.


Let the record show that once again, booboo is trying to twist my words around to mean something I did not intend to mean.

Let the record also show that booboo has no clue whatsoever regarding my position on climate change.

Booboo is merely doing his usual song and dance of harassment and trying to disparage other people, which is a clear violation of the rules and guidelines of this forum.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Tropical forests have flipped from sponges to sources of carbon dioxide

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Oct 01, 2017 11:07 am

Let the record show that as always X refuses to accept the plain meaning of his posts and rarely answers any direct question.

He thinks that is being "smart."

4 Direct Questions going to the meaning of your post remain unanswered.........Phoenix has made progress, why don't you join him?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10698
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Tropical forests have flipped from sponges to sources of carbon dioxide

Postby xouper » Sun Oct 01, 2017 11:32 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Let the record show that as always X refuses to accept the plain meaning of his posts and rarely answers any direct question.

He thinks that is being "smart."

4 Direct Questions going to the meaning of your post remain unanswered.........Phoenix has made progress, why don't you join him?


QED

Booboo has again demonstrated that he doesn't get it.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Tropical forests have flipped from sponges to sources of carbon dioxide

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Oct 01, 2017 11:47 am

X..... lets play it straight. What don't I get?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10698
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Tropical forests have flipped from sponges to sources of carbon dioxide

Postby xouper » Sun Oct 01, 2017 12:17 pm

OK, playing it straight, your four points:

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Phoenix: please offer something substantive?

1. "But it does take me back to my early school days where we learned this theory of vegetation absorbing CO2 and emitting O."


I did not say that, so I don't need to explain it.

Nonetheless, I recall learning (in university) that in general, vegetation absorbs CO2 and emits O2. I haven't seen anything since then, including the above paper, that requires me to revise my understanding of that process.


bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:2. "Do I believe what the article suggests? No, not entirely. There is certainly logic in what it says, but even within the article itself, there is debate.


I did not say that, so I don't need to explain it.

In any case, I already answered this question the first time you asked me:

earlier in this thread, xouper wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:. . . could either of you state what the "for and against" issue is you spotted?

I only read it once, but I didn't see anything in that article that I would consider useful either for or against. Maybe I missed something.


Did that not answer your question? What more do I need to explain?

The list of "for and against" issues I spotted is an empty list. And since the list is empty, what is there to explain about it?


bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:3. "So, as I've said elsewhere, there are so many for and against arguments/theories that perhaps the real causes of our current climate change are getting lost in the over-burden."


I did not say that, but I agreed with it.

If you are asking me to list all the for and against arguments, then it would take weeks of work simply to list them all. Not gonna happen here. Besides, they are all on the internet or in libraries where anyone who is interested can find them. Contrary to your implied accusation, I've been studying this issue — giving it much serious thought and research — for more than a decade.


bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:4. "The second last para puts up a negative view although accepting that the theory needs accommodating."


I did not say that, so I don't need to explain it.

I have now answered your four points, playing it straight. Are we done now?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Tropical forests have flipped from sponges to sources of carbon dioxide

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Oct 01, 2017 12:25 pm

Well X.... you have avoided the point.

Your negative stance towards AGW shines thru whatever it is you think you are posting.

Note: you have not addressed at all what it is you think I don't get.

We have already agreed your general approach to issues is to deny the clear meaning of what you post by way of arguing you didn't say what other people take as your clear meaning.

A quibbler.

So........................again....................what don't I get? This normally would go to the subtlety or metaphorical nature of your responses. As I have stated: you don't make it. Now, in your context, what I don't get is that you are that subtle or metaphorical? Is that your point...... as you are dumbstruck to state it yourself?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Tropical forests have flipped from sponges to sources of carbon dioxide

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Oct 01, 2017 12:34 pm

X----I recognize you did play it straight even to the point of posting the 4 "POINTS" I referenced........but you missed the point. The "point" is in the Questions I asked AFTER THE POINTS.

I even said to "answer the questions.... NOT the point the questions were based on.

Not that subtle..........OTHER people can understand what you post, and what you don't post. Something "you don't get."
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10698
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Tropical forests have flipped from sponges to sources of carbon dioxide

Postby xouper » Sun Oct 01, 2017 1:06 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Well X.... you have avoided the point.


Sorry, that was not my intention.


bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:So........................again....................what don't I get?


I have explained it numerous times in several different threads. I will try one more time.

The point I have been trying to make that you don't get is this: When there is more than one way to interpret my words on this forum, the question is, who gets to decide which is the correct interpretation?

Answer: Not you. Never you.

The only person entitled to explain and clarify what I had in mind and was trying to say is me. No one else.

I concede I am not always the best explainerator of what I was trying to say. Sometimes the way I phrase things and the words I use sometimes — and unintentionally — contain more than one way of being interpreted.

I am not a professional writer and this is not an academic forum where writing needs to meet that very high standard.

Nonetheless, that is not license for you declare you know better than me what I was trying to say.

It seems you continue to disagree with that point, but no matter how many times you disagree, you are still not entitled to be the final authority on how best to interpret what I meant to say.

And that's why I sometimes say you still don't get it.

The honorable thing to do when someone explains that you have misinterpreted their words, is to work with them to reach a correct understanding. I have never seen any interest from you in ever doing that.

And it's not just with me, you do this to many other people on this forum, you twist their words into something they did not mean, and you refuse to acknowledge that you are not entitled to do that. It is classic straw man fallacy.

That is what you don't get.

Does that answer your question?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Tropical forests have flipped from sponges to sources of carbon dioxide

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Oct 01, 2017 1:55 pm

Yes Xouper....that is an excellent answer. Wrong....but exactly what I asked for.

You say:
"I am not a professional writer and this is not an academic forum where writing needs to meet that very high standard.

Nonetheless, that is not license for you declare you know better than me what I was trying to say.


which is quite fitting as I am a professional critic aka analyzer. You fit perfectly into a very typical situation: does a written statement mean what the author means it to say, or does it mean what is generally understood by what is written? Various schools of thought on this depending on the ends/goals sought and the bias/training of the reviewer.

You have an obvious tell that even you should see: you are CONSTANTLY SAYING: "that is not what I mean........" Guess what? THAT is your fault/responsibility. Your dodge into complaining others don't understand you is to hide the fact that you are too inflexible in your thinking to understand what anyone else is saying.....or to change your mind once a corrective or even superior point is made. This very thread is a good example of that. You are negative about AGW....but don't want to own up to it.

If you know what to look for.......its easy to see..............although in your case, everyone sees it.

In the future..pretend you are speaking English..... like everyone else.

No charge.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10698
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Tropical forests have flipped from sponges to sources of carbon dioxide

Postby xouper » Sun Oct 01, 2017 2:27 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:. . . does a written statement mean what the author means it to say, or does it mean what is generally understood by what is written?


On this forum, the only personal qualified to answer that question is the person who wrote the statement.

Not you.

That is the point you don't get.


bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:You have an obvious tell that even you should see: you are CONSTANTLY SAYING: "that is not what I mean........" Guess what? THAT is your fault/responsibility.


Yes, sometimes it is my fault for using language that can be interpreted in more than one way, although I do not do that intentionally, but rather it is merely a lack of skill on my part. I already conceded that point.

But after you are informed that what I meant is different from what you thought I meant, then it is your fault for not accepting my explanation. It is not valid for you to hold onto a wrong interpretation after you have been informed it is wrong.

Furthermore, there are only a few people on this forum who misinterpret what I say, and they all seem to have one thing in common. They are sometimes predisposed to respond to some of my posts with hostility and that colors their interpretations of what I post. And that includes you. And you do that to many other people on this forum, not just me, so your denial that you are not part of the problem is simply not supported by the evidence that everyone here can see. And I'm not the only one saying that.


bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Your dodge into complaining others don't understand you is to hide the fact that you are too inflexible in your thinking to understand what anyone else is saying.....or to change your mind once a corrective or even superior point is made.


That is factually incorrect.

You are making (false) inferences based on information you do not have, and cannot possibly have, because you are not a mind reader.

I complain when others make straw men to attack me with. As you often do.


bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:This very thread is a good example of that. You are negative about AGW....but don't want to own up to it.


That is factually incorrect.

I am not "negative" about AGW in general.

I am justifiably skeptical about some of the claims being made, but not all of them.

However, I will own up to being negative about certain people who are AGW alarmists, such as Al Gore, who say things that are utterly untrue about AGW. His two movies have been shown to be deceptive and fraudulent. Nonetheless, that fact does not all by itself discredit AGW. It merely discredits Al Gore.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Tropical forests have flipped from sponges to sources of carbon dioxide

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Oct 01, 2017 2:41 pm

Have it your way...........as will everyone else.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
robinson
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1028
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:55 am
Custom Title: Sometimes nothing is real cool

Re: Tropical forests have flipped from sponges to sources of carbon dioxide

Postby robinson » Sun Oct 01, 2017 5:13 pm

"If you tell people the truth, make them laugh. Otherwise they will kill you"
-- Oscar Wilde

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Tropical forests have flipped from sponges to sources of carbon dioxide

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Oct 01, 2017 11:34 pm

Sadly.........that is a BS article. fake "good news"----AGW is nothing to worry about...... the "dry-land forests" will save us.

Very subtle BS.

Heres a clue: since when is a "FOREST" described as having "relatively low density of the trees." Any disconnect there?

Also........re Climate Change.......the growth/decline of individual elements is not relevant to the importance of the issue: what is the carbon loading in the atmosphere? That is going UP===>whether or not low density forests are recognized or not.

Crap....................... just simply crap................even though it supports "my side"====>MY SIDE, is the truth...unvarnished.... dare I say: pragmatic. IE: what works? What works is co2 ppm. Not the cherry picking of data elements that favor one side or the other.

Wise up.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Phoenix76
Poster
Posts: 346
Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:16 am
Custom Title: Phoenix76
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Tropical forests have flipped from sponges to sources of carbon dioxide

Postby Phoenix76 » Mon Oct 02, 2017 10:28 am

Bobbo the Clown said:

which is quite fitting as I am a professional critic aka analyzer.


Really. Provide the forum members with some evidence to support your claim.

With few exceptions, the critiques you write on this forum are utter crap. At least X admits that one of his skills is not that of writing. Perhaps you should own up to the same shortcoming BtC, because many of your relpies are just waffle, i.e., vague and wordy speech and writing.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Tropical forests have flipped from sponges to sources of carbon dioxide

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Oct 03, 2017 12:50 am

Phoenix: you constantly dither to the personal while complaining there is no intellectual engagement.

Meanwhile.......you ignore that very engagement by refusing to answer any of the four questions put to you.

Try to be substantive.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?


Return to “Climate Change”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest