On Nov 7, 12:47 pm, "Ouroboros_Rex" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...

On Nov 7, 11:24 am, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Nov 7, 7:49 am, john fernbach wrote:

"Nature Fed Up With --?"

I don't believe it, Roger. Shame on you for this loaded language.

The language isn't original with me.
Read the first paragraph of the article.

Whatever, you quoted it and passed it along.

Which, of course, is irelevant.

Not to shaming Roger. Why pass along crappy rhetoric? It is shameful
to do.




With all due respect to James Lovelock, this is what Ruskin called the
"pathetic fallacy" -- attributing human thoughts and emotions and
drives to "nature" and to other non-human entities.

Christians call it "reification," a part of their
dogma that makes me glad I'm a Buddhist.

Ah, so you're into obliteration of the consciousness? Good for you!

And how does adding one more name to anthropomorphizing nature make it
a good idea for you to quote it? I don't understand how this is a
response to John.

Yes - when you don't want to understand, you typically don't.

It's a good point, but not an explanation. A rose by any other
name ...

Roger offers another name for his crappy rhetorical article's failings
and because he uses that name to indict Christians, it's all good?
You're a dumbass, Oedipus.


The problem of the oceans beginning to absorb less CO2 -- because of
physical and chemical factors, not emotional ones -- is nevertheless
scary as hell.

Yep.

But I don't think it's because "Gaia" is displeased,
and I don't think we could buy Her off through the sacrifice of
virgins, etc.

The fundamentalist end-of-the-worlders are probably
making plans to do just that, however. ;-)

Like the fundamentalist AGWers buying off their carbon sins through
green indulgences.

Maybe if you're three.

I like insults much more when they actually make sense.

On Nov 7, 12:35 pm, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Nov 7, 8:37 am, "
wrote:
[ . . . ]

So a bunch of uncertain studies,

Every scientific study, and every claim, has uncertainty.

Well this is just false. I can offer you a number of claims that are
not so. In fact, there is a name for claims that are never uncertain,
but are 'true in all logically possible worlds'. And when the
uncertainty is of the nature "we don't know yet what X will do" it
doesn't add up to even probability, if you get a bunch of those.

when taken as a whole provide
certainty? Neat!

If they used independent methods and make the
same claim, yes, then the studies decrease the
uncertainty of the statement.

If, sure. I didn't see your cites making identical claims or reaching
identical conclusions.

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Nov 7, 12:47 pm, "Ouroboros_Rex" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...

On Nov 7, 11:24 am, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Nov 7, 7:49 am, john fernbach wrote:

"Nature Fed Up With --?"

I don't believe it, Roger. Shame on you for this loaded language.

The language isn't original with me.
Read the first paragraph of the article.

Whatever, you quoted it and passed it along.

Which, of course, is irelevant.

Not to shaming Roger. Why pass along crappy rhetoric? It is shameful
to do.

You are claiming he should have butchered the article? It certainly would
have been funny to watch the resulting row then. lol

"James" wrote in message
...

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Nov 7, 7:49 am, john fernbach wrote:
"Nature Fed Up With --?"

I don't believe it, Roger. Shame on you for this loaded language.

The language isn't original with me.
Read the first paragraph of the article.

The past few weeks and years have seen a bushel of papers finding that
the natural world, in particular perhaps the ocean, is getting fed up
with absorbing our CO2. There are uncertainties and caveats associated
with each study, but taken as a whole, they provide convincing
evidence that the hypothesized carbon cycle positive feedback has
begun.

It is implying that the Earth is an organism and is able to discern our
co2 from natural co2 and is angry about it.

Maybe if you're six.

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Nov 7, 12:35 pm, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Nov 7, 8:37 am, "
wrote:
[ . . . ]

So a bunch of uncertain studies,

Every scientific study, and every claim, has uncertainty.

Well this is just false. I can offer you a number of claims that are
not so. In fact, there is a name for claims that are never uncertain,
but are 'true in all logically possible worlds'. And when the
uncertainty is of the nature "we don't know yet what X will do" it
doesn't add up to even probability, if you get a bunch of those.

when taken as a whole provide
certainty? Neat!

If they used independent methods and make the
same claim, yes, then the studies decrease the
uncertainty of the statement.

If, sure. I didn't see your cites making identical claims or reaching
identical conclusions.

That's fine - did you have an opinion on the rest of the article?

On Nov 7, 3:18 pm, "Ouroboros_Rex" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...





On Nov 7, 12:47 pm, "Ouroboros_Rex" wrote:
wrote in message

groups.com...

On Nov 7, 11:24 am, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Nov 7, 7:49 am, john fernbach wrote:

"Nature Fed Up With --?"

I don't believe it, Roger. Shame on you for this loaded language.

The language isn't original with me.
Read the first paragraph of the article.

Whatever, you quoted it and passed it along.

Which, of course, is irelevant.

Not to shaming Roger. Why pass along crappy rhetoric? It is shameful
to do.

You are claiming he should have butchered the article? It certainly would
have been funny to watch the resulting row then. lol

Or he could have just written "hey here's something interesting but
ignore the crappy rhetoric." Instead he made the crappy rhetoric his
tag line.

On Nov 7, 3:22 pm, "Ouroboros_Rex" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...





On Nov 7, 12:35 pm, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Nov 7, 8:37 am, "
wrote:
[ . . . ]

So a bunch of uncertain studies,

Every scientific study, and every claim, has uncertainty.

Well this is just false. I can offer you a number of claims that are
not so. In fact, there is a name for claims that are never uncertain,
but are 'true in all logically possible worlds'. And when the
uncertainty is of the nature "we don't know yet what X will do" it
doesn't add up to even probability, if you get a bunch of those.

when taken as a whole provide
certainty? Neat!

If they used independent methods and make the
same claim, yes, then the studies decrease the
uncertainty of the statement.

If, sure. I didn't see your cites making identical claims or reaching
identical conclusions.

That's fine - did you have an opinion on the rest of the article?

Sure, I don't think the article supports the conclusion of the title
Roger chose. Anthropomorphism aside, his article says:

"The history of this type of study tells us to wait for
independent replication before taking this result to the bank."

" They show surface ocean CO2
measurements from ships of opportunity from the period 1994-1995, and
from 2002-2005. " Roger has often said we need 30 years of
measurements to draw a trend.

The whole article is a big question mark, we're not sure even if there
is a reduction in CO2 absorption and further we don't know what's
causing it. But, what we get out of Roger is that Nature is fed up
with absorbing OUR CO2 and that we're in a positive feedback loop.

On Nov 7, 11:24 am, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Nov 7, 7:49 am, john fernbach wrote:

"Nature Fed Up With --?"

I don't believe it, Roger. Shame on you for this loaded language.

The language isn't original with me.
Read the first paragraph of the article.



With all due respect to James Lovelock, this is what Ruskin called the
"pathetic fallacy" -- attributing human thoughts and emotions and
drives to "nature" and to other non-human entities.

Christians call it "reification," a part of their
dogma that makes me glad I'm a Buddhist.



The problem of the oceans beginning to absorb less CO2 -- because of
physical and chemical factors, not emotional ones -- is nevertheless
scary as hell.

Yep.

But I don't think it's because "Gaia" is displeased,
and I don't think we could buy Her off through the sacrifice of
virgins, etc.

The fundamentalist end-of-the-worlders are probably
making plans to do just that, however. ;-)

.

Fortunately, there are some fundamentalists - of all religions, it
looks like - who are deciding to opt for life in the place of death,
and who are supporting efforts to curb AGW before it does a lot more
damage

Back to the question of the oceans ceasing to absorb as much CO2,
though - how "robust" is the research that's purporting to show this,
Roger? So far, I've just seen 1 recent study being referred to which
seems to show that the oceans' absorptive capacity is decreasing.

Have you seen any other reserch on this topic which backs up this
alarming finding, or which contradicts it?

Because if the rate of CO2 absorption goes down, and we keep emitting
the same volumes of CO2 or even INCREASING the volume because of
population growth combined with a surge of new construction in coal-
fired electricity generating plants (most of them in China and India,
it looks like), then we could be on the verge of a "tipping point."

That is, the relatively moderate amount of warming that we've seen
over the past 30 years or so, whether it's due to greenhouse gas
emissions or not, could now go into overdrive as the buffering ability
of the oceans decreases. And that could mean a "runaway" greenhouse
effect that would be virtually impossible to control, couldn't it?

I'm asking you this stuff, Roger, not because I take every word you
write as revealed truth, but because you do seem to be trying to keep
up with the AGW science. So let me ask you - what's the significance
of this new research - compared, say, to all of the NASA temperature
data and other indications of AGW that you've been presenting to this
NG for some time now?

From the perspective of the AGW deniers, say, is this 'just the same
old Roger Coppock, writing the same old things?" Obviously they'll
claim that - but is this more or less accurate?

Or does this new research on the oceans indicate that we are at some
kind of tipping point, that we see to have left one kind of
environmental regimen and entered another, very different one?

On Nov 7, 3:18 pm, "Ouroboros_Rex" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...





On Nov 7, 12:47 pm, "Ouroboros_Rex" wrote:
wrote in message

groups.com...

On Nov 7, 11:24 am, Roger Coppock wrote:
On Nov 7, 7:49 am, john fernbach wrote:

"Nature Fed Up With --?"

I don't believe it, Roger. Shame on you for this loaded language.

The language isn't original with me.
Read the first paragraph of the article.

Whatever, you quoted it and passed it along.

Which, of course, is irelevant.

Not to shaming Roger. Why pass along crappy rhetoric? It is shameful
to do.

You are claiming he should have butchered the article? It certainly would
have been funny to watch the resulting row then. lol- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ourobors - I feel a little bad about bringing up this topic. I do
object to the "Gaist" language, do find it offensive. But this is a
stylistic issue, mostly. What's more important, obviously, are the
claims - true or false - that the article is making.

How significant are these new claims about the ocean's CO2 absorping
capacity beginning to diminish, Ouroboros?

Is this anything other than the usual "AGW alarmism" that people like
you -- and me -- and Roger - have been posting in here for some
time?

I mean, are the scientists involved saying anything significantly
different, that people really should be looking at with new eyes?

"john fernbach" wrote

The problem of the oceans beginning to absorb less CO2 -- because of
physical and chemical factors, not emotional ones -- is nevertheless
scary as hell.

Don't get your panties in a bunch. There is no real evidence of any such
reduction in absorbtion of CO2. Just another example of science phonies
playing with computer models: the electronic version of weighing moonbeams.

Lovelock is a nutcase. End of story.