sci.energy

On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 18:45:22 -0700, The_Sage
wrote:

>>Reply to article by: Jonathan Kirwan
>>Date written: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 00:53:11 GMT
>>MsgID:
>
>>>>>The CO2 levels were determined by O18 to O16 ratios in marine carbonate.
>
>>>>My first reaction to this is that you haven't read ANY science papers,
>>>>at all. O18:O16 ratios are a proxy for temperature, not CO2 levels.
>>>>The CO2 levels found in the trapped air can be directly measured.
>
>>>>Then I went to read this GSA Today article you cited. It doesn't make
>>>>the mistake you just did. Good thing. That article actually goes to
>>>>lengths to discuss 4 proxies for CO2, as well.
>
>>>>Do you ever read this stuff? Just curious.
>
>>>My first reaction to this is that you have never taken a class in logic in your
>>>entire life. Afterall, how can you *logically* justify saying that I have never
>>>read a single science paper in my life just because I make a simple typo?
>
>>That doesn't look like a typo to me. It's very hard to say something
>>like that about CO2, accidentally. In fact, I can't recall ever
>>seeing a typo like that. Always a first time, I suppose.
>
>For the typo claim to be incorrect, I could never come to a correct summary for
>that article because according to your "logic", I didn't make a typo, I typed
>exactly what I know to be true (an unsupported assertion) and I never read the
>article (another unsupported assertion). Yet my summary of the article -- that
>CO2 levels of 4400 ppm during the Late Ordovician period had little effect on
>temperature -- is exactly what the article I linked to claims. How can I never
>read a science paper in my life yet know exactly what that article was all
>about? ESP? UFOs?
>
>Like I said, logic is clearly not one of your strong points. Probably never will
>be either.

Perhaps I should have said, "didn't read with understanding sufficient
to parrot accurately." For all your waffling, I still cannot
understand how you wrote what you did about CO2 and O16/O18 ratios.
Words like that don't arrive from missing a keystroke.

Getting past that and to your other point, can you cite the specific
part of it, word for word, that leads you to write, "CO2 levels of
4400 ppm during the Late Ordovician period had little effect on
temperature?"

Jon

--
Philosophy is written in this grand book - I mean the universe -
which stands continually open to our gaze, but it cannot be
understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and
interpret the characters in which it is written. It is written in
the language of mathematics, and its characters are triangles,
circles, and other geometric figures, without which it is humanly
impossible to understand a single word of it; without these, one
is wandering about in a dark labyrinth. [Galileo, in The Assayer]