EXXON Contradicts its Own Scientists

[_Quasimodo]

Personally, I'm a fan of the new hyper aggressive angry Tobin, this version is way more entertaining than the older one.

Well, it's always a good way to stimulate conversation (and attention).

[_Tobin]

You really seem hung up on mega-eruptions, so I have to ask, how frequently do they happen?

Not very often. But not all mega-eruptions are created equal. The Krakatoa eruption would be considered relatively minor compared to something truly monstrous like the Yellowstone caldera. Let me just say that if Yellowstone erupts, global warming will be the least of our concerns.

[_Molok]

Aaaaaannnd that's about as intelligent as the space god devotee gets.

It's a little startling that you'd think of jerking off in response to a baby picture, though. Maybe someone should check your hard drive.

You were the one that posted the picture of a baby. I think it is a legitimate to wonder [unfounded assertion deleted]?

Tobin makes a great point here. It's not like there's some kind of website that lets you type in keywords to use as filters for the whole internet so you can find whatever you're looking for.

[_Tobin]

It includes ALL volcanoes you idiot. Here is a graph for CO2 over the last 400,000 years.
SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_di ... atmosphere

Yawn. That's a different article and still has nothing to do with super-eruptions.

[_AZCaesar]

You really seem hung up on mega-eruptions, so I have to ask, how frequently do they happen?

Not very often. But not all mega-eruptions are created equal. The Krakatoa eruption would be considered relatively minor compared to something truly monstrous like the Yellowstone caldera. Let me just say that if Yellowstone erupts, global warming will be the least of our concerns.

So you are saying that we shouldn't change anything that we can, because there might be a large eruption, at some point in the future. Also, the Yellowstone volcano would erupt, not the caldera. Calderas don't erupt.

[_Tobin]

Tobin makes a great point here. It's not like there's some kind of website that lets you type in keywords to use as filters for the whole internet so you can find whatever you're looking for.

I think baby pictures is the only filter that Some "[unfounded assertion deleted]" Schmo has.

[_The CCC]

And if a 6 mile wide asteroid comes crashing in none of will have to worry about having our life insurance policies paid up. But we are probably in a mass extinct event right now because of our burning of fossil fuels.

[_Res Ipsa]

On this subject, Tobin is deliberately ignorant (and proud of it) and irrational. He is dead wrong with his claims that Gunnar has made a fallacious argument from popularity or from authority. In fact, he mangles the argument from authority fallacy so much that he stands it on its head. At the same time, all of his opinions are grounded in an actually logical fallacy -- the argument from personal incredulity. Tobin can't believe that something is true, therefore it is absurd. Because it is absurd, he refuses to even consider information that contradicts his viewpoint. It's a literal fact free shield.

A guy I know is into racing horses. He tells a story about two horses, side by side, coming down the stretch toward the wire. One of the horses has his full attention on the other, and is doing everything it can to throw his competitor off stride. He describes it as "biting the hell" out of the other horse. The other horse has full attention on the finish line and is simply ignoring the biter.

You can guess which horse Tobin is. Be the horse with eyes on the prize.

[Guest]

So you are saying that we shouldn't change anything that we can, because there might be a large eruption, at some point in the future. Also, the Yellowstone volcano would erupt, not the caldera. Calderas don't erupt.

Calderas can and do erupt. For example, when the sea water flooded the Karkatoa caldera, that's when the really big explosion happened.

[_Tobin]

On this subject, Tobin is deliberately ignorant (and proud of it) and irrational. He is dead wrong with his claims that Gunnar has made a fallacious argument from popularity or from authority. In fact, he mangles the argument from authority fallacy so much that he stands it on its head. At the same time, all of his opinions are grounded in an actually logical fallacy -- the argument from personal incredulity. Tobin can't believe that something is true, therefore it is absurd. Because it is absurd, he refuses to even consider information that contradicts his viewpoint. It's a literal fact free shield.

And yet Brad can't provide a single valid example for his claims. Up to your old lying tricks Brad?