I was just thinking how ironic it would be if the climate deniers...

[Agent11]

LOL, says the guy who quotes logically fallacious nonsense as authoritative!

LULZ!

Says the holocaust denier, LULZ!

 

[DrPizza]

There's one idiotic argument repeated ad nauseum - that the climatologists are claiming global warming because they get more money, blah blah blah.


What about tenured professors at leading universities who are doing university funded research? They have also reached the same conclusions. There isn't extra money being thrown at them to research these things; they do the research because research is an expected part of their jobs teaching.

 

[Paratus]

That's wonderful, but it doesn't necessarily prove that the activities of mankind are primarily responsible for any warming of the planet. There's correlation there, but not necessarily causation.

Still, this doesn't prove anything.

So? What's your point?

I guess if you don't have a point you can always just babble about something else, right?

There's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the activities of mankind are the cause of global warming/climate change.

And we're finally on a level playing field as that's been basically all of your posts. :biggrin:

 

[Paratus]

So no, you don't know where it came from and you're blowing pseudo facts out your ass.



Again, you know this how? You talk scientific evidence, try providing some.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position.

Oreskes and Peiser
Scientists need to back up their opinions with research and data that survive the peer-review process. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004). 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis).

Benny Peiser, a climate contrarian, repeated Oreskes' survey and claimed to have found 34 peer reviewed studies rejecting the consensus. However, an inspection of each of the 34 studies reveals most of them don't reject the consensus at all. The remaining articles in Peiser's list are editorials or letters, not peer-reviewed studies. Peiser has since retracted his criticism of Oreskes survey:

"Only [a] few abstracts explicitly reject or doubt the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) consensus which is why I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique. [snip] I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact."

Doran 2009
Subsequent research has confirmed this result. A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures.

Sorry I was off by 2%. I guess I'm no Nate Silver.

Time to spin mono! Spin for me denier!

 

[Juror No. 8]

Says the holocaust denier, LULZ!

Still got never evidence for the holohoax I see.

LULZ!

 

[WelshBloke]

Still got never evidence for the holohoax I see.

LULZ!

Wow, I've never met a holocaust denier before. D:

 

[Juror No. 8]

There's one idiotic argument repeated ad nauseum - that the climatologists are claiming global warming because they get more money, blah blah blah.

I know, imagine that! People actually saying or going along with something to secure their job, future, or future funding!

That would never happen! Ever! LOL.

What about tenured professors at leading universities who are doing university funded research?

Where does the university funding come from? What's the agenda of those providing the funding and doing the research?

They have also reached the same conclusions. There isn't extra money being thrown at them to research these things; they do the research because research is an expected part of their jobs teaching.

Of course there is extra money being thrown at them to research this nonsense. What, you think these research grants don't have strings attached? You think they are a one-off deal? LOL.

Come to the "right" conclusion and there's a chance at more money. Come to the "wrong" conclusion and you are all but assured of being cut off.

 

[Juror No. 8]

Wow, I've never met a holocaust denier before. D:

Not only that, but a Jewish Holohoax denier.

No. Fucking. Evidence.

None.

 

[monovillage]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm


Sorry I was off by 2%. I guess I'm no Nate Silver.

Time to spin mono! Spin for me denier!

You still haven't answered my question, was it a validly arrived at number? I'll help you, in fact thanks for bring up Nate Silver. No it wasn't.

Doran 2009 - sent out 10,256 surveys, got 3,146 filled out responses and cut those down to 75 of 77 "climate experts" to get a faux number. 97%.
If Silver had used such a ridiculous methodology he never would have been right. You do the math, what is the actual percentage of respondents?

Skeptical Science? The high school teacher John Cook strikes the ignorant again.


Good reading : No consensus on consensus
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/28/climate-change-no-consensus-on-consensus/

 

[monovillage]

Not only that, but a Jewish Holohoax denier.

No. Fucking. Evidence.

None.

I've seen and heard enough evidence of the Holocaust to believe in it.

It's one of the reasons I dislike the label of "denier" that assholes use to label skeptics, as soon as someone uses it you know they're just going to be blowing talking point bullshit out their asses.

 

[Jaskalas]

Wow, I've never met a holocaust denier before. D:

I got one better. Time to find you a moon landing denier.

Only after that will you, hopefully recognize, that folks will believe anything. Then there will be no more surprises when they come up with crack pot theories.

Speaking of crack pot theories... Global Warming meant snow was a thing of the past. Then it started snowing. Then global warming meant more snow. Last winter's WEATHER was warm in the United States (Europe had a historic winter) and so suddenly global warming meant warm snow-less winters again. At least for part of the globe. Can't wait til the next snow fall, they change their CLIMATE theory as often as the weather changes.

 

[CZroe]

...Of course not, but the point is that the previously existing levels of water vapor and other Greenhouse Gasses are more than enough capacity to absorb and retain ALL of the spectrum of energy from The Sun that the additional CO2 can. Because the CO2 cannot contribute to the effect (can't absorb/retain more if it's all already absorbed/retained), the additional heat can only come from The Sun. No one is denying that The Earth is warming. They are saying that additional CO2 from artificial emissions is capable of influencing it. Get that straight...

This part here is absolutely wrong. The atmosphere cannot capture all incoming or outgoing thermal energy. If it did the temperature of the Earth would be about equal to the sun by now. What measurements do show is the Earth retaining an extra 1W/m^2. Incoming energy will equal outgoing energy once the planet warms enough. Lookup Steffan-Boltzmann law of radiation.

Once again, you fail at analogy and English.

If I put a blind over my window made of a few materials and it blocked 90% of the spectrum, it doesn't matter if the blind made of a different material that blocks 70% of the same spectrum is added.

I see my analogy addressing that directly with 10% allowed through.
I imagined a colored vinyl blind that allows a nice tan color through. Next up, are you going to attack me because the air is 0% vinyl and 10% isn't the"real" percentage? Stop these childish games. You either understood damn well and played dumb or you don't have the mental capacity and shouldn't be talking.

So basically all your yammering stems from the fact you don't believe wr have tested the effects of green house gases in the lab and/or we are not capable figuring out how much CO2 we've dumped into the atmosphere.

Nope. As I've said, the measured and lab-tested effect of CO2 as a GH gas is within the spectrum covered by the other GH gasses with excess capacity and adding more will not change the GH effect. It's really not that hard to understand. I can keep adding buckets around the ceiling's water leak, increasing capacity, but if all the water goes into the bucket that was already there underneath and that bucket is still being emptied at the same rate so that it never overflowed, the excess capacity does nothing and retains no additional water.

Plus protecting the environment is important because it protects us. And yes protecting our quality of life is the important thing and that requires a healthy Eco-system. As George Carlin put it, people who think we are going to destroy the planet are full of shit. The planet has seen worse than us and will be fine. The people WILL BE FUCKED, but the planet will be just fine.

I have no problem with mitigating natural temperature trends. We need to move off of fossil fuels now and get back on them I the climate is headed for another ice age. But the fact that 97% of scientist who study the climate agree with man-made global warming says you are full of shit.

And there it is. A person so sure that it's NOT natural and so easily controllable while being readily willing to bend the environment to his whims. Delusion.

One other question. Would you say that natural CO2 released by a volcano could effect global warming?

Once again, the GH gasses in the atmosphere already cover the same spectrum with excess capacity. The CO2 will have no effect, but all the water vapor and ash will have a real, immediate, and obvious global COOLING effect, as volcanoes have proven to have throughout history (ash and clouds will reflect sunlight, released heat will escape and reduce geologic activity after first increasing atmospheric temperatures locally).

 

[Paratus]

Once again, you fail at analogy and English.

I see my analogy addressing that directly with 10% allowed through.
I imagined a colored vinyl blind that allows a nice tan color through. Next up, are you going to attack me because the air is 0% vinyl and 10% isn't the"real" percentage? Stop these childish games. You either understood damn well and played dumb or you don't have the mental capacity and shouldn't be talking.


Nope. As I've said, the measured and lab-tested effect of CO2 as a GH gas is within the spectrum covered by the other GH gasses with excess capacity and adding more will not change the GH effect. It's really not that hard to understand. I can keep adding buckets around the ceiling's water leak, increasing capacity, but if all the water goes into the bucket that was already there underneath and that bucket is still being emptied at the same rate so that it never overflowed, the excess capacity does nothing and retains no additional water.


And there it is. A person so sure that it's NOT natural and so easily controllable while being readily willing to bend the environment to his whims. Delusion.


Once again, the GH gasses in the atmosphere already cover the same spectrum with excess capacity. The CO2 will have no effect, but all the water vapor and ash will have a real, immediate, and obvious global COOLING effect, as volcanoes have proven to have throughout history (ash and clouds will reflect sunlight, released heat will escape and reduce geologic activity after first increasing atmospheric temperatures locally).

Venus disagrees with you assessment

 

[Paratus]

I've seen and heard enough evidence of the Holocaust to believe in it.

It's one of the reasons I dislike the label of "denier" that assholes use to label skeptics, as soon as someone uses it you know they're just going to be blowing talking point bullshit out their asses.

But your not a skeptic. No amount of evidence will sway you. There will always be a percentage chance the theory is wrong as with all science.

The science is sound and your arguments against it are what make you a denier. The amount of supporting evidence and the number of scientist who broadly support the theory is overwhelming.

If your actual argument is that the proposed fixes are too costly or not worth it, those are legitimate arguments. My own solution to problem wouldn't be liked to much on green side of the house because I think we should burn more fossil fuels in the short term.

As for juror 8 he simply a paranoid conspiracy theorist. His only argument is that EVERY SINGLE CLIMATE SCIENETIST IS IN ON IT. Must be for their 5 digit salaries.

 

[Paratus]

Once again, you fail at analogy and English.

I see my analogy addressing that directly with 10% allowed through.
I imagined a colored vinyl blind that allows a nice tan color through. Next up, are you going to attack me because the air is 0% vinyl and 10% isn't the"real" percentage? Stop these childish games. You either understood damn well and played dumb or you don't have the mental capacity and shouldn't be talking.


Nope. As I've said, the measured and lab-tested effect of CO2 as a GH gas is within the spectrum covered by the other GH gasses with excess capacity and adding more will not change the GH effect. It's really not that hard to understand. I can keep adding buckets around the ceiling's water leak, increasing capacity, but if all the water goes into the bucket that was already there underneath and that bucket is still being emptied at the same rate so that it never overflowed, the excess capacity does nothing and retains no additional water.


And there it is. A person so sure that it's NOT natural and so easily controllable while being readily willing to bend the environment to his whims. Delusion.


Once again, the GH gasses in the atmosphere already cover the same spectrum with excess capacity. The CO2 will have no effect, but all the water vapor and ash will have a real, immediate, and obvious global COOLING effect, as volcanoes have proven to have throughout history (ash and clouds will reflect sunlight, released heat will escape and reduce geologic activity after first increasing atmospheric temperatures locally).

Ok let's tackle your incorrect metaphor.

Different chemicals absorb different wavelengths of light. Water vapor and CO2 absorb different wavelengths of light.

For wavelengths that a chemical allows to pass we call that transparent. As it turns out oxygen, CO2 and water vapor are basically transparent to the incoming light from the sun.

CO2 and water vapor do trap the emitted light from the Earth, but not at the same spectrum of light. See below:

As you can see they only partially overlap. Which means as CO2 rises we get MORE energy retention.

In your analogy your blinds are not opaque but translucent so adding another set of translucent blinds will block more light.

Now do you understand? Or are you going to set up more strawmen to knock down?

 

[CZroe]

Ok let's tackle your incorrect metaphor.

Different chemicals absorb different wavelengths of light. Water vapor and CO2 absorb different wavelengths of light.

For wavelengths that a chemical allows to pass we call that transparent. As it turns out oxygen, CO2 and water vapor are basically transparent to the incoming light from the sun.

CO2 and water vapor do trap the emitted light from the Earth, but not at the same spectrum of light. See below:

As you can see they only partially overlap. Which means as CO2 rises we get MORE energy retention.

In your analogy your blinds are not opaque but translucent so adding another set of translucent blinds will block more light.

Now do you understand? Or are you going to set up more strawmen to knock down?

You need to read closer. I never said that all of the overlap was with water vapor. In fact, I VERY specifically said all "the other GH gasses." I knew someone was going to use that word eventually, so now I can ask: Who is "strawman-ing" who?

 

[Paratus]

You need to read closer. I never said that all of the overlap was with water vapor. In fact, I VERY specifically said all "the other GH gasses." I knew someone was going to use that word eventually, so now I can ask: Who is "strawman-ing" who?

Doesn't matter other gases cover other portion of spectrum. The only gas that 100% covers CO2 is CO2.

 

[CZroe]

Doesn't matter other gases cover other portion of spectrum. The only gas that 100% covers CO2 is CO2.

Quoted to preserve the logical fallacy contained within. You are adding CO2 into a system that contains several other GH gasses including a NATURAL level of CO2. It is beyond ignorance to believe that they don't matter especially with 100% overlap in the absorbed spectrum.

 

[monovillage]

1. But your not a skeptic. No amount of evidence will sway you. There will always be a percentage chance the theory is wrong as with all science.

2. The science is sound and your arguments against it are what make you a denier. The amount of supporting evidence and the number of scientist who broadly support the theory is overwhelming.

3. If your actual argument is that the proposed fixes are too costly or not worth it, those are legitimate arguments. My own solution to problem wouldn't be liked to much on green side of the house because I think we should burn more fossil fuels in the short term.

1. I'm a skeptic, but solid science will sway me.

2. What science? The little you have presented has been demolished and debunked.

3. What fixes ? If you ever propose a fix (I haven't seen one yet)what is it? and will it make a difference? and how much will it cost?

Try to answer a few questions before you spend Billions of dollars.

 

[spittledip]

It comes from put downs, that's the universal.

Even if everyone endured a majority of "put downs," it seems silly to think that the response would also be universal. After all, we all have different responses to all types of situations and life experiences. Why would this one particular experience be the exception? You also have to consider that people undergo different levels of emotional/psychological abuse, and some have relatively little.

 

[Moonbeam]

Even if everyone endured a majority of "put downs," it seems silly to think that the response would also be universal. After all, we all have different responses to all types of situations and life experiences. Why would this one particular experience be the exception? You also have to consider that people undergo different levels of emotional/psychological abuse, and some have relatively little.

There is no point in my arguing this with you. I have told you why you don't see what I say. You are motivated not to know what happened to you, and to not see your motivation. You are saying that the dilemma I say everybody is in doesn't apply to you. I know it does and you don't. I know exactly how you feel and the utter amazement I felt when I first say. All I could was whimper, I can't believe it about a million times. But when you remember you know what you remember is real. You were real at one time.

 

[Moonbeam]

1. I'm a skeptic, but solid science will sway me.

2. What science? The little you have presented has been demolished and debunked.

3. What fixes ? If you ever propose a fix (I haven't seen one yet)what is it? and will it make a difference? and how much will it cost?

Try to answer a few questions before you spend Billions of dollars.

If you want some science study why the conservative brain is not capable of it. You are kidding yourself. You believe in religion, not science.

 

[monovillage]

If you want some science study why the conservative brain is not capable of it. You are kidding yourself. You believe in religion, not science.

Your hatred of things you don't understand is frightening. You need to learn to love yourself and love your family before your hatred turns on them and yourself. I care about you Moonie and only wish you the best.

 

[Moonbeam]

Your hatred of things you don't understand is frightening. You need to learn to love yourself and love your family before your hatred turns on them and yourself. I care about you Moonie and only wish you the best.

See. I can't hate you because I do understand you. It's you who won't see that. You can't because of your wiring. Your truth comes from you stomach and not your head. There's no place in there for logic. The science isn't out to get you. It just gives scientific facts. Conservative brains are irrational, not all or absolutely, but generally. I understand you because I'm a conservative who is a liberal. Not only am I right in my gut but I'm also right in my head. I'm a conservative twofer.