I think these people's thinking boils down to, "If someone did X tomorrow, don't you think some government organization should make sure they're actually doing X, and doing it correctly?"
Man, you really don't get it. Who do you think comprises the "communal societal infrastructure"? You!You are the community and the society! You are what's standing between "the freedom to not constantly worry about being gunned down" and "a hired goon squad"--you and the rest of your community and society. You and your "effective personal arsenal" and those of the rest of the people in the community are what ultimately secures you against such violent oppression, because you vastly outnumber those bad guys. Haven't you ever heard that famous quote from a Japanese general about invading the continental U.S.? Haven't you ever heard of guerilla warfare? Vietnam? Afghanistan? Iraq?
Or else, who is this imaginary group of people that provides a "communal societal infrastructure" that doesn't include you? The government? As we have well seen, the government can be coerced and bought by "hostile oligarchs"--yet it's the government that you want to trust to protect you against these "hostile oligarchs." That's a logical contradiction.
I think there is no magic balance between having liberty and having government-enforced "liberty" from "hierarchies of oppression." You can't have both at the same time. If the government is intervening in the lives of private citizens and businesses and "critiquing, undermining, and dismantling" things it doesn't like, that isn't liberty--it's oppression.
It seems to me that a lot of people say they want freedom, but what they really want is for the government to force other people to act a certain way--which destroys their freedom. But to them, that's ok, as long as they're not the ones being forced to act contrary to their preferences.
You have to make a decision: do you want the People to have liberty, to have the freedom to choose, to pursue their dreams, including the freedom to act and think in ways contrary to popular opinion--or do you want the Government to force the People to do or not do certain things? Do you want the People to be free to do and say and think things that you don't like--or do you want the Government to not allow them to make certain decisions or say certain things that you don't like? Remember, one day you may be the unpopular one.
Fundamentally, "establishing liberty" requires allowing the People to do things that may be unpopular, unethical, even immoral, up to a certain point. You can't force people to agree with you or to change their minds or their hearts. That's the job of society--specifically, a free society.
You just can't have it both ways. But you don't seem to understand that. Look at this oxymoron you wrote:
Rather, the need is to establish a minimal state that dismantles and devolves any accumulations of power to as many people as possible.
Don't you understand that any state that "dismantles and devolves any accumulations of power to as many people as possible" is the very opposite of a minimal state? That's authoritarianism! It's dissolving the power of the People! "But it's ok as long as the government does it to everyone equally. Then life will be fair, and everyone will have the same opportunities, and no one will have any advantages over anyone else." And then you no longer have liberty. Nice going. Just wait until the government decides that you need to do something differently; then you'll suddenly understand, and then you'll suddenly be "a conservative." But I hope you wake up before then and advocate real liberty and real small government.
Ok, maybe this is the wrong place for this, but how did the GOP get to be "red"? Whose idea was that? It wasn't but a few years ago that red represented the Soviet Union, communism, and generally, the bad guys. It's still that way in a lot of places: in the military, friendly forces are blue (friendly fire is "blue-on-blue"), and OPFOR are red.
Is painting Republicans and Republican-majority states red a subtle way of making them the bad guys in the media? Maybe I'm too cynical, but it seems rather obvious to me. The primary color used to represent the USA, even in things like the Olympics, is blue.
The problem is that "they" see a secular society as a persecution of their beliefs. "They" want to teach their invisible men in schools and put their religious laws on the court house door.
Do you not see the other side of the coin?
The problem is that "they" see a religious society as a persecution of their beliefs. "They" want to forbid the teaching about their invisible men in schools and forbid showing their religious laws on the court house door.
Nevermind that our actual laws descend from those "religious laws," or that those "religious laws" were nearly the same as many other societies' laws in the Ancient Near East, socitieies that weren't remotely Hebrew.
Nevermind that many good, rational people do believe in the "invisible man" (which is really just a mockery of the concept of an almighty God, so more ridicule). Nevermind that our nation taught such things in its schools and courts for a very long time, and during that time our nation and our society did pretty well. How many random mass murders happened "back then?" Man, our society's gotta be better today now that we've put Christianity in its place!
If we were all really trying to force our beliefs on each other (aka the "both sides" argument) where are the advocates for mandatory abortions? How come we don't have senators and congressmen introducing bills or making amendments to abort every pregnancy? Because that's the kind of crazy it would take to balance out the no-abortions-ever-not-even-if-it-was-rape crowd.
No, inane arguments like these are what's crazy. Your words are completely irrational, but a lot of people latch on to them and hold them up as a banner against the "evil, intolerant, bigoted Christians."
Your words sound moderate, but you're actually masking the reality of who is forcing what.
Your words don't even sound moderate--they sound absurd and irrational--but a lot of people nowadays think what you just said is moderate and rational. And we wonder what's wrong with our society today.
Humility and our finiteness are very strong arguments against dismissing the idea of a creator god. But it's more popular nowadays to believe that humans are the pinnacle of the universe, and that we can know everything. Well, good luck with that. Anyone reading this has less than 100 years left in this universe. And if we're as doomed as some say, the human race won't be around much longer, either.
Nope, they're on about YHWH, he of the Ark, Abraham, Jacob and all those jokers. And he is approximately as plausible as Loki to me.
Have you heard of archaeology? You should go read about it and how it relates to the biblical records and "all those jokers." Or you could keep ridiculing things you don't believe in or understand; that seems really tolerant and rational.
In other words, "We shouldn't have to treat Christians with respect! But, by golly, they'd better respect my 'rational' ideas!"
Who's the intolerant bigot now? And, of course, you treat the Muslims with respect because, hey, if you don't, they might riot or blow a bunch of people up!
You hypocrite! Shame on you. And shame on Slashdot for modding up this drivel.
Nah. At 30+ mph, stock mufflers can make the engine quieter than the tires on the pavement. Electric cars won't eliminate noise. Besides, electric cars won't stop boom cars and rednecks with loud pickups, not to mention loud trucks of all sorts.
It's actually a good idea for electric cars to make a reasonable amount of noise at low speeds. Blind, elderly, distracted, children, etc., all can easily miss the nearly silent approach of an electric car at low speed. One day, you could be in one of those categories!
So the electric company, or the lightbulb company, or some bank gets five years' worth of your money to earn interest on before you've even used the service you've paid for? Who wins in this scheme? Not the consumer, not you and me; the giant corporations win--more and more profit for them, lower bank balance for you and me.
On top of all that, it's a logistical nightmare. You'd have to have infrastructure to track all the information about rebates and the associated money; you'd have tons and tons of extra wasted paper for mailed payments; and for online payments you'd have to have yet another complex, proprietary system that interfaces with electric companies, banks, third-party bill-paying services, etc. You know what that would do? It would raise the cost of lighting your home, either directly through your bill or through the cost of the bulbs.
And now the process of paying your bill just got more complicated: oops, did you lose your rebate certificate book? Your money just disappeared with it, but the power company is even happier. Or did someone steal your secret rebate code? Hey, I've only had this bulb for 8 months--why have 12 of its paid-for monthly rebates been debited? Who's responsible for fixing that?
The problem with ideas like this is that the people who think them UP don't think them THROUGH. Kind of like politicians passing laws they haven't even read (e.g. Obamacare).
Ok, but why do my stock aluminum wheels on my Honda have some rust on them? I don't live in the north nor by an ocean, so salt isn't an issue. I'm not being facetious; I don't know much about metals. Why do these wheels rust?
The military has nothing to do with your Internet access. Wait, I take that back: the Internet exists because of DARPA which exists because of the military; i.e. without the military the Internet wouldn't exist.
The reason you and I don't have fast Internet access is simple: The ISPs are evil, greedy, and selfish, and our government lets them get away with it. e.g. see former FCC chairman (who was appointed by Obama) go work for the cable industry and actively encourage cable companies to increase subscription fees and implement usage caps. This despite the fact that net costs to operate Internet service have decreased even though number of users and overall bandwidth usage has skyrocketed.
In other words, even though usage is increasing exponentially, AT&T and the like are spending less money overall to provide the service--yet at the same time they are increasing fees, and they are decreasing service by implementing usage caps. Why? Because even though their profits are increasing dramatically, they aren't increasing fast enough to satisfy them.
And how do they get away with it? By co-opting the government
"Bikers who ride the wrong way up a one-way street or bike-lane are called salmon.
No, they are called self-centered idiots who are trying to clean out the gene pool. Nevermind that any motorist who kills a cyclist through no fault of the motorist's will still suffer emotional pain and guilt for the rest of his life, and may end up spending enormous amounts of money defending himself in civil court from...people...
Ok then: given that the sun has been shining energy on us for a very long time, and given that CO2 levels in the past have been much higher than they are now, why are we still here? Why haven't we been cooked already?
The amount of CO2 being produced by humans is minuscule compared to what the earth itself produces. It's as simple as that.
As I expected, your response is primarily dodging the questions I asked.
Answer to the first question is 0.04% or about 400 parts per million. And if you're trying to make a point about how small that number is I'll just note that a concentration in the air of just 0.025% of cyanide will kill you within minutes.
Comparing the earth's atmosphere to the human body is like comparing apples and giraffes. Nice try, but I'm not falling for it.
The rest of your questions are poorly formed as they make assumptions that aren't warranted.
No, that's completely false! The questions I asked are simple questions about simple facts! The only assumptions they imply is that they can be answered accurately. This is simply a demonstration of your irrational thinking and refusal to think outside the box you have placed yourself in. Take off your blinders.
It would be also helpful to note that for about 10,000 years since the end of the last glaciation CO2 has hovered around 280 ppm. Only recently has it risen to such a large amount.
A moment ago you said that the current level is 400 ppm. That's only a 42% increase. Also, CO2 levels in the past have been much, much higher than 400 ppm. Conclusion: 400 ppm is not "such a large amount." That's your own assumption, which reveals your own bias.
So what changed? The obvious answer is fossil fuels are being burned.
No! You have jumped--leaped!--to that conclusion! And you have the gall to accuse me of making assumptions! Your line of reasoning is completely illogical!
Your question #4 about the lag time between temperature increase and CO2 increase assumes that CO2 can only increase in response to temperatures and not the other way around. It's a bad assumption.
No, again, the question makes no assumption other than that it can be answered accurately! Either there is a positive lag time, a negative lag time, or no lag time. Which is it? You are the one making assumptions and refusing to look up the answer!
It's a simple lab experiment to show that CO2 can capture infrared energy so you really need to show my why that doesn't work in the atmosphere too.
No, you need to show how a "simple lab experiment" accurately reflects the enormity and complexity of the global atmosphere. A bacterium in a petri dish does not reveal a bacteria's role in a complex ecosystem. You have misplaced the burden of proof.
If you insist on ignoring scientific facts that are inconvenient to your argument then we don't really have much to talk about.
The hypocrisy is really killing me here. Are you really so blinded by your own presuppositions that you can't see it, or are you lying?
It's not unsubstantiated at all, my friend. A Park Ranger was quoted in many newspaper articles all over the Internet as saying those exact words. Google it if you don't believe me. Or is that truth too inconvenient for you? I admit, it is easier and quicker to call someone a "partisan loon" than it is to search on Google.
Actually, the data does not indicate support for the AGW hypothesis. For a start, answer these questions:
1. What percentage of the atmosphere does CO2 make up?
2. What percentage of annual global CO2 emission is produced by humans?
3. What is the margin of error in the measurement of natural CO2 production? What percentage of the total is it? How does that percentage compare to human CO2 production?
4. What is the historical lag time between temperature increase and CO2 increase?
If you answer those questions correctly and still think humans are causing global warming, then we can talk about it.
1. Your first prediction doesn't "check" out at all (assuming I know what you mean by "trend up on top of preexisting cycles"). 2. Your "clueing" me in amounts to, "CO2 is a greenhouse gas! And the sun is shining on us!" Thanks for that insight, Sherlock. But it doesn't prove anything whatsoever about AGW.
What do you propose will happen with the extra energy that is trapped?
What extra energy? What would "extra" energy even be? What qualifies as "extra"? And who says it's trapped? The earth is radiating energy constantly.
What are you going on about? Honestly, this nonsensical banter is what seems to pass for "evidence" and "science" nowadays, but all you're really doing is tossing around a few terms, cliches, and facts that no one argues with but which don't support the AGW hypothesis at all.
The current Slashdot quote is so appropriate: You see but you do not observe. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, in "The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes"
Please take a moment and research how much CO2 is produced by the earth's natural processes and how much CO2 is produced by human activity. Then please tell me what percent of the total is produced by human activity. For extra points, please compare the amount of human-produced CO2 with the margin of error of the measurement of naturally produced CO2. And to really wow us, please show how the amount of human-produced CO2 compares with the fluctuations in the amount of naturally produced CO2.
Then draw a conclusion about the risks of not reducing human produced CO2 vs. the risk of economic damage if drastic changes are forced upon the world's economies, being sure to consider the effects on individual human lives.
The first paragraph is asking for simple factual data, data which is crucial to understanding the perceived risks, yet that data is very rarely mentioned in discussions of AGW. Maybe it represents some "inconvenient truths" for those who claim the sky is falling.
It's heartbreaking to see irrational rants like this get modded +4 insightful. Not only is it irrational, but it's full of lies!
1. The consensus is a farce. Cook, et al was a premeditated lie. Did you fall for it?
2. Science is based on reproducible, falsifiable hypotheses. Computer models != reproducible real-world results.
3. You don't even try to disguise your irrationality, you put it on blatant display:
But as long as news media trump up some fake "let both side speaks" as if there were two side of the debate
Ah, yes, there cannot be two sides to the issue! We all agree on it! There's consensus! No one disagrees! That's unacceptable! The idea that there are dissenting opinions is just a made up lie! They're all fake! Those filthy deniers!
And that line of "reasoning" gets +4 Insightful. It's as bad as Obama ordering the Park Service to "make life as difficult for people as possible," and then asking for stories about how the Republicans made life difficult for people. Not even a hint of subtlety, but the sheep just lap it up like hungry animals.
This is why mob mentality and groupthink (i.e. "consensus") is so dangerous. It's why Constitutional amendments require supermajorities. Even hundreds of years ago, wise people recognized the dangers of fads and the "prevailing winds" of the times (actually even thousands of years ago; see e.g. Eph 4:14).
This is why we need strong, principled leadership that isn't based on whatever is popular at the time. Going along with what's popular is what led many thousands of average human beings to commit unspeakable atrocities under the leadership of evil people during World War II. But going against what was popular, against what had been done before, is what led to the creation of a nation that is founded upon a document explicitly declaring the right of all human beings to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Some will probably complain that I'm making a nonsensical rant, bouncing from "science" to history to religion to politics--but the point is that we need to live and make judgments based on sound principles, rather than being "tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes."
The evidence! The models! It must be true! Someone wrote SimEarth and it shows that AGW is real, so it must be! Look at how much happier the Sims are when I spend simoleans on solar plants and fusion plants!
If only we had cheat codes for real life, we could actually pay for all that.
What's really sad is that irrational rants like yours that make literally zero logical arguments get modded +5 Insightful. Either most people really are so gullible that they fall for it, or there really is a giant conspiracy to dupe people...or both.
You have absolutely no fucking idea what you're talking about, and worst of all, you think that's a good thing.
The hypocrisy is killing me...wait, I mean, the planet...
1. The overwhelming majority of scientists neither endorses nor denies AGW. Cook, et al was a farce and a premeditated lie. Don't tell me you fell for it...?
2. Labeling those who disagree with you ("deniers") and using ad hominems as your argument indicates a lack of rational thought.
I have to say, seeing some random guy on/. ranting about "notorious deniers" doesn't exactly convince me that said random guy a) actually knows what he's talking about; b) cares about what he's talking about, or c) is ever going to be willing to even consider really actually learning a thing about what he's talking about.
Ok, I take back point b: you clearly do care about your agenda, but you don't appear to care about seeking the truth, because it might contradict your agenda.
Slashdot Mirror
I think these people's thinking boils down to, "If someone did X tomorrow, don't you think some government organization should make sure they're actually doing X, and doing it correctly?"
Man, you really don't get it. Who do you think comprises the "communal societal infrastructure"? You! You are the community and the society! You are what's standing between "the freedom to not constantly worry about being gunned down" and "a hired goon squad"--you and the rest of your community and society. You and your "effective personal arsenal" and those of the rest of the people in the community are what ultimately secures you against such violent oppression, because you vastly outnumber those bad guys. Haven't you ever heard that famous quote from a Japanese general about invading the continental U.S.? Haven't you ever heard of guerilla warfare? Vietnam? Afghanistan? Iraq?
Or else, who is this imaginary group of people that provides a "communal societal infrastructure" that doesn't include you? The government? As we have well seen, the government can be coerced and bought by "hostile oligarchs"--yet it's the government that you want to trust to protect you against these "hostile oligarchs." That's a logical contradiction.
I think there is no magic balance between having liberty and having government-enforced "liberty" from "hierarchies of oppression." You can't have both at the same time. If the government is intervening in the lives of private citizens and businesses and "critiquing, undermining, and dismantling" things it doesn't like, that isn't liberty--it's oppression.
It seems to me that a lot of people say they want freedom, but what they really want is for the government to force other people to act a certain way--which destroys their freedom. But to them, that's ok, as long as they're not the ones being forced to act contrary to their preferences.
You have to make a decision: do you want the People to have liberty, to have the freedom to choose, to pursue their dreams, including the freedom to act and think in ways contrary to popular opinion--or do you want the Government to force the People to do or not do certain things? Do you want the People to be free to do and say and think things that you don't like--or do you want the Government to not allow them to make certain decisions or say certain things that you don't like? Remember, one day you may be the unpopular one.
Fundamentally, "establishing liberty" requires allowing the People to do things that may be unpopular, unethical, even immoral, up to a certain point. You can't force people to agree with you or to change their minds or their hearts. That's the job of society--specifically, a free society.
You just can't have it both ways. But you don't seem to understand that. Look at this oxymoron you wrote:
Rather, the need is to establish a minimal state that dismantles and devolves any accumulations of power to as many people as possible.
Don't you understand that any state that "dismantles and devolves any accumulations of power to as many people as possible" is the very opposite of a minimal state? That's authoritarianism! It's dissolving the power of the People! "But it's ok as long as the government does it to everyone equally. Then life will be fair, and everyone will have the same opportunities, and no one will have any advantages over anyone else." And then you no longer have liberty. Nice going. Just wait until the government decides that you need to do something differently; then you'll suddenly understand, and then you'll suddenly be "a conservative." But I hope you wake up before then and advocate real liberty and real small government.
Ok, maybe this is the wrong place for this, but how did the GOP get to be "red"? Whose idea was that? It wasn't but a few years ago that red represented the Soviet Union, communism, and generally, the bad guys. It's still that way in a lot of places: in the military, friendly forces are blue (friendly fire is "blue-on-blue"), and OPFOR are red.
Is painting Republicans and Republican-majority states red a subtle way of making them the bad guys in the media? Maybe I'm too cynical, but it seems rather obvious to me. The primary color used to represent the USA, even in things like the Olympics, is blue.
The problem is that "they" see a secular society as a persecution of their beliefs.
"They" want to teach their invisible men in schools and put their religious laws on the court house door.
Do you not see the other side of the coin?
The problem is that "they" see a religious society as a persecution of their beliefs.
"They" want to forbid the teaching about their invisible men in schools and forbid showing their religious laws on the court house door.
Nevermind that our actual laws descend from those "religious laws," or that those "religious laws" were nearly the same as many other societies' laws in the Ancient Near East, socitieies that weren't remotely Hebrew.
Nevermind that many good, rational people do believe in the "invisible man" (which is really just a mockery of the concept of an almighty God, so more ridicule). Nevermind that our nation taught such things in its schools and courts for a very long time, and during that time our nation and our society did pretty well. How many random mass murders happened "back then?" Man, our society's gotta be better today now that we've put Christianity in its place!
If we were all really trying to force our beliefs on each other (aka the "both sides" argument) where are the advocates for mandatory abortions?
How come we don't have senators and congressmen introducing bills or making amendments to abort every pregnancy?
Because that's the kind of crazy it would take to balance out the no-abortions-ever-not-even-if-it-was-rape crowd.
No, inane arguments like these are what's crazy. Your words are completely irrational, but a lot of people latch on to them and hold them up as a banner against the "evil, intolerant, bigoted Christians."
Your words sound moderate, but you're actually masking the reality of who is forcing what.
Your words don't even sound moderate--they sound absurd and irrational--but a lot of people nowadays think what you just said is moderate and rational. And we wonder what's wrong with our society today.
Humility and our finiteness are very strong arguments against dismissing the idea of a creator god. But it's more popular nowadays to believe that humans are the pinnacle of the universe, and that we can know everything. Well, good luck with that. Anyone reading this has less than 100 years left in this universe. And if we're as doomed as some say, the human race won't be around much longer, either.
As far as our abilities go, I choose humility.
Nope, they're on about YHWH, he of the Ark, Abraham, Jacob and all those jokers. And he is approximately as plausible as Loki to me.
Have you heard of archaeology? You should go read about it and how it relates to the biblical records and "all those jokers." Or you could keep ridiculing things you don't believe in or understand; that seems really tolerant and rational.
In other words, "We shouldn't have to treat Christians with respect! But, by golly, they'd better respect my 'rational' ideas!"
Who's the intolerant bigot now? And, of course, you treat the Muslims with respect because, hey, if you don't, they might riot or blow a bunch of people up!
You hypocrite! Shame on you. And shame on Slashdot for modding up this drivel.
Nah. At 30+ mph, stock mufflers can make the engine quieter than the tires on the pavement. Electric cars won't eliminate noise. Besides, electric cars won't stop boom cars and rednecks with loud pickups, not to mention loud trucks of all sorts.
It's actually a good idea for electric cars to make a reasonable amount of noise at low speeds. Blind, elderly, distracted, children, etc., all can easily miss the nearly silent approach of an electric car at low speed. One day, you could be in one of those categories!
So the electric company, or the lightbulb company, or some bank gets five years' worth of your money to earn interest on before you've even used the service you've paid for? Who wins in this scheme? Not the consumer, not you and me; the giant corporations win--more and more profit for them, lower bank balance for you and me.
On top of all that, it's a logistical nightmare. You'd have to have infrastructure to track all the information about rebates and the associated money; you'd have tons and tons of extra wasted paper for mailed payments; and for online payments you'd have to have yet another complex, proprietary system that interfaces with electric companies, banks, third-party bill-paying services, etc. You know what that would do? It would raise the cost of lighting your home, either directly through your bill or through the cost of the bulbs.
And now the process of paying your bill just got more complicated: oops, did you lose your rebate certificate book? Your money just disappeared with it, but the power company is even happier. Or did someone steal your secret rebate code? Hey, I've only had this bulb for 8 months--why have 12 of its paid-for monthly rebates been debited? Who's responsible for fixing that?
The problem with ideas like this is that the people who think them UP don't think them THROUGH. Kind of like politicians passing laws they haven't even read (e.g. Obamacare).
Ok, but why do my stock aluminum wheels on my Honda have some rust on them? I don't live in the north nor by an ocean, so salt isn't an issue. I'm not being facetious; I don't know much about metals. Why do these wheels rust?
The military has nothing to do with your Internet access. Wait, I take that back: the Internet exists because of DARPA which exists because of the military; i.e. without the military the Internet wouldn't exist.
The reason you and I don't have fast Internet access is simple: The ISPs are evil, greedy, and selfish, and our government lets them get away with it. e.g. see former FCC chairman (who was appointed by Obama) go work for the cable industry and actively encourage cable companies to increase subscription fees and implement usage caps. This despite the fact that net costs to operate Internet service have decreased even though number of users and overall bandwidth usage has skyrocketed.
In other words, even though usage is increasing exponentially, AT&T and the like are spending less money overall to provide the service--yet at the same time they are increasing fees, and they are decreasing service by implementing usage caps. Why? Because even though their profits are increasing dramatically, they aren't increasing fast enough to satisfy them.
And how do they get away with it? By co-opting the government
In other words, ISPs are evil. Period.
Can't fix stupid. Even at (especially at?) a university. :(
"Bikers who ride the wrong way up a one-way street or bike-lane are called salmon.
No, they are called self-centered idiots who are trying to clean out the gene pool. Nevermind that any motorist who kills a cyclist through no fault of the motorist's will still suffer emotional pain and guilt for the rest of his life, and may end up spending enormous amounts of money defending himself in civil court from...people...
Mod.
This.
Man.
Up.
Ok then: given that the sun has been shining energy on us for a very long time, and given that CO2 levels in the past have been much higher than they are now, why are we still here? Why haven't we been cooked already?
The amount of CO2 being produced by humans is minuscule compared to what the earth itself produces. It's as simple as that.
As I expected, your response is primarily dodging the questions I asked.
Answer to the first question is 0.04% or about 400 parts per million. And if you're trying to make a point about how small that number is I'll just note that a concentration in the air of just 0.025% of cyanide will kill you within minutes.
Comparing the earth's atmosphere to the human body is like comparing apples and giraffes. Nice try, but I'm not falling for it.
The rest of your questions are poorly formed as they make assumptions that aren't warranted.
No, that's completely false! The questions I asked are simple questions about simple facts! The only assumptions they imply is that they can be answered accurately. This is simply a demonstration of your irrational thinking and refusal to think outside the box you have placed yourself in. Take off your blinders.
It would be also helpful to note that for about 10,000 years since the end of the last glaciation CO2 has hovered around 280 ppm. Only recently has it risen to such a large amount.
A moment ago you said that the current level is 400 ppm. That's only a 42% increase. Also, CO2 levels in the past have been much, much higher than 400 ppm. Conclusion: 400 ppm is not "such a large amount." That's your own assumption, which reveals your own bias.
So what changed? The obvious answer is fossil fuels are being burned.
No! You have jumped--leaped!--to that conclusion! And you have the gall to accuse me of making assumptions! Your line of reasoning is completely illogical!
Your question #4 about the lag time between temperature increase and CO2 increase assumes that CO2 can only increase in response to temperatures and not the other way around. It's a bad assumption.
No, again, the question makes no assumption other than that it can be answered accurately! Either there is a positive lag time, a negative lag time, or no lag time. Which is it? You are the one making assumptions and refusing to look up the answer!
It's a simple lab experiment to show that CO2 can capture infrared energy so you really need to show my why that doesn't work in the atmosphere too.
No, you need to show how a "simple lab experiment" accurately reflects the enormity and complexity of the global atmosphere. A bacterium in a petri dish does not reveal a bacteria's role in a complex ecosystem. You have misplaced the burden of proof.
If you insist on ignoring scientific facts that are inconvenient to your argument then we don't really have much to talk about.
The hypocrisy is really killing me here. Are you really so blinded by your own presuppositions that you can't see it, or are you lying?
It's not unsubstantiated at all, my friend. A Park Ranger was quoted in many newspaper articles all over the Internet as saying those exact words. Google it if you don't believe me. Or is that truth too inconvenient for you? I admit, it is easier and quicker to call someone a "partisan loon" than it is to search on Google.
Actually, the data does not indicate support for the AGW hypothesis. For a start, answer these questions:
1. What percentage of the atmosphere does CO2 make up?
2. What percentage of annual global CO2 emission is produced by humans?
3. What is the margin of error in the measurement of natural CO2 production? What percentage of the total is it? How does that percentage compare to human CO2 production?
4. What is the historical lag time between temperature increase and CO2 increase?
If you answer those questions correctly and still think humans are causing global warming, then we can talk about it.
Honestly, I don't get your comment at all.
1. Your first prediction doesn't "check" out at all (assuming I know what you mean by "trend up on top of preexisting cycles").
2. Your "clueing" me in amounts to, "CO2 is a greenhouse gas! And the sun is shining on us!" Thanks for that insight, Sherlock. But it doesn't prove anything whatsoever about AGW.
What do you propose will happen with the extra energy that is trapped?
What extra energy? What would "extra" energy even be? What qualifies as "extra"? And who says it's trapped? The earth is radiating energy constantly.
What are you going on about? Honestly, this nonsensical banter is what seems to pass for "evidence" and "science" nowadays, but all you're really doing is tossing around a few terms, cliches, and facts that no one argues with but which don't support the AGW hypothesis at all.
The current Slashdot quote is so appropriate: You see but you do not observe. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, in "The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes"
Please take a moment and research how much CO2 is produced by the earth's natural processes and how much CO2 is produced by human activity. Then please tell me what percent of the total is produced by human activity. For extra points, please compare the amount of human-produced CO2 with the margin of error of the measurement of naturally produced CO2. And to really wow us, please show how the amount of human-produced CO2 compares with the fluctuations in the amount of naturally produced CO2.
Then draw a conclusion about the risks of not reducing human produced CO2 vs. the risk of economic damage if drastic changes are forced upon the world's economies, being sure to consider the effects on individual human lives.
The first paragraph is asking for simple factual data, data which is crucial to understanding the perceived risks, yet that data is very rarely mentioned in discussions of AGW. Maybe it represents some "inconvenient truths" for those who claim the sky is falling.
but then again, you are a denier.
When you begin to label your opponents, the rational part of the argument is over.
It's heartbreaking to see irrational rants like this get modded +4 insightful. Not only is it irrational, but it's full of lies!
1. The consensus is a farce. Cook, et al was a premeditated lie. Did you fall for it?
2. Science is based on reproducible, falsifiable hypotheses. Computer models != reproducible real-world results.
3. You don't even try to disguise your irrationality, you put it on blatant display:
But as long as news media trump up some fake "let both side speaks" as if there were two side of the debate
Ah, yes, there cannot be two sides to the issue! We all agree on it! There's consensus! No one disagrees! That's unacceptable! The idea that there are dissenting opinions is just a made up lie! They're all fake! Those filthy deniers!
And that line of "reasoning" gets +4 Insightful. It's as bad as Obama ordering the Park Service to "make life as difficult for people as possible," and then asking for stories about how the Republicans made life difficult for people. Not even a hint of subtlety, but the sheep just lap it up like hungry animals.
This is why mob mentality and groupthink (i.e. "consensus") is so dangerous. It's why Constitutional amendments require supermajorities. Even hundreds of years ago, wise people recognized the dangers of fads and the "prevailing winds" of the times (actually even thousands of years ago; see e.g. Eph 4:14).
This is why we need strong, principled leadership that isn't based on whatever is popular at the time. Going along with what's popular is what led many thousands of average human beings to commit unspeakable atrocities under the leadership of evil people during World War II. But going against what was popular, against what had been done before, is what led to the creation of a nation that is founded upon a document explicitly declaring the right of all human beings to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Some will probably complain that I'm making a nonsensical rant, bouncing from "science" to history to religion to politics--but the point is that we need to live and make judgments based on sound principles, rather than being "tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes."
The evidence! The models! It must be true! Someone wrote SimEarth and it shows that AGW is real, so it must be! Look at how much happier the Sims are when I spend simoleans on solar plants and fusion plants!
If only we had cheat codes for real life, we could actually pay for all that.
What's really sad is that irrational rants like yours that make literally zero logical arguments get modded +5 Insightful. Either most people really are so gullible that they fall for it, or there really is a giant conspiracy to dupe people...or both.
You have absolutely no fucking idea what you're talking about, and worst of all, you think that's a good thing.
The hypocrisy is killing me...wait, I mean, the planet...
1. The overwhelming majority of scientists neither endorses nor denies AGW. Cook, et al was a farce and a premeditated lie. Don't tell me you fell for it...?
2. Labeling those who disagree with you ("deniers") and using ad hominems as your argument indicates a lack of rational thought.
I have to say, seeing some random guy on /. ranting about "notorious deniers" doesn't exactly convince me that said random guy a) actually knows what he's talking about; b) cares about what he's talking about, or c) is ever going to be willing to even consider really actually learning a thing about what he's talking about.
Ok, I take back point b: you clearly do care about your agenda, but you don't appear to care about seeking the truth, because it might contradict your agenda.
It's the only way to be sure.