People are laughing at the illiterate fool who commits logical fallacy after logical fallacy when attacking other's positions.
And this is you, right? The guy whose only apparent argument is an ad hominem fallacy? Are there ANY facts about climate science that you have asserted and defended with a citation during the course of this discussion?
Do you still think "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic"?
Did you mistake the mechanism underpinning greenhouse gases with the mechanism for warming inside a greenhouse? What's your view now?
Did you claim that the theory of greenhouse gases had nothing to do with the person who formulated the theory (Svante Arrhenius)? What's your view now?
Are people laughing at me, or the guy who entered a discussion on a scientific subject which he/she had no apparent knowledge of, and then didn't want to discuss the science?
Do you still think "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic"?
Did you mistake the mechanism underpinning greenhouse gases with the mechanism for warming inside a greenhouse? What's your view now?
Did you claim that the theory of greenhouse gases had nothing to do with the person who formulated the theory (Svante Arrhenius)? What's your view now?
Do you still think "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic"?
Did you mistake the mechanism underpinning greenhouse gases with the mechanism for warming inside a greenhouse? What's your view now?
Did you claim that the theory of greenhouse gases had nothing to do with the person who formulated the theory (Svante Arrhenius)? What's your view now?
DId you say: Do you think greenhouse warming is a function of chemical reaction rates? ? Or this one:
Did you say: Greenhouses don't trap heat using chemical reactions, or anything related to "Arrhenius".
You know which one you falsely attributed to me.
So those attributions are correct then. Well that's good:-)
Seems it would be easier if you just say yes or no. But your choice.
Do you still think "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic"?
Did you mistake the mechanism underpinning greenhouse gases with the mechanism for warming inside a greenhouse? What's your view now?
Did you claim that the theory of greenhouse gases had nothing to do with the person who formulated the theory (Svante Arrhenius)? What's your view now?
Didn't you mistake "thermodynamic" for exothermic?: Do you think greenhouse warming is a function of chemical reaction rates?
I think you did. When I said "thermodynamic" you thought I meant "exothermic", because you're an ignorant buffoon.
Didn't you mistake the mechanism underpinning greenhouse gases with the mechanism for warming inside a greenhouse?: Greenhouses don't trap heat using chemical reactions, or anything related to "Arrhenius".
Didn't you claim that the theory of greenhouse gases had nothing to do with the person who formulated the theory (Svante Arrhenius)?:Greenhouses don't trap heat using chemical reactions, or anything related to "Arrhenius".
Yes, I said, "The ability to measure "earth's temperature" has insufficient precision or accuracy to prove or disprove "zero warming"
Cite the relevant paper which demonstrates the dependency on the "earths temperature" to prove/disprove the greenhouse gas effect.
Yes or no question for you: Did you attribute "increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases leads to zero warming" as my theory?
Yes. You chose to dispute a theory that has been proven experimentally (see Arrhenius et. al.). So either you are (a) merely denying reality (not my problem), (b) have time travelled from a different past where Arrhenius, Fourier and Tyndall didn't prove the theory of greenhouse gases experimentally (c) Have a theory that gives you a reason to think that Arrhenius was wrong.
You've chosen to be coy about your real thinking, so I'll make free to assign whatever reason I see fit.
A yes or no answer. It's pretty straightforward. You didn't say The ability to measure "earth's temperature" has insufficient precision or accuracy to prove or disprove "zero warming"?
You inserted your own assumption that so called greenhouse gases must cause some warming effect into his position and treated that as an internal contradiction.
Excellent. If you are correct, and greenhouse gases have no warming effect then this is obviously something you have proven experimentally. Cite the relevant paper in which you published your results.
The ability to measure "earth's temperature" has insufficient precision or accuracy to prove or disprove "zero warming".
Cite the relevant paper which demonstrates the dependency on the "earths temperature" to prove/disprove the greenhouse gas effect.
Never mind that the earth is too complex a system to isolate the effect of CO2.
Cite the relevant paper that demonstrates that we need to isolate the effect of CO2 to prove/disprove the greenhouse gas effect.
If it were true (that increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases leads to zero warming) then this would be demonstrable via an experiment. Have you done this experiment?
Greenhouses don't trap heat using chemical reactions, or anything related to "Arrhenius".
It appears that you are confused about the nature of the greenhouse effect (confusing it with greenhouses or some blather about "chemical reactions") which doesn't bode well for proving your theory that increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases leads to zero warming.
Are you able to prove your theory that increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases leads to zero warming? Yes or No?
If you are ignorant of the mechanisms that lead to the "greenhouse effect" then again, I suggest that you do some research. These mechanisms are well studied and experimentally proven - so much so that the assertion that increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere don't lead to warming tend to generate bemusement.
If it were true (that increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases leads to zero warming) then this would be demonstrable via an experiment. Have you done this experiment?
Strange, because your wording would imply that you thought that there was some reason to be skeptical of the science e.g:
Don't try telling me about the Arctic, either. We wouldn't want to be skeptical of the scientists, right? - but I take you at your word, that you are unable to think of any reason that we should be skeptical of the science.
Interesting: So if the warming we are presently observing is NOT the warming we expected (as an inevitable consequence of increasing the concentrations of greenhouse gas) when would we expect to see that warming come into effect?
And doesn't your theory actually make the problem worse (since we have some sort of natural warming plus nobody has explained the mechanism whereby adding greenhouse gases causes zero warming (despite the obvious thermodynamic problems). So according to you that heat must be bunched up somewhere - the obvious conclusion is that (according to your scenario) it will be even warmer in the future than predicted by the consensus science.
On the other hand, perhaps it could be argued that the Humans on Mars fanatics, who have never demonstrated how sending humans to Mars benefits humanity, are the ones who have doomed NASA. By treating science and scientific missions as sub-ordinate to the dog and pony show of lobbing meat bags around in tin cans, it is (arguably) the meat bag fanatics who are destroying the reputation of NASA as a serious organisation that does serious work?
Most people find the idea of other people floating around in space making lame jokes a bit, well, lame. Space is unpleasant and empty, and really if everything i going right, it makes for boring viewing. That's why the apollo missions were cancelled. Everybody lost interest by the third one.
Robot lovers have to realize that they are the tail, not the dog. I like science. I like human exploration. When both happen, it's magic.
Robots are drifting on Mars like whiny 90's yuppies, lassooing and riding comets like rodeo stars, dropping in on Titan like an annoying aunt, flashing past Pluto like overenthusiastic paparazzi. Robots have left the solar system. Meanwhile humans clean the toilet on the space station.
Robots aren't going to wait for your permission to go to space: sorry.
Slashdot Mirror
People are laughing at the illiterate fool who commits logical fallacy after logical fallacy when attacking other's positions.
And this is you, right? The guy whose only apparent argument is an ad hominem fallacy? Are there ANY facts about climate science that you have asserted and defended with a citation during the course of this discussion?
Do you still think "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic"?
Did you mistake the mechanism underpinning greenhouse gases with the mechanism for warming inside a greenhouse? What's your view now?
Did you claim that the theory of greenhouse gases had nothing to do with the person who formulated the theory (Svante Arrhenius)? What's your view now?
Do you still think "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic"?
Did you mistake the mechanism underpinning greenhouse gases with the mechanism for warming inside a greenhouse? What's your view now?
Did you claim that the theory of greenhouse gases had nothing to do with the person who formulated the theory (Svante Arrhenius)? What's your view now?
Do you still think "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic"?
Did you mistake the mechanism underpinning greenhouse gases with the mechanism for warming inside a greenhouse? What's your view now?
Did you claim that the theory of greenhouse gases had nothing to do with the person who formulated the theory (Svante Arrhenius)? What's your view now?
You mean this attribution:
DId you say: Do you think greenhouse warming is a function of chemical reaction rates? ? Or this one:
Did you say: Greenhouses don't trap heat using chemical reactions, or anything related to "Arrhenius".
You know which one you falsely attributed to me.
So those attributions are correct then. Well that's good :-)
Seems it would be easier if you just say yes or no. But your choice.
Do you still think "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic"?
Did you mistake the mechanism underpinning greenhouse gases with the mechanism for warming inside a greenhouse? What's your view now?
Did you claim that the theory of greenhouse gases had nothing to do with the person who formulated the theory (Svante Arrhenius)? What's your view now?
DId you say: Do you think greenhouse warming is a function of chemical reaction rates? ? Or this one:
Did you say: Greenhouses don't trap heat using chemical reactions, or anything related to "Arrhenius".
Yes or No?
Did you say: Greenhouses don't trap heat using chemical reactions, or anything related to "Arrhenius".
Yes or No?
Time's up. Your theory is bunk.
Credibility still gone.
Didn't you mistake "thermodynamic" for exothermic?: Do you think greenhouse warming is a function of chemical reaction rates?
I think you did. When I said "thermodynamic" you thought I meant "exothermic", because you're an ignorant buffoon.
Didn't you mistake the mechanism underpinning greenhouse gases with the mechanism for warming inside a greenhouse?: Greenhouses don't trap heat using chemical reactions, or anything related to "Arrhenius".
Didn't you claim that the theory of greenhouse gases had nothing to do with the person who formulated the theory (Svante Arrhenius)?:Greenhouses don't trap heat using chemical reactions, or anything related to "Arrhenius".
Tell us again about credibility.
Cite the relevant paper which demonstrates the dependency on the "earths temperature" to prove/disprove the greenhouse gas effect.
Or should we assume you have no citation?
Thanks for spoutiing yet more unproven assertions
I've already demonstrated why you have no credibility.
Excellent: then you'll have no trouble at all providing a citation, when it comes time to examine your latter assertions in detail.
If you think I'm irrelevant ... why are you wasting your time?
Oh it's not trouble. Mostly just copy and paste.
Later on the discussion will get more interesting. Stick around.
When you have no credibility,
Thanks for spoutiing yet more unproven assertions, but let's just take your proofs one assertion at a time.
Cite the relevant paper which demonstrates the dependency on the "earths temperature" to prove/disprove the greenhouse gas effect.
You can choose to cite the relevant proof of your theory, or choose not to, and in consequence, your opinion/fantasy will be ignored. Your choice.
(nil response)
Which option do you choose? Are you going to cite the relevant material or accept your own irrelevance?
I don't need to cite anything.
You can choose to cite the relevant proof of your theory, or choose not to, and in consequence, your opinion/fantasy will be ignored. Your choice.
I can dispute a theory without adopting a different one.
If you think that merely spouting a fantasy obligates others to disprove that fantasy than all that will happen is that you will be laughed at.
I can say 1+1 = 2 is wrong without providing a different answer.
You can assert that 1+1 = 2 is wrong, as you have asserted that Arrhenius is wrong, but nobody will believe you.
Do you honestly think that anybody cares about your fantasies?
Yes, I said, "The ability to measure "earth's temperature" has insufficient precision or accuracy to prove or disprove "zero warming"
Cite the relevant paper which demonstrates the dependency on the "earths temperature" to prove/disprove the greenhouse gas effect.
Yes or no question for you: Did you attribute "increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases leads to zero warming" as my theory?
Yes. You chose to dispute a theory that has been proven experimentally (see Arrhenius et. al.). So either you are (a) merely denying reality (not my problem), (b) have time travelled from a different past where Arrhenius, Fourier and Tyndall didn't prove the theory of greenhouse gases experimentally (c) Have a theory that gives you a reason to think that Arrhenius was wrong.
You've chosen to be coy about your real thinking, so I'll make free to assign whatever reason I see fit.
A yes or no answer. It's pretty straightforward. You didn't say The ability to measure "earth's temperature" has insufficient precision or accuracy to prove or disprove "zero warming"?
I have not offered a theory.
You didn't say The ability to measure "earth's temperature" has insufficient precision or accuracy to prove or disprove "zero warming".?
Yes or No?
"My" theory?
Correct.
You inserted your own assumption that so called greenhouse gases must cause some warming effect into his position and treated that as an internal contradiction.
Excellent. If you are correct, and greenhouse gases have no warming effect then this is obviously something you have proven experimentally. Cite the relevant paper in which you published your results.
The ability to measure "earth's temperature" has insufficient precision or accuracy to prove or disprove "zero warming".
Cite the relevant paper which demonstrates the dependency on the "earths temperature" to prove/disprove the greenhouse gas effect.
Never mind that the earth is too complex a system to isolate the effect of CO2.
Cite the relevant paper that demonstrates that we need to isolate the effect of CO2 to prove/disprove the greenhouse gas effect.
If it were true (that increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases leads to zero warming) then this would be demonstrable via an experiment. Have you done this experiment?
Greenhouses don't trap heat using chemical reactions, or anything related to "Arrhenius".
It appears that you are confused about the nature of the greenhouse effect (confusing it with greenhouses or some blather about "chemical reactions") which doesn't bode well for proving your theory that increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases leads to zero warming.
Are you able to prove your theory that increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases leads to zero warming? Yes or No?
"crippling our society?" Stop being so alarmist
If it were true (that increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases leads to zero warming) then this would be demonstrable via an experiment. Have you done this experiment?
See the works of Arrhenius et. al.
Don't try telling me about the Arctic, either. We wouldn't want to be skeptical of the scientists, right? - but I take you at your word, that you are unable to think of any reason that we should be skeptical of the science.
And doesn't your theory actually make the problem worse (since we have some sort of natural warming plus nobody has explained the mechanism whereby adding greenhouse gases causes zero warming (despite the obvious thermodynamic problems). So according to you that heat must be bunched up somewhere - the obvious conclusion is that (according to your scenario) it will be even warmer in the future than predicted by the consensus science.
Who is pressing the panic button again?
Well, it's a good thing that Antarctic Sea Ice just reached the highest level ever seen, according to NASA.
Why would increasing ice levels in the antarctic makes us skeptical of scientists?
On the other hand, perhaps it could be argued that the Humans on Mars fanatics, who have never demonstrated how sending humans to Mars benefits humanity, are the ones who have doomed NASA. By treating science and scientific missions as sub-ordinate to the dog and pony show of lobbing meat bags around in tin cans, it is (arguably) the meat bag fanatics who are destroying the reputation of NASA as a serious organisation that does serious work?
Can't aford not to.
Many are just like me
Umm. No.
Most people find the idea of other people floating around in space making lame jokes a bit, well, lame. Space is unpleasant and empty, and really if everything i going right, it makes for boring viewing. That's why the apollo missions were cancelled. Everybody lost interest by the third one.
Robot lovers have to realize that they are the tail, not the dog. I like science. I like human exploration. When both happen, it's magic.
Robots are drifting on Mars like whiny 90's yuppies, lassooing and riding comets like rodeo stars, dropping in on Titan like an annoying aunt, flashing past Pluto like overenthusiastic paparazzi. Robots have left the solar system. Meanwhile humans clean the toilet on the space station.
Robots aren't going to wait for your permission to go to space: sorry.