I would suggest to you that if you believe in AGW, and cannot identify those concise statements, you are operating in terms of a religion, not science.
Firstly, the physics behind the greenhouse gas hypothesis in general and CO2 in particular has been known for over a hundred years (thank you, Arrhenius). The global impact of an atmosphere with significant opacity to the spectrum of a planet's expected blackbody temperature given its distance from the Sun is easily observed for the Earth-similar planet Venus, which at 735 K exceeds the expected value of 465 K. Similar calculations for the Earth show the atmosphere raises its temperature by about 20 K; Mars can be done as a sanity check. CO2's power as a greenhouse gas on Earth is further compounded by its persistence in its gas state at terrestrial temperature and pressure, as distinct from water vapor. Because of its spectral properties methane is also an effective greenhouse gas, but its lifetime in the atmosphere is considerably shorter. Ergo, the one to watch in the case of the Earth is CO2.
So let's hold as established the mechanism of global warming. How do we know it is anthropogenic? One argument is that fossil fuels should have a different isotopic ratios in their carbon content, which should be reflected in the CO2 if the contribution of its burning is significant. This has been shown. Additionally, as the CO2 fraction in the air increases under this AGW hypothesis, it should also increase in the oceans, resulting in noticeable acidification in the short term. This too has been shown (most obviously to laymen in the observed bleaching of coral reefs).
One would hope that the consequences of taking carbon sequestered from the atmosphere at a much earlier (and, needless to say, warmer) time in the Earth's history and releasing it at a rate that far exceeds the rate at which it can be re-removed (and, in fact, lowering that rate in the oceans through the resulting temperature increase) would be obvious. That hope can only survive in those who do not interact with actual people and their daily displays of willful blindness and rampant stupidity. Regardless the Universe doesn't give a shit, so I have given you a few of the AGW arguments, expressed in the broad-brush manner the format allows. Notice that I did all of this without relying rhetorically on my Ph.D. in astrophysics, since that might be construed as an appeal to authority.
So as you can see, I am quite familiar with them, so you can take your attempt at condescension through your suggestion, fold it five ways, and shove it up your arse. Watch your head, though.
-- Relying on the Pope for information on the tenets of the Catholic Church = proper appeal to authority.
-- Relying on the Pope for sex tips to drive the ladies wild = fallacious appeal to authority.
Also, just because you don't know the concise statements of a falsifiable hypothesis for AGW doesn't mean they don't exist. Might I suggest you make a proper appeal to authority/ (Hint: they don't have AM talk radio shows)
Ending all wars ? Yeah right. Are you really moronic enough to think the middle east will stop fighting without oil ?
My feeling is, that if you are going to call a poster moronic, you should be a careful enough reader to notice that he wrote "oil wars", not "all wars". Unless you are an organism that feasts upon one's own irony.
We also subsidize oil and gas to the tune of $4B a year. And guess what? Over the last few years the oil giants have had record profits while reducing their payrolls.
So yes, I'd prefer the government subsidize the growth industry.
Oh, and as far as the roof goes - I did not trust the framers, carpenters, and roofers to do a good job - I had my own independent expert (an inspector) confirm that the data provided, and the method used, was in fact satisfactory.
And what, pray tell, was your methodology to verify the legitimacy and competence of the inspector?
Yeah man, you just don't get it. You see, all of those academic types pore over their "data" up in their ivory towers. And since they're up high they are closer to the Sun,so it's warmer to them.
Now compare that to the OP, who knows what's really happening on the surface of the Earth, since he can easily observe it through the window of his mom's basement...
Of course, with the current [Canadian] anti-science* government your point of view may win the day. No wonder the UN doesn't want us on the security council.
Awww, that's cute, ya big Canuck puddin'. Here in America we have a museum with dinosaurs in it AND THEY ARE FUCKING WEARING SADDLES. And it is not only NOT laughed out of existence, it is doubtlessly attended by a huge swath of members of one of our major parties.
In a country where 40% of the population still doesn't accept the theory of evolution, there is no such thing as "duh" science.
Fortunately, I expect that their inability to also grasp the reality of AGW will eventually remedy the situation in a manner suitable to please this childless, atheist misanthrope.
That thing you call "dogma" is called "learning enough to know what the fuck you're talking about". And often enough, "non-conformist thinking" is better known as "bullshit from basement-dwelling crackpots". The trick to telling the difference, you see, is learning enough to know what the fuck you're talking about. And not wasting limited time, energy, and resources on the dogma-free non-conformist thinkers like yourselves.
And yes, physicists are well-known for their extravagant, research grant-fueled lifestyles. When they're not, you know, knee deep in pussy at their Illuminati meetings.
And now you know why those of us who opposed the PATRIOT act when it was initially proposed opposed it. And were called terrorist sympathizers by FOX News and the like on top of it.
Palin won't have read many, but her shelves will have "important" books for the looks.
She doesn't have room on her bookshelves for too many books — they are already teetering under the weight of newspapers and magazines. You know, all of them.
Same here -- bought it for an undergraduate quantum mechanics class a quarter century ago, and used it today. And when it gives up the ghost (if ever), hopefully there will be an iPhone version, like there is for the 12c.
Full disclosure: I am a Bible thumper, and I have friends who believe in intelligent design who are atheists. Intelligent design does not predicate a deity.
So you have stupid friends. All that tells me is that your friendships are unintelligently designed.
As for your inability to realize what a "theory is", please test your god by jumping off a goddam cliff. That'll show that theory of gravity (or, more exactly, *theories* of gravity. Be sure to deny all of them on your way down.) Oh, and be sure to take your Bible, so it can go thump one last time.
Slashdot Mirror
Firstly, the physics behind the greenhouse gas hypothesis in general and CO2 in particular has been known for over a hundred years (thank you, Arrhenius). The global impact of an atmosphere with significant opacity to the spectrum of a planet's expected blackbody temperature given its distance from the Sun is easily observed for the Earth-similar planet Venus, which at 735 K exceeds the expected value of 465 K. Similar calculations for the Earth show the atmosphere raises its temperature by about 20 K; Mars can be done as a sanity check. CO2's power as a greenhouse gas on Earth is further compounded by its persistence in its gas state at terrestrial temperature and pressure, as distinct from water vapor. Because of its spectral properties methane is also an effective greenhouse gas, but its lifetime in the atmosphere is considerably shorter. Ergo, the one to watch in the case of the Earth is CO2. So let's hold as established the mechanism of global warming. How do we know it is anthropogenic? One argument is that fossil fuels should have a different isotopic ratios in their carbon content, which should be reflected in the CO2 if the contribution of its burning is significant. This has been shown. Additionally, as the CO2 fraction in the air increases under this AGW hypothesis, it should also increase in the oceans, resulting in noticeable acidification in the short term. This too has been shown (most obviously to laymen in the observed bleaching of coral reefs). One would hope that the consequences of taking carbon sequestered from the atmosphere at a much earlier (and, needless to say, warmer) time in the Earth's history and releasing it at a rate that far exceeds the rate at which it can be re-removed (and, in fact, lowering that rate in the oceans through the resulting temperature increase) would be obvious. That hope can only survive in those who do not interact with actual people and their daily displays of willful blindness and rampant stupidity. Regardless the Universe doesn't give a shit, so I have given you a few of the AGW arguments, expressed in the broad-brush manner the format allows. Notice that I did all of this without relying rhetorically on my Ph.D. in astrophysics, since that might be construed as an appeal to authority. So as you can see, I am quite familiar with them, so you can take your attempt at condescension through your suggestion, fold it five ways, and shove it up your arse. Watch your head, though.
Here let me help you out...
-- Relying on the Pope for information on the tenets of the Catholic Church = proper appeal to authority.
-- Relying on the Pope for sex tips to drive the ladies wild = fallacious appeal to authority.
Also, just because you don't know the concise statements of a falsifiable hypothesis for AGW doesn't mean they don't exist. Might I suggest you make a proper appeal to authority/ (Hint: they don't have AM talk radio shows)
So, which of Al Gore's corporations owns NASA?
Plus, that Roman stabbing you in the side just added insult to injury.
My feeling is, that if you are going to call a poster moronic, you should be a careful enough reader to notice that he wrote "oil wars", not "all wars". Unless you are an organism that feasts upon one's own irony.
We also subsidize oil and gas to the tune of $4B a year. And guess what? Over the last few years the oil giants have had record profits while reducing their payrolls.
So yes, I'd prefer the government subsidize the growth industry.
No, but if their accounting is anything like Hollywood's then we would be losing even more money.
PR? What decade are you living in? These days corporations purchase their politicians outright?
PR...how quaint...
I might have more confidence in your understanding of consensus if you could manage to fucking spell it right once, even by accident.
And what, pray tell, was your methodology to verify the legitimacy and competence of the inspector?
Yeah man, you just don't get it. You see, all of those academic types pore over their "data" up in their ivory towers. And since they're up high they are closer to the Sun,so it's warmer to them.
Now compare that to the OP, who knows what's really happening on the surface of the Earth, since he can easily observe it through the window of his mom's basement...
*citation needed* ...excuse me...
*peer-reviewed citation needed*
Have it play against me on the XBox. So it can learn profanity.
$6.8 billion. That's a lot of money.
Or as it's now known, three weeks in Afghanistan.
Awww, that's cute, ya big Canuck puddin'. Here in America we have a museum with dinosaurs in it AND THEY ARE FUCKING WEARING SADDLES. And it is not only NOT laughed out of existence, it is doubtlessly attended by a huge swath of members of one of our major parties.
Checkmate.
Please spend my tax dollars to install one of these in Congress.
I've been saying this for years. But now that Thomas Friedman says it I am having serious doubts.
In a country where 40% of the population still doesn't accept the theory of evolution, there is no such thing as "duh" science.
Fortunately, I expect that their inability to also grasp the reality of AGW will eventually remedy the situation in a manner suitable to please this childless, atheist misanthrope.
That thing you call "dogma" is called "learning enough to know what the fuck you're talking about". And often enough, "non-conformist thinking" is better known as "bullshit from basement-dwelling crackpots". The trick to telling the difference, you see, is learning enough to know what the fuck you're talking about. And not wasting limited time, energy, and resources on the dogma-free non-conformist thinkers like yourselves.
And yes, physicists are well-known for their extravagant, research grant-fueled lifestyles. When they're not, you know, knee deep in pussy at their Illuminati meetings.
Idiot.
John Galt's cousin.
This was a triumph. I'm making a note here, "Huge Success."
And now you know why those of us who opposed the PATRIOT act when it was initially proposed opposed it. And were called terrorist sympathizers by FOX News and the like on top of it.
Nothing dies slower than a bad idea.
Well, whenever I use Windows I am convinced of the absence of a just and loving God.
She doesn't have room on her bookshelves for too many books — they are already teetering under the weight of newspapers and magazines. You know, all of them.
Same here -- bought it for an undergraduate quantum mechanics class a quarter century ago, and used it today. And when it gives up the ghost (if ever), hopefully there will be an iPhone version, like there is for the 12c.
So you have stupid friends. All that tells me is that your friendships are unintelligently designed.
As for your inability to realize what a "theory is", please test your god by jumping off a goddam cliff. That'll show that theory of gravity (or, more exactly, *theories* of gravity. Be sure to deny all of them on your way down.) Oh, and be sure to take your Bible, so it can go thump one last time.