- Joined
- Jul 17, 2020
- Messages
- 47,360
- Reaction score
- 26,060
- Location
- Springfield MO
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
I love your comedy. You are hilarious!
You can pretend it's more complicated than it is to your heart's delight it is self-serving and it doesn't work on me.
You can pretend it's more complicated than it is to your heart's delight it is self-serving and it doesn't work on me.
Too bad you didn't get a single one of those right. You need to stop believing who ever you are believing. The are treating you like a mushroom.That sophisticated science skeptics are not that sophisticated: climate change is not real, earth is flat, masks don’t work, vaccines don’t work, etc, etc...
Dime a dozen. Don’t have time to refute all their points in all their books.
And what understanding do you have of these sciences? Do you realize to be able to grasp these sciences, you need an advanced understanding of physics, chemistry, mathematics, celestial mechanics, and biology? Possible more, but that was just from a moment of consideration.That is usually the way that most skeptics online approach the science. They come at it without any real understanding of the basics, reject it outright because it conflicts with their deepest wishes and then they characterize it as seeing that which all the world's experts have somehow missed.
Who is denying that?The basics aren't really that complicated, you are correct, but it does require at least a basic understanding of how gases and radiation work. An intro geology class and an intro chemistry class could do you wonders.
Now, the nitty gritty stuff can get quite complex and you won't be up for that until you get further along in your studies.
Here's the basic stuff we do know:
We've known since the 1800's that CO2 absorbs IR radiation. That's incontrovertible. If you take a chemistry class they can show you that in actions.
We know that starting in the middle 19th century that western Europe and the US started mass industrialization and burned a lot of coal
We know that burning coal makes CO2 (you'll learn that in basic intro chemistry!)
We know that it takes a long time to fix carbon in coal naturally but we can burn it very quickly meaning we released a LOT of extra CO2 from our industrial output.
You can learn in geology classes how the CARBON CYCLE works and how it takes a lot of effort and time to get extra CO2 back out of the atmosphere.
There you have it! Pretty much basic things understandable by even a high school kid with minimal science training.
Now there's obviously a LOT more to it than just that but that's a good start for someone with almost no science background.
One of the really cool things is that we can tell, chemically, that a lot of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere since the mid-19th century is from burning fossil fuels! They can actually tell that! It's neat what science can do.
So, like I said, it's never bad not to know something because you can always learn!
Take an intro chem class and an intro geology class ( so you can learn about the history of earth and its climate) and you'll open a really cool area of learning.
It's very clear you're trying to make something seem more complicated than it is so you can pretend like everyone else that doesn't agree with you is stupid.Was I not clear?
Who is denying that?
Now... can you quantify the effects after considering the aerosols positive forcing on ice and negative forcing in the atmosphere? What about the positive an negative responses to CO2?
We don't disagree with all you said, you definitely are not listening to us if you thing we don't understand that.
I suggest you start listening to our position instead of denying it.
We disagree with the quantitative effect that is being used in an alarming way!
It's very clear you're trying to make something seem more complicated than it is so you can pretend like everyone else that doesn't agree with you is stupid.
And what understanding do you have of these sciences? Do you realize to be able to grasp these sciences, you need an advanced understanding of physics, chemistry, mathematics, celestial mechanics, and biology? Possible more, but that was just from a moment of consideration.
How many people can claim they understand all those disciplines?
You sense that? Are you psychic?I never said any of that. I DO, however, sense in you a lack of scientific education
It's very clear you're trying to make something seem more complicated than it is so you can pretend like everyone else that doesn't agree with you is stupid.
No one is arguing that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas! The question is how much warming, beyond the physics based forcing warming, will added CO2 cause?The basics aren't really that complicated, you are correct, but it does require at least a basic understanding of how gases and radiation work. An intro geology class and an intro chemistry class could do you wonders.
Now, the nitty gritty stuff can get quite complex and you won't be up for that until you get further along in your studies.
Here's the basic stuff we do know:
We've known since the 1800's that CO2 absorbs IR radiation. That's incontrovertible. If you take a chemistry class they can show you that in actions.
We know that starting in the middle 19th century that western Europe and the US started mass industrialization and burned a lot of coal
We know that burning coal makes CO2 (you'll learn that in basic intro chemistry!)
We know that it takes a long time to fix carbon in coal naturally but we can burn it very quickly meaning we released a LOT of extra CO2 from our industrial output.
You can learn in geology classes how the CARBON CYCLE works and how it takes a lot of effort and time to get extra CO2 back out of the atmosphere.
There you have it! Pretty much basic things understandable by even a high school kid with minimal science training.
Now there's obviously a LOT more to it than just that but that's a good start for someone with almost no science background.
One of the really cool things is that we can tell, chemically, that a lot of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere since the mid-19th century is from burning fossil fuels! They can actually tell that! It's neat what science can do.
So, like I said, it's never bad not to know something because you can always learn!
Take an intro chem class and an intro geology class ( so you can learn about the history of earth and its climate) and you'll open a really cool area of learning.
It's very clear you're trying to make something seem more complicated than it is so you can pretend like everyone else that doesn't agree with you is stupid.
I understand all of them. Biology is my weakest among them. Very few climatologists acknowledge that plants cool the earth by about 1 W/m^2 at a global average just from the endothermic reaction of photosynthesis. It's obvious that those doing the earth energy balance don't account for this, and claim there is about a 2/3 W/m^2 gain, claiming this is the warming we see. I can understand why Clax would compare it to cryptozoology for reasons like this. Granted, there is a decomposition process too, but the exothermic process is less than the endothermic process.A great deal of it. I understand the basics reasonably well. I have training in the sciences.
What about you? What about Clax?
There are very, very few who understand all these disciplines in my viewpoint.There are those out there. Of course they are easily demonized and negated by those who don't understand the sciences.
ObservantYou sense that? Are you psychic?
I think the word you're looking for is threatened.Observant
I think the word you're looking for is threatened.
I think the word you're looking for is threatened.
Lol. You’ll have to up your game to be a threat to much of anyone least of all someone with a basic science educationI think the word you're looking for is threatened.
Thanks for proving my point.Lol. You’ll have to up your game to be a threat to much of anyone least of all someone with a basic science education
I don't respect cryptozoology or chiropractic either. Pseudoscience regardless of field is not real science.I didn't get that from Clax's comments. I saw nothing but pure denial even of the field itself.
I don't respect cryptozoology or chiropractic either. Pseudoscience regardless of field is not real science.
Well with cryptozoology is the study of things like El chupacabra and bigfoot. Not the legend that would be anthropology.And what makes you a good judge of which is which?
Well with cryptozoology is the study of things like El chupacabra and bigfoot. Not the legend that would be anthropology.
And chiropractic is based on faith healing.
I would say possessing a mind qualifies me to judge.
Who cares?But Bigfoot is not a consensus of scientists working in that field.
Show me a list of every scientist working in that field and that they agree in lock step with the alarmist propaganda.You are saying extensive formal training and experience in a specialized field and consensus by those working in that field can be trumped by a layperson’s common sense?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?