You can get to the heart of his stupidity by just asking him what he thinks the other 90% of warming comes from. Then prepare for a full discourse on soot.
If you are wrong, then the value for warming must be something other than what you think.The logical problem is that if you do admit the possibility that you are wrong, you have to admit the possibility that the scientists are right.
Within that realm of possibilities lies that of the scientists who are studying the problem.
What assumption have I made in making this statement, and what bias affected those assumptions and how?
Be specific.
You can get to the heart of his stupidity by just asking him what he thinks the other 90% of warming comes from. Then prepare for a full discourse on soot.
The people studying this didn't take any of this into account?
Ask him to post his solubility charts. You are just arguing the exact same things that he didn't respond ot the refutations last time. I seriously thinking about starting a WC's stupidity post so it can just be updated and linked whenever he repeats the same drivel.
... and if it is?
What if...
If we spend money on every "what if" we would run out of money so fast.
They hide it. Those who don't are ganged up against and ridiculed. Have you never considered a word I have said about it in past threads? Remember me point out the IPCC only considers "direct" solar forcing in their radiative forcing numbers? What about the "indirect" forcing? You see, they hide it in the increased CO2 forcing. They say all the increase if from greenhouse gasses. Remember this. Greenhouse gasses provide positive feedback from the direct solar heating of the surface. Increase this direct surface heating increases upward radiation which is then added to the energy that the greenhouse effect gets it's downward forcing from.
I have to leave in 2 minutes. This is my last post today. I suggest you stop dismissing things said if you wish to enlighten yourself.
I do not have to engage in any detailed discussion about solubility.
His position is illogical, and this can be demonstrated without detailed discussions.
Break things down to get at the underlying assumptions, examine them to see if they are logical, and if they are, they can be accepted, and should be.
Cognitive dissonance is a that way. You can't claim to be a logical person, then simply hand wave logical things because you don't like the conclusions one reaches using that logic.
Dismissing something as "biased" without being able to say how, is mere hand waving. That is the kind of thing that mouse does to evidence about "evolution", and simply makes the case of the OP.
Remember, I'm not here to prove/disprove AGW. I am here to prove the people who seem most skeptical are illogical.
Hand waving, obfuscation, strawmen, ignoring honest questions, and "you know they are lying" conspiracy theories are what I want. The fact that I can catch the scientists that sceptics like to hang their hat on doing arguably ty science is a bonus.
We are not talking about "every what if". False equivalence and rejected.
Answer the question.
What if CO2 ultimately proves to be more dangerous than you think it is?
He is still stuck in 2004. I read the astrophysics papers back then. I have a friend that at the time was an aide to a GOP senator that made sure to show them to me. They were quite compelling at the time and hardly ridiculed.
They have since been reviewed and measured and discounted and even the astrophysicists no longer make those claims but he is going to continue to claim it anyway.
I am surprised he made it that far tbqh with all the 70s technology that hes posted thinking that it was relevant.
"They hide it"
So they aren't ignoring it, they are hiding it.
Why would they hide it? What is their motivation, and what is your proof of this?
Believe me i know man. The thing is after more than a year going around in circles with him I don't think you are going to get him to be intellectually honest.
You definitely do not need to get into a discussion of solubility with him but it goes a long way to how asinine his position is. He literally combines a solubility chart with napkin math and uses that to make claims on the behavior of the ocean to warming. He is very diligent in his use of scientific notation.
Do you realize how much like mouse you sound when you post things like this?
I don't have to dismiss the things you say. I can accept that there exists a possibility that you are correct.
I must, however, weigh that against the possibility that you are wrong.
You might not admit that possibility, but I must consider it.
My first experience with him was dealing with a news article about the fact that the CBO had decided to include more comprehensive measures of the effects of air pollution in their calculations of the impact of legislation.
It boiled down to "the reporter made a mistake, and that proves they are too biased to be believed."
He hung his "biased media" claim on what amounted to a typo, then went on to obfuscate about the science of smog, when the underlying point was how reasonable it is to include avoided respitory desease and death in the benefits of anti-air pollution legislation.
Hung up on a technicality, unable to see the larger picture, and disingenuously trying to cover for the fact that the issue was ultimately an accounting one, not whether a reporter said "oxides" when she should have said "oxide".
If you want a nifty treat, scroll back to the part of this thread were we were talking about ice melting. I actually went so far as to email the scientist about it for feed back. That was neat.
Top Five Environmental Disasters that Didn't Happen
EDIT> They will probably need to update this list in 20 years to include AGW.
"these other theories were wrong, so this one must be wrong" ???
I don't need any more of your flawed logic to prove the OP.
Why do you feel the need to post stupid like this?
Predictions of environmental catastrophe have a pretty ty track record.
We don't have to be certain -- just way more certain than we are now.
MiG has pointed out a whole bunch of predictions that actually came to pass. He normally does that when you make this same argument. I would say that hes probably done it 4 times or so this year alone.
Once again you repeat yourself after ignoring refutation for a week or so. It seems intellectual dishonesty is in your blood.
Predictions of men in heavier than air flying machines had a pretty ty track record too.
Quit being a dumbass. The science gets better as time goes on.
It is kind of like arguing with mouse.
No matter how many times you try to explain why his is wrong, he comes back to it constantly.
(shrugs)
It all boils down to a conspiracy theory. The people may be a bit different than in the 9-11 threads, but the ty logic, bad science, and paranoia are right on target.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-26-2012 at 06:59 PM. Reason: too much shit
The World's Insurers Brace For Climate Change -- Except In America
Given that insurers are likely to be among the first companies affected by climate change, you might expect the industry to be better prepared than most.
But that is not how it appears to many analysts, regulators, and industry representatives, who say insurers are showing a lack of urgency on the twin threats of massive future damage claims from weather-related events, and the prospect of growing climate change-related litigation.
A report published last September by Ceres, a Boston-based coalition of investors and environmental groups, puts it starkly. Surveying the disclosures of 88 U.S. insurance companies to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), it found that only 11 had formal climate change policies and that just 60 percent were assessing climate risks.
http://www.alternet.org/visions/1551...paign=alternet
You set your sights higher than you can achieve. Since you do not try to understand what is being said, you have failed. You are the illogical one. There are certain aspects of these sciences that have very solid foundations that are being ignored.
It might be slightly more than i thing it is, but not as much as the alarmists say. that is an utter joke, and had no bases in good science to say that CO2 is as dangerous as they claim. It's just a bunch of hot air.
I have explained this in the past. I explained it a few posts back. They are counting increased indirect solar components as being cause by CO2 rather than the sun.
Do you realize that is an uninformed dismissal of what I say, instead of attempting to understand what I say and disprove it rationally?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions