• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Conservatives and climate change

Status
Not open for further replies.
DC said:
would you take your own source's word for it?
Click to expand...
The argument is not about how various gasses respond to various frequencies of light in clean lab experiments. If it's published in Physical Review Letters or the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, I'll accept it until someone gives me reason to doubt.
 
BenBurch said:
What on earth does that mean? I don't mean to be rude, but that goes way beyond non sequitur to actually reach unintelligible.
Click to expand...
This has happened a lot here. I link a skeptical source for a claim about UEA emails or such, and people on the AGW theory side refuse to read. Just as inquisitors refused to look through Galileo's telescope. "Just look".
"No".
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
The argument is not about how various gasses respond to various frequencies of light in clean lab experiments. If it's published in Physical Review Letters or the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, I'll accept it until someone gives me reason to doubt.
Click to expand...

good then :) so you accept the radiative properties of CO².

glad we found something we can agree on :)
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
This has happened a lot here. I link a skeptical source for a claim about UEA emails or such, and people on the AGW theory side refuse to read. Just as inquisitors refused to look through Galileo's telescope. "Just look".
"No".
Click to expand...

why do you call it a theory when you do not accept it as a theory but seem to think its a hypothesis or even less?
 
jj said:
So, we were right, and cut SO2 emissions, and now that's held against science.

Typical, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Same arguments we saw upthread when anti-science morons were mocking the "alarmism" in the 60s surrounding overpopulation, while ignoring the scientific innovations of the Green Revolution that effectively solved the problem.
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
This has happened a lot here. I link a skeptical source for a claim about UEA emails or such, and people on the AGW theory side refuse to read. Just as inquisitors refused to look through Galileo's telescope. "Just look".
"No".
Click to expand...

Seriously, try to read and understand posts you quote. If English isn't your first language and you have trouble understanding because of that, just ask. Right now, your posts make no sense in context to what you quote.

Alternatively, if you're trying to present an anecdote, be a bit clearer. Am I to understand that you're comparing yourself to Gallileo?
 
Last edited:
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
link a skeptical source for a claim about UEA emails or such, and people on the AGW theory side refuse to read. Just as inquisitors refused to look through Galileo's telescope. "Just look".
Click to expand...

It’s not our responsibility to “just look”. If you make a claim it’s up to you to support it.
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
The argument is not about how various gasses respond to various frequencies of light in clean lab experiments. If it's published in Physical Review Letters or the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, I'll accept it until someone gives me reason to doubt.
Click to expand...

Good.

So you accept the IR behavior of CO2 and CH4.

Now what is wrong with the measurements that show more and more of them in the atmosphere?

If you can also accept mechanical measurements, you've just accepted AGW.
 
jj said:
Good.

So you accept the IR behavior of CO2 and CH4.

Now what is wrong with the measurements that show more and more of them in the atmosphere?

If you can also accept mechanical measurements, you've just accepted AGW.
Click to expand...

Don't you know? Cow farts (belches, actually) are funny and so can be ridiculed and so they don't have any effect because things you laugh at don't exist. Right, deniers?
 
lomiller said:
It’s not our responsibility to “just look”. If you make a claim it’s up to you to support it.
Click to expand...
Support? That's what the link does. Directly, if it's an argument about Steve McIntyre (e.g., emails demonstrating deception by Phil Jones). Indirectly if, in this case, it's about a supposedly easy experiment in physics. The point here is, if this is really so easy would Gore and friends risked damage to their reputation by presenting a fraud (as they did)?
 
uke2se said:
...if you're trying to present an anecdote, be a bit clearer. Am I to understand that you're comparing yourself to Gallileo?
Click to expand...
I'm comparing the people who refuse to follow links to skeptic blogs to the people who refused to look through Galileo's telescope. They had their holy book and that was all the Truth they needed.
 
Just about any first year student in physics can tell you with a reasonable degree of certainty what will happen if you drop a 5g feather from a height of 5 meters in a vacuum.

Can anyone tell me what will happen to the same feather dropped from the same height standing on your back porch?

What if I had 3 feathers?

You either understand this question, or you don't know the first thing about climate science.
 
Furcifer said:
Based on our current understanding. Which the "consensus" opinion is very limited. Especially since only recently have they started to get accurate measurements on incoming radiation at specific wavelengths and how that radiation interacts with clouds at varying elevations.
Click to expand...

Well, this raises the question - if the current understanding is that we are heading for a potentially catastrophic effect on the human race, and the vast majority of experts on the subject believe this to be so, should we wait around in the hope that new evidence will come to light that completely reverses the position, or should we act while we still can to try to mitigate the effects?

Would you, in all sincerity, be able to look your grandchildren or great grandchildren or whatever descendants in the eye in two generations time and say "sorry about the mess, but only 97% of the experts believed it to be our fault, so we decided to do nothing and wait and see if they were wrong"?
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
Support? That's what the link does.
Click to expand...
No. You are asking us to follow the link to find out what the details of “your” claim actually are rather that stating you claim clearly, giving us facts that make the claim reasonable and referring us to a source for those facts.

Even as a source to prove the facts correct, your reference is pretty bad, since Watt’s a) has no expertise in the subject b) has shown considerable incompetence even on very basic subjects and c) has shown himself to be consistently dishonest. Essentially all yo8 would be doing is supporting you position by saying “see, here is some nut on the internet who believes this”


Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
Directly, if it's an argument about Steve McIntyre
Click to expand...

Not quite. It’s unsubstantiated claims he’s making on the internet

We want to know what argument you are making and what your evidence is for it. Learn to make and support your own arguments, rather than simply letting random nuts on the internet tell you what your opinion should be.
 
Furcifer said:
Just about any first year student in physics can tell you with a reasonable degree of certainty what will happen if you drop a 5g feather from a height of 5 meters in a vacuum.

Can anyone tell me what will happen to the same feather dropped from the same height standing on your back porch?

What if I had 3 feathers?

You either understand this question, or you don't know the first thing about climate science.
Click to expand...

The question you ask has nothing to do with measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere or the IR performance of CO2.

Please address the simple, well-established mesurements and/or the IR performance of CO2, not repeat an attempt to disguise happenings under misleading attempts at error bars.
 
Last edited:
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
I'm comparing the people who refuse to follow links to skeptic blogs to the people who refused to look through Galileo's telescope. They had their holy book and that was all the Truth they needed.
Click to expand...

But you refuse to read actual scientific reports and papers, so what does that make you?
 
stokes234 said:
Well, this raises the question - if the current understanding is that we are heading for a potentially catastrophic effect on the human race, and the vast majority of experts on the subject believe this to be so, should we wait around in the hope that new evidence will come to light that completely reverses the position, or should we act while we still can to try to mitigate the effects?
Click to expand...

I feel like a broken record

WE ARE DOING SOMETHING, WE AREN'T "WAITING AROUND"

Right now we're acting to reduce emissions while maintaining economic growth. Until something comes along or the science is more conclusive.

stokes234 said:
Would you, in all sincerity, be able to look your grandchildren or great grandchildren or whatever descendants in the eye in two generations time and say "sorry about the mess, but only 97% of the experts believed it to be our fault, so we decided to do nothing and wait and see if they were wrong"?
Click to expand...

Or, since quality of life and longevity continue to increase at the greatest rate in human history look at them and say "We've put you in the best possible position to deal with this".

IF it happens.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom