"Independent Thinking" vs Appeal To Authority In Science
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Calculating the spectra and intensity of Helium, Lithium and Beryllium using only Rydberg-like formulas
Next: 'Plutonium' as a surname
From: Marvin the Martian on 20 Jul 2010 11:02 On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 07:00:47 +0200, BDR529 wrote: > On 7/20/2010 6:39 AM, Claudius Denk wrote: > > [snip] > >> If you ever come across any peer-reviewed and/or experimental evidence >> that CO2 has any kind of thermal effect on the atmosphere let me know >> and I will reconsider my position? >> >> Fair enough? > > You are asking for the usual information, perhaps start reading > www.realclimate.org where the role of CO2 is nicely described. > > Q He didn't say left wing propaganda website, he said "peer-reviewed and/or experimental evidence". LOL!
From: Last Post on 20 Jul 2010 13:16 On Jul 20, 1:00 am, BDR529 <nos...(a)nospam.org> wrote: > On 7/20/2010 6:39 AM, Claudius Denk wrote: > > [snip] > > > If you ever come across any peer-reviewed and/or experimental evidence > > that CO2 has any kind of thermal effect on the atmosphere let me know > > and I will reconsider my position? > > > Fair enough? > > You are asking for the usual information, perhaps start readingwww.realclimate.orgwhere the role of CO2 is nicely described. Ø The usual trash signifying nothing. There are three types of people that you can_not_talk_into_behaving_well. The stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil. 1- The stupid aren't smart enough to follow the logic of what you say. You have to tell them what is right in very simple terms. If they do not agree, you will never be able to change their mind. 2- The religious fanatic: If what you say goes against their religious belief, they will cling to that belief even if it means their death. 3- There is no way to reform evil- not in a million years. There is no way to convince anthropogenic_global_warming_alarmists, terrorists, serial killers, paedophiles, and predators to change their evil ways, They knew what they were doing was wrong, but knowledge didn't stop them. It only made them more careful in how they went about performing their evil deeds.
From: Benj on 20 Jul 2010 16:02 On Jul 19, 10:48 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: <Snip "Sam Wormley's" usual propaganda barf> Sam, this political propaganda you post has been discredited so many times and yet you try to keep the "big lie" going. Do you really stand to get any money out of this scam? I can't believe you ever will. I understand you are a teacher so naturally you take to politics like a lawyer, but the world would be so much better off if you backed off on the politics, and instead of messing with the minds of young people, you simply taught science based on the advice of your betters (real scientists) instead of your pals (IPCC). CO2, while yes, it IS a "greenhouse gas" is NOT capable of causing any global warming of any significance beyond what it always has. Now all that METHANE spewing in the gulf is another matter! But you aren't worried? Oh that's right, money flow is in the wrong direction on that one!
From: Benj on 20 Jul 2010 16:22 On Jul 20, 1:00 am, BDR529 <nos...(a)nospam.org> wrote: > On 7/20/2010 6:39 AM, Claudius Denk wrote: > > [snip] > > > If you ever come across any peer-reviewed and/or experimental evidence > > that CO2 has any kind of thermal effect on the atmosphere let me know > > and I will reconsider my position? > > > Fair enough? > > You are asking for the usual information, perhaps start reading www.realclimate.org where the role of CO2 is nicely described. Very clever trick. You pretend that the argument is that CO2 causes global warming vs CO2 has NO effect! In other words that CO2 is NOT a "greenhouse gas". This puts you holowarmers on the winning side. Because CO2 IS a "greenhouse gas"! And it DOES cause global warming! So you win. Tax all that fossil fuel. (and ignore all the deforestation by the power elite) Only there is one thing missing. It's called QUANTITY. The effect of CO2 is SO minor that it can't have ANY SIGNIFICANT effect on climate change! That's the scam. The difference between "none" and "no significant". Thus you've carefully formed the debate so that you automatically come out "winning". It's like the term "Anthropogenic Global Warming". If anyone uses YOUR term, by default they admit that man has caused global warming. Oh so clever! So yes, "Claudius Denk" has incorrectly worded his statement. Instead of asking for evidence of "Any kind of thermal effect" effect of CO2 on warming, he SHOULD have asked for evidence of any SIGNIFICANT thermal effect. There ARE demonstrated thermal effects. "Wormley" posts them incessantly. But they are simply too minor to worry about. And THAT is what puts the lie to all the holowarming alarmists. [I KNEW that once the recent cooling statistics shifted to warming (statistics are all about variations about a mean) that all the climate scammers would be back on their program of using statistical variations to scare everyone] See? It's HOT this summer! We TOLD you you needed to be scared!
From: Last Post on 20 Jul 2010 21:45
On Jul 20, 4:02 pm, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: > On Jul 19, 10:48 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > <Snip "Sam Wormley's" usual propaganda barf> > > Sam, this political propaganda you post has been discredited so many > times and yet you try to keep the "big lie" going. Do you really stand > to get any money out of this scam?  I can't believe you ever will. I > understand you are a teacher so naturally you take to politics like a > lawyer, but the world would be so much better off if you backed off on > the politics, and instead of messing with the minds of young people, > you simply taught science based on the advice of your betters (real > scientists) instead of your pals (IPCC). > > CO2, while yes, it IS a "greenhouse gas" is NOT capable of causing any > global warming of any significance beyond what it always has. Now all > that METHANE spewing in the gulf is another matter!  But you aren't > worried?  Oh that's right, money flow is in the wrong direction on > that one! à GH GAS | TOTAL | NATUR |MAN MD âââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ H2O Vapour | 95.000% | 94.999% |0.001% âââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ â¨CO2 | 03.618% | 3.502% |0.117% âââââââââââââ¨âââââââââââââââââââ Methane | 0.260% | 0.294% |0.066% â¨âââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ Nitrous oxide | 0.950% | 0.903% |0.047% âââââââââââ¨âââââââââââââââââââââ Misc, CFC etc| 0.072% | 0.025% |0.047% âââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ â â | In real science the burden of proof is always | on the proposer, never on the skeptics. So far | neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one | iota of valid data for global warming nor have | they provided data that climate change is being | effected by commerce and industry, and not by | natural causes. |