DC Tom Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 What part of the equation that I laid out are you skeptical of? You do understand that skepticism is a critical aspect of the scientific process, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 You do understand that skepticism is a critical aspect of the scientific process, right? Except when the "science is settled" card has been played. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 @ DC - Most of the Scientific community is not skeptical of that simple equation - one can argue what the implications are and what the future will look like and the cost benefit analysis of making changes to our energy supply structure - but most scientists I would for lack of a better word "rely on" agree on that simple equation. @ Az - Not sure what to say - most of that equation is High School Science and seems relatively easy to get ones arms around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozymandius Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 what equation? you seem to be confused between the words equation and experiment. it's okay, both words start with 'e' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 @ DC - Most of the Scientific community is not skeptical of that simple equation - one can argue what the implications are and what the future will look like and the cost benefit analysis of making changes to our energy supply structure - but most scientists I would for lack of a better word "rely on" agree on that simple equation. That doesn't answer my question. You do understand that skepticism is a critical aspect of the scientific process? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 This board kills me - very few want to address simple questions - artists of deflection. @ DC - Yes I understand. I am not skeptical of the basics that humankind has elevated levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, I am not skeptical that higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere will retain more radiant heat, and I am not skeptical that these two elements have resulted in higher temperatures on earth. I am not skeptical that 2014 was the warmest on earth as long as we have been keeping track. As well, most of the scientific community is not skeptical. All these elements are seem directly measurable (mankind CO2 input into atmosphere, how much fossil fuel we have burned, the resulting elevation in CO2, CO2's ability to retain radiant heat, the elevated temperatures). If people are skeptical of these - as the OP threw out the label HOAX in his thread title - I am wondering which of these 3-4 elements of global warming he is skeptical of. He said "all" - so I am not sure what to say to that as they all seem rather simple and non-political. Perhaps you could shed some light on where the skepticism comes from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Perhaps you could shed some light on where the skepticism comes from. The scientific method. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 @ Az - Not sure what to say - most of that equation is High School Science and seems relatively easy to get ones arms around. Not to be nit-picky, but that wasn't an equation. It was a thought experiment set in an extremely controlled environment. The assumption that that's exactly how it would work in Earth's atmosphere under natural conditions is a mistake, imo. Further, is the measured increase in C02 a direct result of carbon emissions from fossil fuels? Could it possibly be due to a proportionate loss of oxygen being generated from various sources? I have yet to find a source I deem trustworthy for such information, due to both the relative newness of climate science and it's politicization by people on both sides of the issue. Until I'm convinced one way or the other, I will not support any legislation or government involvement of any kind in further taxation or regulation of American industry based on climate science or claims of global warming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Not to be nit-picky, Detail is unscientific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 This reminds me of the Chappelle skit with the OJ and R Kelly trials... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 This reminds me of the Chappelle skit with the OJ and R Kelly trials... And you call us artists of deflection? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Yes! - Tried to find a link to that sketch but couldn't. Look - I am all for discussing things but three times I presented a simple equation and asked what elements were in question - as the OP called GW a HOAX (are the elevated temperatures a HOAX or are you referring to human contribution?) Someone said "All" - OK Disputing that the elevated CO2 levels is attributable to humans. I see that as a straightforward calculation. Disputing that elevated levels of CO2 in the atmosphere cause temperature raise (or lower O levels). You see this as dubious - I don't. Now that things are clarified I simply refer to comedy as an allegory to how I see the situation! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Disputing that the elevated CO2 levels is attributable to humans. I see that as a straightforward calculation. Disputing that elevated levels of CO2 in the atmosphere cause temperature raise (or lower O levels). You see this as dubious - I don't. If the first is so straightforward, how come nobody's performed it? As for the second...even climatologists still debate the degree to which that's true. Not the least of which is because it's neither the most efficient nor the most prevalent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 If the first is so straightforward, how come nobody's performed it? - It has - there are many, many, documents outlining this - but as with everything - you may not choose to believe them. As for the second...even climatologists still debate the degree to which that's true. Not the least of which is because it's neither the most efficient nor the most prevalent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Whelp - the overwhelming majority of climatologists agree that chewing trident gum....err I mean CO2 is the primary cause of the recent spike in temperatures... Again - one can weigh the sources and this board overwhelming comes in behind the minority views on GW - who knows - maybe you guys are correct.... I would hope to leave the world a better place when I am gone in a few decades - I think that is the conservative thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 If the first is so straightforward, how come nobody's performed it? - It has - there are many, many, documents outlining this - but as with everything - you may not choose to believe them. As for the second...even climatologists still debate the degree to which that's true. Not the least of which is because it's neither the most efficient nor the most prevalent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Whelp - the overwhelming majority of climatologists agree that chewing trident gum....err I mean CO2 is the primary cause of the recent spike in temperatures... Again - one can weigh the sources and this board overwhelming comes in behind the minority views on GW - who knows - maybe you guys are correct.... I would hope to leave the world a better place when I am gone in a few decades - I think that is the conservative thing to do. Learn to use the quote function, dumbass. 1) No, it hasn't. I've read the research. That calculation hasn't been done. 2) "Consensus" is not a scientific principle. Your quotation of Trident gum commercials is entirely appropriate - it's a marketing statement, not a scientific one. 3) You really don't know what I think about "global warming." I'm not even discussing it; I'm trying to educate you on what science actually is. 4) You're everything that's wrong with the environmental movement. No one here doesn't want to leave the world a better place; everyone here agrees it's stupid to **** where you eat. We just question the underlying assumptions of the Church of Carbon Dioxide that's taken over the modern environmental movement to the exclusion of everything else. And as such, we're far more likely to implement practical, real-world solutions to environmental problems than somebody who dogmatically clings to "consensus" without even knowing what that means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Learn to use the quote function, dumbass. 1) No, it hasn't. I've read the research. That calculation hasn't been done. 2) "Consensus" is not a scientific principle. Your quotation of Trident gum commercials is entirely appropriate - it's a marketing statement, not a scientific one. 3) You really don't know what I think about "global warming." I'm not even discussing it; I'm trying to educate you on what science actually is. 4) You're everything that's wrong with the environmental movement. No one here doesn't want to leave the world a better place; everyone here agrees it's stupid to **** where you eat. We just question the underlying assumptions of the Church of Carbon Dioxide that's taken over the modern environmental movement to the exclusion of everything else. And as such, we're far more likely to implement practical, real-world solutions to environmental problems than somebody who dogmatically clings to "consensus" without even knowing what that means. Shut up. We're going to fix it with carbon credits and unicorns. CONSENSUS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Shut up. We're going to fix it with carbon credits and unicorns. CONSENSUS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 (edited) Greenpissers, want to stop emitting CO2? STOP BREATHING! Edited January 5, 2015 by Wacka Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Tobacco, lead in gas, DDT, sulpher, ozone, asbestos.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Tobacco, lead in gas, DDT, sulpher, ozone, asbestos.... What does this list have to do with this thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts