![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 09:56:15 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote: Yeah. Like the kind of feedback clouds provide. Not the fact that the Earth is warming dramatically and the cause is the human release of fossil carbon into the atmosphere. Unsubstantiated assertion. Correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation. Flat-earther. Not intellectually worth engaging. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 11:02:01 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 09:56:15 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel wrote: Yeah. Like the kind of feedback clouds provide. Not the fact that the Earth is warming dramatically and the cause is the human release of fossil carbon into the atmosphere. Unsubstantiated assertion. Correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation. Flat-earther. Not intellectually worth engaging. So you unscientifically believe correlation always implies causation? All you have is personal attack and then dishonestly delete the rest of the message. It's clear who the intellectually-challenged person is here. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 12:19:24 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote: On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 11:02:01 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 09:56:15 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel wrote: Yeah. Like the kind of feedback clouds provide. Not the fact that the Earth is warming dramatically and the cause is the human release of fossil carbon into the atmosphere. Unsubstantiated assertion. Correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation. Flat-earther. Not intellectually worth engaging. So you unscientifically believe correlation always implies causation? All you have is personal attack and then dishonestly delete the rest of the message. It's clear who the intellectually-challenged person is here. That would be the flat-earther. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 6:18:43 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 12:19:24 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel wrote: On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 11:02:01 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote: Flat-earther. Not intellectually worth engaging. So you unscientifically believe correlation always implies causation? All you have is personal attack and then dishonestly delete the rest of the message. It's clear who the intellectually-challenged person is here. That would be the flat-earther. So, you admit top being a flat-earther. Interesting. Since all you can do is vomit ad hominems and lies, you prove yourself to be intellectually-challenged and unworthy of a scientific discussion. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 12:56:19 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 10:04:47 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 07:55:29 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel wrote: On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 7:24:34 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote: On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 00:32:16 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc wrote: AGW denier, yes, but not even a young-earth Creationist, never mind a flat-earther. There is no difference between denying AGW and being a flat-earther (or a young Earth creationist, or an anti-vaxxer). The mentality is identical. This is complete bull plop. There are many points about AGW that are questionable to anyone with an open mind. Yeah. Like the kind of feedback clouds provide. Not the fact that the Earth is warming dramatically and the cause is the human release of fossil carbon into the atmosphere. Unsubstantiated assertion. Correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation. That isn't questioned at all, except by flat-earthers like yourself. See? You resort to Nazi tactics instead of cogent discussion. You violate many admonishments from Sagan's baloney detection kit: https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/0...it-carl-sagan/ Things one shouldn't do: 1. Ad hominem attacks 2. Argument from authority 3. Argument from adverse consequences 12. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc Things you should do: 2. Encourage substantive debate 4. Spin more than one hypothesis 5. NIH 9. Falsifiability One can only conclude that YOU are full of baloney :-) AGW = That's baloney any way you slice it. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 19:34:20 -0700 (PDT), "Scott M. Kozel"
wrote: AGW = That's baloney any way you slice it. Ah. Another flat-earther. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 8:55:34 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:
There are many points about AGW that are questionable to anyone with an open mind. I'm sorry, but that is simply not true. Using critical thinking before accepting a new idea is indeed a good thing. But most people accept that the world is round and not flat, at bottom, not because they've understood the science and figured it out for themselves, but because they trust the official scientists who get to write the textbooks more than Joe random guy who made a YouTube video. Some people have brought forth superficially convincing arguments that the Earth is flat, even though it isn't. The same can be done with global warming - and here there's money involved. Environmentalists certainly do deserve to be looked at with skepticism. They've cried wolf before, and many of them don't seem to have come to grips with what it takes to feed the world's existing population, or what it took to keep from losing the Cold War. But you don't seem to have noticed that the world's scientists, who look at new theories skeptically for a living, and who are the experts on this kind of stuff, have now accepted AGW as part of what science knows about the world around us. Like the round Earth, like evolution by natural selection, like the Special and General theories of Relativity. And that fact means that one should direct a withering skepticism towards Fox News rather than towards the scientific community. John Savard |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 5:51:55 AM UTC+1, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 19:34:20 -0700 (PDT), "Scott M. Kozel" wrote: AGW = That's baloney any way you slice it. Ah. Another flat-earther. No society ever believed the Earth was flat but celestial sphere enthusiasts cheerfully present flat Earth ideas - https://www.weather.gov/images/fsd/astro/twilight.png Depending on altitude, from horizon to horizon can be no more than a dozen miles at sea level yet for the RA/Dec people it represents their flat Earth interpretations. On Earth day, the Equatorial speed of the Earth is 1037.5 miles per hour therefore, by logic and reason, the Earth turns its full 360 degree circumference in 24 hours. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sunday, April 22, 2018 at 2:37:55 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
On Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 8:55:34 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote: There are many points about AGW that are questionable to anyone with an open mind. I'm sorry, but that is simply not true. Hi John, I think it is. I mentioned previously about cloud cover and cosmic rays. That was certainly not in the climate models and we don't understand to what extent that process affects GW (note: that would NOT be AGW). We're going into a "quiet sun" period that may last decades and the solar wind has allowed cosmic rays to increase by 15% over the past few years. Another problem with the models is that they don't directly account for the biggest greenhouse gas: water vapor. A multiplying factor is applied to the CO2 content to account for water vapor indirectly, but such a strategy reduces the accuracy of the model. Third, the warming effect of CO2 concentration is not linear; i.e., it tends to saturate. I don't know the details of this but it's my understanding that the multiplier for CO2 used to be about six but it is presently around two. Could it be that this reduction is because of a saturation factor? How can one have any confidence in a model that has that kind of uncertainty in it? Using critical thinking before accepting a new idea is indeed a good thing. But most people accept that the world is round and not flat, at bottom, not because they've understood the science and figured it out for themselves, but because they trust the official scientists who get to write the textbooks more than Joe random guy who made a YouTube video. I'm not "most people." I didn't accept the conclusions of special relativity until I studied the assumptions and derived the equations myself. Actually, I start out accepting what scientists say, then have second thoughts, then dig through it myself and end up agreeing or disagreeing. You are talking about the FIRST step, which is where "most people" are, and which step they never graduate from. Some people have brought forth superficially convincing arguments that the Earth is flat, even though it isn't. The same can be done with global warming - and here there's money involved. Not the same thing at all. Flatness is a property of geometry, and geometry is very simple. GW is not simple at all, let alone AGW. Comparing AGW skepticism to an inability to do geometry is extremely offensive and serves only to cause polarization. People who behave like Peterson are doing no favor to the AGW believers. Environmentalists certainly do deserve to be looked at with skepticism. They've cried wolf before, and many of them don't seem to have come to grips with what it takes to feed the world's existing population, or what it took to keep from losing the Cold War. Indeed. But you don't seem to have noticed that the world's scientists, who look at new theories skeptically for a living, and who are the experts on this kind of stuff, have now accepted AGW as part of what science knows about the world around us. Like the round Earth, like evolution by natural selection, like the Special and General theories of Relativity. Any science where one can't perform experiments should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. Relativity has been thoroughly tested in a local framework, but cosmological models based on GR makes assumptions which may not be correct. And that fact means that one should direct a withering skepticism towards Fox News rather than towards the scientific community. John Savard Sorry, John, but I believe the jury is still out. And "withering" responses when one expresses some skepticism smacks of totalitarian tactics. How can one have confidence in AGW when warm temperatures are claimed to support AGW and cooler temperatures are also claimed to support AGW? That kind of baloney makes the theory unfalsifiable. IOW, unscientific. Gary |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 22 Apr 2018 06:03:48 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote: what extent that process affects GW (note: that would NOT be AGW). In today's world, GW is almost entirely AGW. That is a fact. It is known to be true beyond reasonable doubt, and is accepted by 99% of climate scientists. A greater consensus than we have for nearly any other area of scientific knowledge. Flat-earther. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Thermodynamics: Dismal Swamp of Obscurity or Just Dead Science? | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 3 | November 27th 17 12:41 PM |
Thermodynamics: Dismal Swamp of Obscurity | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 4 | October 1st 17 07:05 PM |
Clifford Truesdell: Thermodynamics Is a Dismal Swamp of Obscurity | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 1 | August 2nd 17 06:12 PM |
REPLY TO GLOBAL WARMING DENIER | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 15 | May 29th 07 06:25 AM |
STERN REPLY TO GLOBAL WARMING DENIER | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 11 | March 4th 07 01:42 AM |