It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by mc_squared
I didn't say I'm not here to vilify anyone, I said I'm not out to vilify those who actually act like true skeptics like Curious and Concerned obviously is. I in fact cherish the opportunity to actually get to discuss this topic open-mindedly, sanely, and constructively with people like that.
Originally posted by mc_squaredOn the other hand - anyone who wants to make really narrow-minded, dim-witted comments that only feed the already overflowing pool of ignorance, and then arrogantly announce case closed - like Lemon.Fresh did on the first page, well yeah - all the condescending attitude contained in the title of this thread is dedicated to people like that.
Originally posted by mc_squaredYou know, all those of you that get so offended at being labelled a "denier" - the way you react to this implication goes a long way in determining whether you actually are one or not. I didn't single anyone out in that title did I? I didn't say hey, all Christians, or all redheads - are you smarter than a 5th grader? So how do you even know I was talking to you?
Originally posted by mc_squaredThe fact is a title like this goes a long way to weeding out those who really do want to discuss it for the sake of truth, rather than those simply trying to protect their own egos. Yeah it might be a bit childish - but I have tried the nice guy approach enough times to only find out I'm wasting my time dealing with nothing but convictions and insecurities from people who just want to one up me and "win", rather than actually sort any of the facts from the fiction.
Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by mc_squared
For my course that examines climate change, I will be doing a report on so-called climate deniers. I'll be looking at the individuals/corporations behind such denial. I'll be looking at the scientists that have recently become deniers themselves.
I have to thank you for stimulating my interest in this subject.
Originally posted by melatonin
Never mind confirmation bias, the Dunning-Kruger effect tends to be strong in deniers. I also happen to 'dabble' in psychology now and then, lol.
Now I see that you must've realized how absurd it was since you've edited that part out since then.
Besides there's no point in responding to the rest since you obviously have no idea what you're talking about science wise. It's apparent you have trouble with semantics like "pound for pound", and you clearly still don't understand what the term "trapping" even means.
And now you're trying to invoke Kirchoff's Law to rationalize your hopeless lack of comprehension - all without realizing Kirchoff's Law is EXACTLY what I was talking about in the first place when I wrote that CO2 "acts like a tennis racket" (i.e a spring, i.e. as in absorption = emission), and that it is a good one because it is "bendier and stretchier" (i.e. lots of absorption and thus emission at different angles, therefore reflection of IR radiation back to surface/throughout the rest of the atmosphere, therefore in effect "trapping" the heat from escaping directly into space).
own before you edited your post you wrote some blurb about how you initially believed AGW "just like me", but then found the skeptic evidence to be "infinitely more robust".
The first problem with that is you were never initially like me because, I never initially believed anything. I simply let the science and the evidence (both sides) amass and determine where my 'beliefs' should stand (not the other way around like you). And those "infinitely more robust" skeptics huh? Need I remind you.
So I have no interest in continuing this pointless charade with you. You can cry all you want about how unfair the "denier" label is, but the fact remains that when you continue to DENY all of the above evidence, and then make ridiculously deluded claims about how "infinitely more robust" your sources are - all you do is reinforce your own pathetic stereotype.
"infinitely more robust” your sources are
Dunning-Kruger effect.
Originally posted by Chinesis
reply to post by mc_squared
It says much of your tacit agreement that you know only what
you were told to know when you've yet to refute my post...
...but more importantly IGNORE billyjack's...in its entirety.
...but more importantly IGNORE billyjack's...in its entirety.
* Carbon dioxide contributes to only 4.2 - 8.4% of the greenhouse gas effect
* Only approximately 4% of carbon dioxide is man-made
* Water vapor accounts for 90 - 95% of the green house gas effect
* 99.99% of water vapor is natural, meaning that no amount of deindustrialization could get rid of it
* There have been many times when the temperature has been higher than it is now including the Medieval Warming Period, the Holocene, the Jurassic, and the Eemian
* Increases in carbon dioxide follow increases in temperature by about 800 years, not precede them
* Phil Jones of the Hadley CRU, and key figure in the "climategate" scandal, admits that there has been no "statistically significant" global warming since 1995
* 2008 and 2009 were the coolest two years of the decade
* During the Ordovician period carbon dioxide concentrations were twelve times what they are now, and the temperature was lower
"Only" 4% of Solar activity amounts to 0.04 x 343 W/m^2 = 13.72 W/m^2.
Radiative forcing from a CO2 doubling is 3.7 W/m^2 and, as you yourself pointed out on another thread, this relationship is logarithmic. So say at 4000 ppm the radiative forcing is around 5.35 x ln(4000/280) = 14.22 W/m^2.
This hardly makes the 4% "irrelevant" now does it?
* Solar activity is highly correlated with temperature change:
* Studies show that half of all recent warming was solar
nothing would give TPTB more joy than to have you begging to become a slave.
But good luck with you climate argument because it is the distraction that is needed for us to fall into the carbon tax trap.
believe it or not, TPTB want people like you to argue and beg the goverment to introduce a carbon tax, nothing would give TPTB more joy than to have you begging to become a slave.
Hillary Clinton
never waste a good crisis
Originally posted by mc_squared
reply to post by filosophia
wheeee! more useless rhetoric. Thanks for contributing such a constructive well thought out reply.
Keep proving my point and being too dense to even realize it
Originally posted by C0bzz
The dirty energy companies have such influence in politics that they do not have to pay for the damage they cause to the environment and our health. You can see the blind followers of climate denial crock in this thread, constantly preaching their rhetoric about how evil all taxes on dirty energy are, despite the fact they're already paying for the damages through externalities. They are essentially, arguing for the massive effective subsidies of dirty energy to continue, while the average person has to pick up the tab in terms in terms of their health care bill and environmental remediation. We should tax polluters to internalize the cost that we're already paying or will be paying, otherwise you are merely playing to the interests of dirty energy.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
But good luck with you climate argument because it is the distraction that is needed for us to fall into the carbon tax trap.
In other words - "I believe the huge subsidies of dirty energy should continue because I love companies such as Halliburton, it's a trap forcing them to actually pay for the damage they cause, instead we should through my taxes".
believe it or not, TPTB want people like you to argue and beg the goverment to introduce a carbon tax, nothing would give TPTB more joy than to have you begging to become a slave.
It's obvious that you are already a slave because you are in effect arguing for the effective subsidies of dirty energy without even realizing it. There's been a number of studies on the effects of carbon trading systems, the overall effect to the economy is rather small. And if you're taxing something then you should have a corresponding decrease in taxes in other areas, although in these financial times I doubt this will happen.edit on 29/10/10 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)