Originally posted by mc_squared
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
...regurgitating a bunch of denier mush that you quite clearly don't fully understand, but are apparently more than willing to stand behind
A bunch of denier mush? I quoted dozens of reputable sources that have been cited by hundreds of other reputable scientists and journals, and you come
back with ONE paper that was refuted by ONE body of people who also advocate their own denier mush? Talk about hypocritical.... you didn't even read
my whole post.
All of your sources are from ONE place, skeptical science, a known AGW proponent. While they do respectable work, they have long been known for being
Where do I even start?
How about you don't?
First off your "signature thread" has already been posted on ATS. Here: Global Warming
Violates the Basic Laws of Physics. You want to see a position truly get "destroyed", then go ahead and read it.
I'm fully aware of the post, the paper and the refuted paper, I provided them all in the post. Not only that, but I also don't take one area of
science as the end-all-be-all of climate study, since physics is one very small aspect of it. My thread didn't address the single paper you mentioned
as already being posted, it addressed SEVERAL aspects of the discussion.
How come you didn't mention that the original paper I cited was peer reviewed and published, but the refuted paper you mention was not? That it only
cited 5 resources in it, and one of them was the ORIGINAL PAPER! And you accuse others of cherry-picking? Tisk tisk....
The whole idea is based on an embarassingly bad paper from someone who obviously has a piss-poor grasp of global warming and thermodynamics. First of
all - the "greenhouse effect" has nothing to do with the Earth acting like an actual greenhouse. This is just an analogy.
You need to go back and read my entire post. I've addressed this and your interpretation is inaccurate. Most discussions use the greenhouse analogy
incorrectly, and that was what my post was meant to discern. Instead of critical thinking, maybe you should try critical reading.
- I already left you a link before showing a first principles calculation on how the Greenhouse Effect makes the planet 33 degrees C warmer than it's
supposed to be. This is despite the fact that ALL greenhouse gases make up less than ~1% of the atmosphere.
This is not from any fake paper either - it is from a homework problem. You know how I know? Because I solved these exact problems while earning my
own degree in Physics.
You are a single physicist, and I am to believe your homework problem over dozens of experiments, professional research, journals, peer-reviewed
papers, and believe that because you solved a homework problem in a single area of study, that it stands above every other area of science involved?
Meanwhile the rest of your points are well-known denier memes that have been peddled across the internet, but they are throughly debunked by people
who actually take the time to look at the WHOLE story, instead of just the cherry-picked bits the contrarian shills want you to see:
CO2 is just a trace gas
Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
CO2 lags temperature
All from a single biased source.
How about some real papers or a diverse group of scientists? You take one or two papers and toss them out, but fail to acknowledge the hundreds more
that are out there?
But from reading your diatribe on CO2 it's apparent you don't really understand how heat trapping actually works, so why am I even bothering...
I have had enough of these pointless debates with you guys and it's such a waste of time.
Ditto. I don't understand how heat trapping really works? That's a bold statement considering you know nothing about me or what I know and are
basing your conclusion in something as simple as a post on a conspiracy website.
After reading your entire length of dribble, you presented one single source (skepticalscience), and dismissed two papers, one of which you used a
rebuttal that wasn't even published, and go on about how I'm cherry picking, don't know what I'm talking about, this is a waste of your time, etc.
Whether you want to believe this or not, I'd be willing to bet that several others, myself included, would find your responses to be pompous and
egotistical. There are more constructive ways to contribute to the discussion and help others understand. I suggest you try them.