Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Not the only climate change chart you need to see...
- Thread starter Oafman
- Start date
I never said that man doesn't contribute to the release of CO2 into the atmosphere. I said that the increase in CO2 is minuscule and that it is such a small portion that it could and will never cause global increases of temperature that could be considered detrimental to the climate.
I am saying that all this panic is perpetuated in order to line the pockets of very wealth and powerful people.
Upvote
0
WOW another member of the "can't find anything to complain about other than the syntax of the post...
You get a gold star.
You could be a very busy person here.....but.... have at 'er.
Upvote
0
It's a common pet peeve of mine. I point it out when I see.WOW another member of the "can't find anything to complain about other than the syntax of the post...
You get a gold star.
You could be a very busy person here.....but.... have at 'er.
As for not complaining about other things you've said, as near as I can tell, it's mostly just been you arguing from your incredulity. You say this can't do this or that, but I haven't seen you provide any evidence - it's just your opinion based on...nothing.
I don't find that worth the time to respond to, and others have been doing a better job than I could, anyway.
Upvote
0
Willtor
Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
- Apr 23, 2005
- 9,713
- 1,429
- 44
- Faith
- Presbyterian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
On the other hand, somebody with alphabet soup after his name likely knows something about the field to which that alphabet soup applies... and probably knows more about it than somebody without it. When somebody dedicates his or her life to studying a topic alongside other people studying that topic, often it means that the trivial refutations of the model they devise are faulty refutations -- or they would have thought about it long ago. If there is a real refutation of their model (something that really undermines it) it is probably very detailed, indeed, and it is unlikely to be accessible to someone who is not in the field.
Upvote
0
The difference is some of us understand chemistry and earth science. Others just spout whatever denialist blog they like best.
I am willing to bet I understand the details of the science better than someone who has no training or experience in science. I haven't seen you express any real understanding of the technical details of this topic.
I understand, not everyone can make it through a PhD in geology and two chemistry postdocs. It's hard work.
Well, as a chemist who has used chemistry for about 20+ years now professionally if CO2 didn't absorb IR radiation I would be very surprised. Because, you see, for many, many years I watched it happen EVERY SINGLE DAY. I ran something called an FTIR (Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrometer). EVery day I would have to run a "background scan" which showed me a nice peak for CO2 absorption of IR radiation!
Wow! IT's like SCIENCE REALLY WORKS!
I also had the great pleasure of spending a year measuring various gases as they exchanged with ocean water so I've been exposed to atmospheric mixing as well!
In fact if the science was wrong...it probably wouldn't work as well as it does in general!
VERY, very few. It is irrational for someone like you who has almost no science background to side with the 3% who disagree with the science. If you knew enough of the science to formulate a rational response disproving the hypothesis you'd be ahead, but still not very far.
No, it just shows laziness. Sorry if you are offended when someone points out your laziness. Again, I understand. Hard work is hard work and not everyone is up to the task. Some people are lazy and want to take the easy route. Like finding a denialist blogger to spoon feed them bad science.
Upvote
0
How did you determine that?
Who was lining the pocket of Svante Arrhenius when we discovered the role of carbon dioxide in global warming clear back in 1898?
Upvote
0
The same way he determined that "affect" = "effect". Pure "feelings".
"Big Thermo"....the folks who were writing the controversial Laws of Thermodynamics. They knew that Arrhenius was a KINETICS guy so they could pull a fast one on 'im. (Get it??? LOLOLOLOL.... ahem...sorry.)
Upvote
0
Just look at all the money they have spent rigging spectrophotometers so that they show false absorption lines when they sense CO2 is near. Big Thermo knows how to use propaganda to fool our youth into accepting that evil theory of Entropy. Homogenization is all they believe in.
Upvote
0
Well then, what do you do with the guy with alphabet soup after his name that thinks that "climate change" panic due to CO2 is incorrect?
Upvote
0
That is a good question. They are very hard to find considering that among the thousands upon thousands of the earth's climate scientists there's only a small number (about 3%).
I'm guessing you have minimal if any scientific training, so I'm curious why you of all people would prefer the word of a tiny, tiny minority over a larger majority...considering that you don't have the tools necessary to judge the quality of the arguments.
If you had a sick child and 9 doctors said you had to have surgery for that child or they would die within a month and 1 doctor said that wasn't correct...would you NOT get the surgery?
The way YOU can answer this question will not make you look good, either way. EIther you will say "No, I will go with the 9 doctors" making a mockery of your current position, or you will say "Yes I will go with the 1 doctor" at which point everyone will assume you are simply mad or not answering truthfully.
How do you answer?
Upvote
0
Heatios
Active Member
Here's what i've come up with;
About 90% of the population believe Climate Change is real. About 3% of the population believe Climate Change is real, but will valiantly profess that it's false for external gain. And the other 7% are the people who bought the propaganda of the 3%.
By the way, for those who choose to side with the 4% of scientists who deny climate change, just know that most of them are paid to do so;
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...e-exposes-sceptics-cast-doubt-climate-science
About 90% of the population believe Climate Change is real. About 3% of the population believe Climate Change is real, but will valiantly profess that it's false for external gain. And the other 7% are the people who bought the propaganda of the 3%.
By the way, for those who choose to side with the 4% of scientists who deny climate change, just know that most of them are paid to do so;
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...e-exposes-sceptics-cast-doubt-climate-science
Upvote
0
Well, that can't be right. People who deny climate change are paraiahs, living on remote islands, fearing for their lives because they valiantly told the truth. Supporters are given fat checks for eleventy billion dollars a year.
It's true. Read it. Somewhere.
Upvote
0
Heatios
Active Member
I see littered on this thread from the people who deny Climate Change that supporters presumably make just sheer boat-loads of cash. Ignoring whether or not this claim has any merit, explain to me why making a large sum of money for supporting Climate Change would in any way deteriorate the validity of the claim itself.
Upvote
0
![[serious]](/data/avatars/m/160/160873.jpg?1431539545){kind=avatar}
Because a worldwide conspiracy involving every major relevant scientific body and every major government going back a century falsifying measurements for no clear reason seems a bit less plausible than a known greenhouse gas acting as a green house gas when we put a known quantity of it in the air.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
