Conservatives waking up to climate change

[PMZ]

The type of GWarming experimental demos that teachers are doing are COMPLETELY bogus.. They should be ashamed of themselves if they knew any better. You cannot recreate the GreenHouse in a Mason jar or a 20gal aquarium..

But what you're asking for is really puzzling.. Because you want to simplify the atmospheric insulation of the Earth in one "experiment"..

If you two guys want that experiment soooo badly --- you should at least tell us what it would look like and how you would design it...

What would you use to model the Earth's surface? What energy source would you use? How would you contain it without influencing incident radiation or heating effects??

You could avoid most of this dirty work by going and buying a book on Atmos. Physics.. Would be a better investment..

Odd that we can create a mini black hole in a lab, but a 200PPM change in atmospheric gas is beyond our capabilities

That's a good point chief..

It's easy to prove that CO2 will absorb and re-radiate thermal energy. Don't even NEED to do that part.. The experiment would have to be realistic enough to extrapolate MEASUREMENTS of the back radiation and cooling vents in the atmos.. to be of any use.

I'll give you a reason.. To figure out HOW MUCH the net thermal flow from the surface to the heavens is DECREASED by your 200ppm --- you'd have to model both the BBody output of the Earth and the heat sinking ability of space..

PERHAPS -- Lawrence Livermore could pull that off -- but NOT in a milk jug or aquarium..

The IPCC has pulled it off.

What can be proven in a milk jug or aquarium is the absorption behavior of GHGs.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The type of GWarming experimental demos that teachers are doing are COMPLETELY bogus.. They should be ashamed of themselves if they knew any better. You cannot recreate the GreenHouse in a Mason jar or a 20gal aquarium..

But what you're asking for is really puzzling.. Because you want to simplify the atmospheric insulation of the Earth in one "experiment"..

If you two guys want that experiment soooo badly --- you should at least tell us what it would look like and how you would design it...

What would you use to model the Earth's surface? What energy source would you use? How would you contain it without influencing incident radiation or heating effects??

You could avoid most of this dirty work by going and buying a book on Atmos. Physics.. Would be a better investment..

Odd that we can create a mini black hole in a lab, but a 200PPM change in atmospheric gas is beyond our capabilities

That's a good point chief..

It's easy to prove that CO2 will absorb and re-radiate thermal energy. Don't even NEED to do that part.. The experiment would have to be realistic enough to extrapolate MEASUREMENTS of the back radiation and cooling vents in the atmos.. to be of any use.

I'll give you a reason.. To figure out HOW MUCH the net thermal flow from the surface to the heavens is DECREASED by your 200ppm --- you'd have to model both the BBody output of the Earth and the heat sinking ability of space..

PERHAPS -- Lawrence Livermore could pull that off -- but NOT in a milk jug or aquarium..

We can measure sub-atomic particles, I'm fairly certain we can measure the net thermal decrease, however minuscule, at the top of the 200PPM fishtank. Besides, that's what the AGWCult should be doing

 

[PMZ]

The type of GWarming experimental demos that teachers are doing are COMPLETELY bogus.. They should be ashamed of themselves if they knew any better. You cannot recreate the GreenHouse in a Mason jar or a 20gal aquarium..

But what you're asking for is really puzzling.. Because you want to simplify the atmospheric insulation of the Earth in one "experiment"..

If you two guys want that experiment soooo badly --- you should at least tell us what it would look like and how you would design it...

What would you use to model the Earth's surface? What energy source would you use? How would you contain it without influencing incident radiation or heating effects??

You could avoid most of this dirty work by going and buying a book on Atmos. Physics.. Would be a better investment..

You're preaching to the choir on that one.. It's shameful..

I have seen many of them posted here, and all of them have been an embarassment..

An engineer I have worked with for prbably 10 years off and on, told me once, that if they could prove the effect works as claimed by AGW theory proponnents in an experiment, they would spare no expense to do so.. Hell every big name physicist would be paid and signed up, and just like the A bomb, they would get er done...

Yet no big funding for such a task exists, no university studies, no think-tanks on it, nothing... All that is funded or done is to assume the theory is sound and base everything on that assumption.. Want to get funding to show climate change can cause acne? Sure here's a check.. Want funding to prove the theory works? They say why bother? We know it's true already..

That's what originally turned me from a true beleiver in it, to a complete polar opposite... When you ask the most important question about the 5,000 lb elephant that isn't in the room, they say sure it is, just look at it...

The debate is over. Just accept what we tell you, and don't ask questions. Just do as you're told - hand over your wallet.

The debate on AGW is over and settled. The fact that there are those inadequately equipped to understand the science has no impact on the science at all. It's all up to those who know the applicable science.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Odd that we can create a mini black hole in a lab, but a 200PPM change in atmospheric gas is beyond our capabilities

That's a good point chief..

It's easy to prove that CO2 will absorb and re-radiate thermal energy. Don't even NEED to do that part.. The experiment would have to be realistic enough to extrapolate MEASUREMENTS of the back radiation and cooling vents in the atmos.. to be of any use.

I'll give you a reason.. To figure out HOW MUCH the net thermal flow from the surface to the heavens is DECREASED by your 200ppm --- you'd have to model both the BBody output of the Earth and the heat sinking ability of space..

PERHAPS -- Lawrence Livermore could pull that off -- but NOT in a milk jug or aquarium..

The IPCC has pulled it off.

What can be proven in a milk jug or aquarium is the absorption behavior of GHGs.

Fucking Liar

Post it

Show us where they got a temperature increase from 200ppm of CO2

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You're preaching to the choir on that one.. It's shameful..

I have seen many of them posted here, and all of them have been an embarassment..

An engineer I have worked with for prbably 10 years off and on, told me once, that if they could prove the effect works as claimed by AGW theory proponnents in an experiment, they would spare no expense to do so.. Hell every big name physicist would be paid and signed up, and just like the A bomb, they would get er done...

Yet no big funding for such a task exists, no university studies, no think-tanks on it, nothing... All that is funded or done is to assume the theory is sound and base everything on that assumption.. Want to get funding to show climate change can cause acne? Sure here's a check.. Want funding to prove the theory works? They say why bother? We know it's true already..

That's what originally turned me from a true beleiver in it, to a complete polar opposite... When you ask the most important question about the 5,000 lb elephant that isn't in the room, they say sure it is, just look at it...

The debate is over. Just accept what we tell you, and don't ask questions. Just do as you're told - hand over your wallet.

The debate on AGW is over and settled. The fact that there are those inadequately equipped to understand the science has no impact on the science at all. It's all up to those who know the applicable science.

They're still confirming Relativity, but you want us to believe that your "Science"is "Settled"

You really have no clue how science is done do you

 

[S.J.]

S.J -

You capitulated at the moment you decided to rely on shockjocks and politicans for your scientific information, rather than relying on scientists.

Don't think for a moment that your clinging to supersition does not cost you and your country an astronomical amount of money in lost jobs, lost export earnings and the eventual cost of having to pay for infrastructure other countries have already dealt with.

I rely on common sense and independent thinking, something you're not familiar with.

The nice thing about knowing science is that it allows independent thinking based on facts. Common sense is what people who don't have knowledge claim in order to excuse their lack of investment in education.

I may not be a scientist but I'm educated enough to not trust someone who has been caught lying to advance an agenda that they benefit from. If their knowledge was so sound, and provable, they would not need to hide any of their findings, would they? Or maybe you don't have enough common sense to understand that simple concept.

 

[PMZ]

Odd that we can create a mini black hole in a lab, but a 200PPM change in atmospheric gas is beyond our capabilities

Correction. Beyond your capabilities. Both black holes and AGW. That’s what we keep telling you.

Show me wrong. Tell us of any science that proves that GHGs don't absorb long wave radiation.

That's not how science works silly person. As Aristotle so aptly stated long before you were born "HE WHO ASSERTS MUST ALSO PROVE!"

Oh yeah, it's a fundamental axiom of science. Something you anti-science deniers avoid like the plague.

What do you assert and what is the proof that you offer?

 

[PMZ]

Odd that we can create a mini black hole in a lab, but a 200PPM change in atmospheric gas is beyond our capabilities

That's a good point chief..

It's easy to prove that CO2 will absorb and re-radiate thermal energy. Don't even NEED to do that part.. The experiment would have to be realistic enough to extrapolate MEASUREMENTS of the back radiation and cooling vents in the atmos.. to be of any use.

I'll give you a reason.. To figure out HOW MUCH the net thermal flow from the surface to the heavens is DECREASED by your 200ppm --- you'd have to model both the BBody output of the Earth and the heat sinking ability of space..

PERHAPS -- Lawrence Livermore could pull that off -- but NOT in a milk jug or aquarium..

We can measure sub-atomic particles, I'm fairly certain we can measure the net thermal decrease, however minuscule, at the top of the 200PPM fishtank. Besides, that's what the AGWCult should be doing

All been done. How do you thinks that earth's energy budget has been computed?

 

[PMZ]

I rely on common sense and independent thinking, something you're not familiar with.

The nice thing about knowing science is that it allows independent thinking based on facts. Common sense is what people who don't have knowledge claim in order to excuse their lack of investment in education.

I may not be a scientist but I'm educated enough to not trust someone who has been caught lying to advance an agenda that they benefit from. If their knowledge was so sound, and provable, they would not need to hide any of their findings, would they? Or maybe you don't have enough common sense to understand that simple concept.

If you were a scientist you could evaluate the science rather than assume the bogieman.

 

[S.J.]

The debate on AGW is over and settled. The fact that there are those inadequately equipped to understand the science has no impact on the science at all. It's all up to those who know the applicable science.

Ah, the ol' "You're just not smart enough to understand" argument. Reminds me of the evolution debate when you ask them a question they can't answer.

 

[S.J.]

The nice thing about knowing science is that it allows independent thinking based on facts. Common sense is what people who don't have knowledge claim in order to excuse their lack of investment in education.

I may not be a scientist but I'm educated enough to not trust someone who has been caught lying to advance an agenda that they benefit from. If their knowledge was so sound, and provable, they would not need to hide any of their findings, would they? Or maybe you don't have enough common sense to understand that simple concept.

If you were a scientist you could evaluate the science rather than assume the bogieman.

And if you had any common sense you would know when you're being played.

 

[PMZ]

The debate is over. Just accept what we tell you, and don't ask questions. Just do as you're told - hand over your wallet.

The debate on AGW is over and settled. The fact that there are those inadequately equipped to understand the science has no impact on the science at all. It's all up to those who know the applicable science.

They're still confirming Relativity, but you want us to believe that your "Science"is "Settled"

You really have no clue how science is done do you

Not only how it is done but how it has been done and what the conclusions are relative to AGW. The nice thing about knowledge is that it frees you from the bogieman. In the absence of knowledge things like thunder is God bowling are easy to sell.

 

[PMZ]

I may not be a scientist but I'm educated enough to not trust someone who has been caught lying to advance an agenda that they benefit from. If their knowledge was so sound, and provable, they would not need to hide any of their findings, would they? Or maybe you don't have enough common sense to understand that simple concept.

If you were a scientist you could evaluate the science rather than assume the bogieman.

And if you had any common sense you would know when you're being played.

And if you had any science education you would know when you're being played for profit.

 

[PMZ]

That's a good point chief..

It's easy to prove that CO2 will absorb and re-radiate thermal energy. Don't even NEED to do that part.. The experiment would have to be realistic enough to extrapolate MEASUREMENTS of the back radiation and cooling vents in the atmos.. to be of any use.

I'll give you a reason.. To figure out HOW MUCH the net thermal flow from the surface to the heavens is DECREASED by your 200ppm --- you'd have to model both the BBody output of the Earth and the heat sinking ability of space..

PERHAPS -- Lawrence Livermore could pull that off -- but NOT in a milk jug or aquarium..

The IPCC has pulled it off.

What can be proven in a milk jug or aquarium is the absorption behavior of GHGs.

Fucking Liar

Post it

Show us where they got a temperature increase from 200ppm of CO2

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

 

[S.J.]

If you were a scientist you could evaluate the science rather than assume the bogieman.

And if you had any common sense you would know when you're being played.

And if you had any science education you would know when you're being played for profit.

Profits, you mean as in Al Gore?

 

[PMZ]

The debate on AGW is over and settled. The fact that there are those inadequately equipped to understand the science has no impact on the science at all. It's all up to those who know the applicable science.

Ah, the ol' "You're just not smart enough to understand" argument. Reminds me of the evolution debate when you ask them a question they can't answer.

People, in the absence of knowledge, can only guess at answers.

 

[PMZ]

And if you had any common sense you would know when you're being played.

And if you had any science education you would know when you're being played for profit.

Profits, you mean as in Al Gore?

No, I means profits as in Rush, Rupert, Grover Norquist, big oil, the national republican party, the Koch bros.

 

[PMZ]

And if you had any common sense you would know when you're being played.

And if you had any science education you would know when you're being played for profit.

Profits, you mean as in Al Gore?

Look at that giant hunk of Detroit iron that you use for an avatar. Do you realize the profit that big oil has made, and taxpayers have paid, once they convinced you that that's what makes you a man?

 

[kwc57]

Mud-

The topic of this thread is how conservative governments are preparing for climate change.

The topic of this thread is not the endless theatre of faux-denial.

We can also prepare for an alien invasion.......but that would be a waste of time, energy and money as well.

 

[kwc57]

and if you had any science education you would know when you're being played for profit.

profits, you mean as in al gore?

no, i means profits as in rush, rupert, grover norquist, big oil, the national republican party, the koch bros.