Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

Status
Not open for further replies.
a_unique_person said:
Despite the morons like Anthony Watts having the most popular science blog awards, the standard text books all teach the same knowledge the IPCC is. It's standard university training around the globe.
Click to expand...
When someone as old as Watts values himself by a blog award, one which he at least tried to orchestrate in plain sight, it suggests they are unhealthily invested in their own image. The fact that Watts's blog and Monckton's face are so prominent in the denier world shows how poverty-stricken they've always been for content and talent.
 
CapelDodger said:
When someone as old as Watts values himself by a blog award, one which he at least tried to orchestrate in plain sight, it suggests they are unhealthily invested in their own image. The fact that Watts's blog and Monckton's face are so prominent in the denier world shows how poverty-stricken they've always been for content and talent.
Click to expand...

The problem is that while the popularity is not indicator of the quality of the science, it does indicate influence at the ballot box. Australia has just elected a government on a policy of global warming denial. They are doing their best to tear down all the work done to create a carbon trading scheme.
 
a_unique_person said:
The problem is that while the popularity is not indicator of the quality of the science, it does indicate influence at the ballot box. Australia has just elected a government on a policy of global warming denial. They are doing their best to tear down all the work done to create a carbon trading scheme.
Click to expand...
That's about Australia's dysfuntional and tacked-together political system, not AGW denial. It's an extra problem for Australians quite apart from AGW.

My sense is that the Abbott government will be more of a squirrel than a badger, but time will tell. It's looked like a slow train-wreck so far.
 
macdoc said:
I suspect that's pretty loaded bit of nonsense and I'd question it's a science blog. Pretty easy to manipulate page views and would not surprise me in the least given the fossil fuel funding...
Click to expand...


Fully agreed, however, according to wiki:
WUWT won the Bloggies in 2011, 2012 and 2013 for best science blog, and in 2013 for best weblog overall.[5][6][7] It was recognized by The Times as one of the top 30 science blogs of 2009. It was voted the "Best Science Blog" in the 2008 Weblog Awards.
Click to expand...

Of course, these are determined via internet polls with very lax standards regarding voting protocols, and should be viewed, at best, as popularity awards rather than as any type of independent content evaluation award.
 
a_unique_person said:
The problem is that while the popularity is not indicator of the quality of the science, it does indicate influence at the ballot box. Australia has just elected a government on a policy of global warming denial. They are doing their best to tear down all the work done to create a carbon trading scheme.
Click to expand...

And this is the issue, the reason for the popularity is due to the political nature of Watt's blog not due to the pseudoscience content. It is the "science" that is the out of place term in a political blog. It isn't that Watt's blog influences politics, it is the political nature of the blog that makes it popular with a very narrow segment of the general population.
 
Trakar said:
And this is the issue, the reason for the popularity is due to the political nature of Watt's blog not due to the pseudoscience content. It is the "science" that is the out of place term in a political blog. It isn't that Watt's blog influences politics, it is the political nature of the blog that makes it popular with a very narrow segment of the general population.
Click to expand...

When I read the denialist rants of the local politicians and business leaders who are influencing and making policy in Australia, everything they say is straight from the memes that fly around the denialist blogs. There is not an original thought provided, apart from the odd piece of 'common sense'.
 
a_unique_person said:
When I read the denialist rants of the local politicians and business leaders who are influencing and making policy in Australia, everything they say is straight from the memes that fly around the denialist blogs. There is not an original thought provided, apart from the odd piece of 'common sense'.
Click to expand...

What's the saying, ah yes; "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."

Problem is, too large a segment of the population just gets a kick out of watching pig wrasslin!
 
Trakar said:
What's the saying, ah yes; "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."
Click to expand...
Like so many things heard here, it's a lie. Pigs do not like to be grabbed, much less wrestled, in any way. Why would somebody make up something so untrue? Oh yes, because they actually know nothing at all about pigs.

Trakar said:
Problem is, too large a segment of the population just gets a kick out of watching pig wrasslin!
Click to expand...
And you compound your wrong, by now saying something else that is just patent nonsense. Unless you are talking about something else, and "pig" is just an euphemism.
 
aleCcowaN said:
It is as *****introductory***** climate science as a math class about matrices or an English class discussing conditional sentences.

In fact you didn't even have or need a climate in what you were saying. You had the input of a black box and nothing else. That qualifies as "climate science" as much as telling that you're speaking of audio electronics because you describe the need to plug a boombox to 110V.

But think that you had the opportunity of linking a pair of your most stuffed with science posts and yet you decided to link those. Maybe you don't realize but that leaves the suspicion that your hundreds of posts on this matter were devoid of scientific content or exceedingly wanting in dealing with it. You may correct this perception by selecting other posts that really deal with climate science.
Click to expand...
There's little point to a discussion of differences unless we get agreement on basic terms. That's where the discussion begins. I suggest also that relentless ad hominem degrades the prospect for progress in the argument.
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
There's little point to a discussion of differences unless we get agreement on basic terms. That's where the discussion begins. I suggest also that relentless ad hominem degrades the prospect for progress in the argument.
Click to expand...

The basic terms are already well understood by everyone except you. The onus is on you to understand what these basic terms mean and to use them appropriately. Instead of complain that you are somehow the subject of “personal attacks” when you are told you are ignorant of the basics you should read listen and learn to use the terms appropriately.

As an aside, your passive aggressive tone and direct attacks comprise nearly all the recent ad-hominem attacks in this thread. You seem to have habit of taking offence to being told your posts are factually wrong and throw around accusations of “personal attacks” instead of learning what you have wrong and why it’s wrong.
 
Ok, I'll bite. Do you agree that CO2 is a 'greenhouse gas' in that it absorbs and then, after a delay, re-emits IR photons?
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
There's little point to a discussion of differences unless we get agreement on basic terms. That's where the discussion begins. I suggest also that relentless ad hominem degrades the prospect for progress in the argument.
Click to expand...

You think we have to agree in basic terms? Oh, my! Basic terms are there. Either you know them or not. There's not such thing as we "agreeing" on them. This is not a convention. And knowing basic terms surpass the barrier of language, as I don't need to know English to know "basic physics". For that purpose, I need to know Physics, what I do. You have consistently failed to show you do, and all this business of "agreeing" looks like an attempt of yours to catch up.

You have avoided to answer if CO2 traps IR. It's reasonable to think you haven't because you don't know the answer. And if you don't know the answer, what the heck are you discussing global warming here?

By the way, your use of <Íñigo Montoya>ad hominem</Íñigo Montoya> is mistaken, you need to revise its concept first.
 
wants to discuss the basics but runs away from the very simple question if CO2 absorbs and reradiates IR radiation.....

heck even schoollkids learn that in simple experiments....
 
lomiller said:
The basic terms are already well understood by everyone except you.
Click to expand...
Lies. The basic theory and predictions of the theory of global warming aren't even understood here, much less the physics of why they are as they are.

DC said:
wants to discuss the basics but runs away from the very simple question if CO2 absorbs and reradiates IR radiation.....
Click to expand...

In the pursuit of education, please describe the physics of how CO2 in the atmosphere warms the surface of the earth. And the lower troposphere.
 
r-j said:
Lies. The basic theory and predictions of the theory of global warming aren't even understood here, much less the physics of why they are as they are.



In the pursuit of education, please describe the physics of how CO2 in the atmosphere warms the surface of the earth. And the lower troposphere.
Click to expand...

by reuducing the planets ability to radiate off its energy it received from the sun.
the co2 and other GHGs absorb and reradiate the IR radiation given of by the planet. so energy that would leave the planet into space in form of IR radiation is not leaving the system and remains here warming up the planet.

the Co2 molecule does this because it start vibrating when exposed to IR radiation.

and AGw is very well understood here. its only the deniers that have problems even understanding the very basics.

here a bit more details on this vibration.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xITzGUjongU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMLnUmbLwUI
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom