Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

Status
Not open for further replies.
aleCcowaN said:
From this post of yours I deduce you think that r-j is trying to understand the greenhouse effect, is debating the greenhouse effect or fails to wrap his mind around the greenhouse effect. Is that correct?
Click to expand...


r-j was asking about the specific "mechanism" involved in causing Global Warming. The site I found appears to get down to that level, detailing the math and physics at work when cosmic rays interact with greenhouse molecules.

Since r-j hasn't posted since that point, perhaps I was helpful in pointing him toward the source that finally laid to rest his doubts.

Perhaps now we can move on to the next questions and debates that Global Warming will present, instead of arguing over whether it is real or not.
 
Last edited:
r-j said:
Yes, that is very good, thank you very much. It explains most everything, and confirms what I suspected, that nobody here actually understands the physics of greenhouse gases.
Click to expand...


I doubt many people can claim to understand the math and physics detailed in that site.

But why does that matter?

Are you ready to accept that Global Warming is a real phenomenon?

Can we move past that point of the debate?
 
r-j said:
Yes, that is very good, thank you very much. It explains most everything, and confirms what I suspected, that nobody here actually understands the physics of greenhouse gases.
Click to expand...

actually the source confirms what several People , including me, explained to you.

but hey, just Quote the parts where the source contradicts what we explained here.

lets see what you got.
 
citizenzen said:
r-j was asking about the specific "mechanism" involved in causing Global Warming. The site I found appears to get down to that level, detailing the math and physics at work when cosmic rays interact with greenhouse molecules.

Since r-j hasn't posted since that point, perhaps I was helpful in pointing him toward the source that finally laid to rest his doubts.

Perhaps now we can move on to the next questions and debates that Global Warming will present, instead of arguing over whether it is real or not.
Click to expand...

He has been told and plenty of resources suggested to him from long time ago. Those sources have ranged from kid-like to similar to the one you suggested. But you know, he who understands the one who wants to understand. And most of all, he who flies the one who has wings.

You only give him a circumstantial excuse to repeat what he wants to say once and again:

r-j said:
Yes, that is very good, thank you very much. It explains most everything, and confirms what I suspected, that nobody here actually understands the physics of greenhouse gases.
Click to expand...

It's the I-am-an-idiot-but-everyone-else-is-an-idiot approach that requires some personal qualities, with not being able to conclude what is sound physics and what is not as one among those qualities, but not as the most important.

He doesn't perceive that there's an obvious contradiction between not knowing the basics of a topic and understanding a more complex source of knowledge in a way he can establish who is knowledgeable and who is not.

You might think you got him with your

citizenzen said:
Are you ready to accept that Global Warming is a real phenomenon?

Can we move past that point of the debate?
Click to expand...

but you would be dead wrong.

You have to know he is replied in a certain way for good reasons. There are several denialists posting in this thread at any given time with different styles to a general effect of generate confusion. So, for instance, when r-j plays fool around the greenhouse effect, he gets replies that are partly based in his words -mostly telling why is he wrong- and bits of a general explanation addressed to the common public who may have come upon this thread -mostly telling everyone how it works, including the bona fide version of r-j's-. Macdoc's last post is a good example of that.

This thread doesn't discuss if there's some AGW going on. That's long time ago firmly stated. This thread is to exercise and promote sceptical thinking and it's topic is receiving posters who make assertions firmly based on their epistemological hedonism and deal with them analysing what they say and how they arrive to what they say. That is not done for them to change their minds but to avoid lurkers from following their paths. That's why they get attention when they apparently shouldn't. And from that attention some of them get they are saying important things or they take that attention as a confirmation of how right they are. As said, epistemological hedonism, something that doesn't start nor end in climate change.
 
as usual, r-j merely dropped in a lie and disapeared again..... what a joke
 
aleCcowaN said:
...

You might think you got him ... but you would be dead wrong.

...
Click to expand...


I really don't harbor any illusions about "getting" him or moving him off his position. And I'm sure that other members here have presented far more evidence, far more convincingly than I have.

IMO it's interesting to try to understand what is preventing people like j-r from accepting the scientific evidence and to hold out as deniers. We know that in the case of evolution, it's one's faith that prevents them from acceptance. But religious faith shouldn't come into play with Global Warming.

The only other force that comes close to religious faith is political affiliation. But even then, it's unclear to me why those on "the right" would see it as an opportunity to deny somethings existence as opposed to fighting over the best solution. There's plenty of room for debate in that realm.

So that would be my next question for r-j ... what is behind your reluctance to accept the reality of Global Warming?

Is he afraid we'll suddenly shut off the spigot to fossil fuels? That isn't going to happen—at least in any dramatic fashion. Modern society is committed to a lifestyle that requires energy and there is no way to meet those needs without them.

Has he invested too much of his personal integrity arguing for the side of denial to give in and admit otherwise? I suspect this is more the case. Besides religion and politics, personal pride is a likely factor behind such a hardened stance.

I would like to reach out to j-r and say that it's okay to accept the reality of Global Warming and to urge the other members here to be kind and understanding if and when his change of heart occurs.
 
Last edited:
DC said:
maybe not in r-j's case, but it does for others. and they are in important positions.
Click to expand...


Oy.

I don't know r-j. Is he religious?

From the little that I've seen, I say there must be something else motivating him.
 
citizenzen said:
Oy.

I don't know r-j. Is he religious?

From the little that I've seen, I say there must be something else motivating him.
Click to expand...

i dunno , i especially said maybe not for r.j.. because i do not want to imply that this is his motivation, i doubt it.

i dont spend much time specualting about deniers motivation. i spend my time debunking their lies and myths.
 
citizenzen said:
r-j was asking about the specific "mechanism" involved in causing Global Warming. The site I found appears to get down to that level, detailing the math and physics at work when cosmic rays interact with greenhouse molecules.

Since r-j hasn't posted since that point, perhaps I was helpful in pointing him toward the source that finally laid to rest his doubts.
Click to expand...

If you look at what he’s “arguing” he’s suggesting that we assume energy vanishes because no one will provide him a detailed lecture of how temperature works at a quantum scale. Quantum scale temperature and interactions are hardly “the basics” but neither are they so complicated that no one can possibly understand them.

Regardless of what’s going on at the quantum scale, however, energy cannot just vanish but that’s what he wants to assume happens for no other reason than the fact he doesn’t understand what’s going on at a quantum scale and how macro phenomenon like temperature emerge from this.


citizenzen said:
Perhaps now we can move on to the next questions and debates that Global Warming will present, instead of arguing over whether it is real or not.
Click to expand...

Very unlikely. He wants to not understand because he thinks his inability to understand is valid reason to dismiss the whole phenomenon.
 
citizenzen said:
r-j was asking about the specific "mechanism" involved in causing Global Warming. The site I found appears to get down to that level, detailing the math and physics at work when cosmic rays interact with greenhouse molecules.
Click to expand...

It also leads to all kinds of related issues, which are quite revealing.
 
r-j said:
It also leads to all kinds of related issues, which are quite revealing.
Click to expand...

hey you forgot to adress my last 2 posts to you.

the one where is asked you why you left away part of my post when quoting it?

and then i asked you to quote any part of the source you like so much and point out who and how of the posters here contradicted it.

youu claim the source shows that people here do not understand GHG's.
yet you have not shown anything of the sort.

pls do now. or will you dishonestly ignore the posts that expose you as the liar you are?
 
citizenzen said:
So that would be my next question for r-j ... what is behind your reluctance to accept the reality of Global Warming?
Click to expand...
That's a fallacy. You made up something about what you think, then asked a question about it, as if it were true.

The points I have brought up in the topic are quite clear, and based on scientific and evidence.

When you say "accept the reality of Global Warming", it is now on you to define what you mean by Global Warming. I've brought up this issue several times, especially in regard to the theory and predictions made from the theory.

There is a great reluctance to use that as an opportunity to educate about how we know the changes are from an increase in greenhouse gases. In fact, some of the responses were completely absurd.
Reality Check said:
There is no such thing as the "Theory of Global Warming" as you have actually found out!
Click to expand...
CapelDodger said:
It appears because people like you trot it out. It doesn't appear in the scientific literature.
Click to expand...
Pixel42 said:
There is no such thing as a Theory of Global Warming, the expectation that there would be indicates a profound misunderstanding of the nature of climate science.
Click to expand...
All of which is lies of course.
Global Warming – Theory which states that an increase in carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere results in an additive effect on average global temperatures.
Click to expand...
http://sites.wff.nasa.gov/code250/docs/PFRR_EIS/FINAL - Volume I Individual Files/Ch 8 Glossary.pdf
The link between increased atmospheric greenhouse gas and global temperatures underlies the theory of global warming, explained the authors.
Click to expand...
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=28449
aug 20
Global Warming Theory Affirmed
Click to expand...
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=21241

So if you want to discuss a scientific issue, it's certainly prudent to be able to define and explain what you are talking about, asking about, or moaning and wringing your hands over.
 
r-j said:
That's a fallacy. You made up something about what you think, then asked a question about it, as if it were true.

The points I have brought up in the topic are quite clear, and based on scientific and evidence.

When you say "accept the reality of Global Warming", it is now on you to define what you mean by Global Warming. I've brought up this issue several times, especially in regard to the theory and predictions made from the theory.

There is a great reluctance to use that as an opportunity to educate about how we know the changes are from an increase in greenhouse gases. In fact, some of the responses were completely absurd.
All of which is lies of course.

http://sites.wff.nasa.gov/code250/docs/PFRR_EIS/FINAL - Volume I Individual Files/Ch 8 Glossary.pdf

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=28449
aug 20

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=21241

So if you want to discuss a scientific issue, it's certainly prudent to be able to define and explain what you are talking about, asking about, or moaning and wringing your hands over.
Click to expand...

why did you leave away parts of my post when you quoted me?

wich part of this source http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7.html
shows that people here do not understand GHG's?
can you quote the parts pls?
 
r-j said:
That's a fallacy. You made up something about what you think, then asked a question about it, as if it were true.

The points I have brought up in the topic are quite clear, and based on scientific and evidence.

When you say "accept the reality of Global Warming", it is now on you to define what you mean by Global Warming. I've brought up this issue several times, especially in regard to the theory and predictions made from the theory.

There is a great reluctance to use that as an opportunity to educate about how we know the changes are from an increase in greenhouse gases. In fact, some of the responses were completely absurd.
All of which is lies of course.

http://sites.wff.nasa.gov/code250/docs/PFRR_EIS/FINAL - Volume I Individual Files/Ch 8 Glossary.pdf

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=28449
aug 20

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=21241

So if you want to discuss a scientific issue, it's certainly prudent to be able to define and explain what you are talking about, asking about, or moaning and wringing your hands over.
Click to expand...

several people have repeatedly explained to you in great detail what is meant by AGW. why do you keep spreading lies about this?
 
citizenzen said:
IMO it's interesting to try to understand what is preventing people like j-r from accepting the scientific evidence and to hold out as deniers. We know that in the case of evolution, it's one's faith that prevents them from acceptance. But religious faith shouldn't come into play with Global Warming.
Click to expand...

He’s primarily politically motivated.

While it frequently intersects with religious issues like the denial of evolution, the denial of climate change typically comes more from the libertarian contingent of the far right. It arises from the dogma that market failures either can’t exist or can’t be create problems. Climate change creates something of a cognitive dissidence for people who believe markets are infallible because it’s a tangible example of a market failure that has huge consequence and requires government action to deal with.

Rather than modify their position on the infallibility of markets it becomes easier to deny the science that is challenging their belief. It’s not really all that different than denial of evolution based on religious belief especially if you interpret the faith in market infallibility as a form of religious belief.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom