Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

Status
Not open for further replies.
and once again r-j runn away instead of answering the posts directed to him. typicall denier behavior, dropp some lies and then run away for a few hours then come back to drop some more lies.
 
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...

I regret that is an off topic in this thread. The whole forums.randi.org is plenty of examples from a wide variety, but, strangely enough, analysing how epistemological hedonism works is not frequently a topic here. You may find some hints here or there. For instance, in page 14 of the first issue of Swift, published 17 years ago in this very site, you can find a brief description.
 
lomiller said:
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.
Click to expand...
I too consider myself a conservative. I too believe in the market's ability to solve AGW. The problem is that the real costs are not included in the market's pricing. Another problem is government interference to subsidize even those costs that are included so that they even have less effect on the markets.

This is a great example of government working directly against the public welfare by manipulating the market. It has to stop. The so called "far right" that you are speaking about are not conservative at all on this issue IMHO. They are actually counter productive. I actually take offence that you would propose them (or that they would call themselves) politically conservative. It couldn't be farther from the truth. Nothing more than self interest motivating these guys.

The conservative view is that government's role is to prevent powerful interests from manipulating the market to obtain unfair advantage. Helping those same powerful interests obtain unfair advantage is exactly the opposite of conservative.
I know this is a science forum and probably off topic, but I just couldn't let you associate these liberal market manipulators with conservatives. Wolves in sheep's clothing. They may have some people fooled, but they haven't fooled this life long conservative.:mad:
 
Last edited:
r-j said:
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...

Funny how your links "prove" there is a "Theory of Global warming" but you still insist no one will tell you what that "theory" is. :p

Regardless of your obvious disingenuousness a scientific theory specifically refers to the outcome of the outcome of the inductive logic intrinsic to science. Epistemology separates the outcome of inductive and deductive process because the former can never be proved but is nonetheless extremely valuable. CO2 as a greenhouse gas doesn't come from an inductive process it arises deductively from known predicates and therefor not a theory no matter what some 10 year old press release has called it.

Deductively obtained outcomes can be tested as such of course, but for tests to fail either the predicates or the inherent logic MUST be wrong and failure of such tests carry the burden of explaining what predicate or piece of logic is faulty.
 
DC said:
and once again r-j runn away instead of answering the posts directed to him. typicall denier behavior, dropp some lies and then run away for a few hours then come back to drop some more lies.
Click to expand...

Let some time go by. Soon enough we'll see the usual "dicebamus hesterna die..." from him ("yesterday, we were saying ..." attributed to Luis de León, when he took up again his position as teacher, after being five years incarcerated by the inquisition.
 
citizenzen said:
I doubt many people can claim to understand the math and physics detailed in that site.

But why does that matter?
Click to expand...
That nobody understands it? Not much at all really. But as to how CO2 warms, that is certainly an important matter. The theory and the predictions from it are certainly based on the physics of CO2. So if CO2 only warms by re-radiating the same photons, at the same IR frequency, it wouldn't warm the air at all. If it transfers energy by other means, then it could warm the molecules of the air, and cause warming of the atmosphere.

It's not a small question, nor it appears, easy to explain.
 
Red Baron Farms said:
I know this is a science forum and probably off topic, but I just couldn't let you associate these liberal market manipulators with conservatives. Wolves in sheep's clothing. They may have some people fooled, but they haven't fooled this life long conservative.:mad:
Click to expand...
Is there, or are there any political/social issues topics about this on the forum?
 
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...

can you quote the parts that you think show this ?

or is this just another of your lies?
 
r-j said:
Is there, or are there any political/social issues topics about this on the forum?
Click to expand...
I don't know. I stay far far away from that section because it tends to make me very angry. A man's got to know his limitations. One of mine is the ability to remain reserved when idiots start talking politics.:covereyes I have a hard enough time keeping my cool in this forum! :mad: I already have 2 warnings as it is!:o
 
Last edited:
Red Baron Farms said:
I too consider myself a conservative. I too believe in the market's ability to solve AGW. The problem is that the real costs are not included in the market's pricing.
Click to expand...

That’s the definition of the market failure known as an externality. It certainly isn’t universal that conservatives or even libertarians reject the existence of market failures but it’s no coincidence that most mainstream economics in the US are Democrats. Republicans and Libertarians are highly influence by non-mainstream “Austrian” economists who reject market failures like this outright.
 
aleCcowaN said:
I remind the public that the phenomenon of global warming denialism being associated with conservative tendencies is just a development of the anglosphere, mainly the States.
Click to expand...

I’d argue that a lot of it originated in Australia ;)

The US is the epicenter, it’s being felt pretty much across all the English speaking developed nations. I am fully aware that once you get outside the English speaking world it’s equally likely to be the far left as the far right.

Willingness to go outside mainstream science, economics etc is really a phenomenon of extreme politics so it’s equally likely to occur on the far left as the far right. The difference in the English speaking nations is that there is effectively no representation of this far left in political circles while the far right is heavily represented.
 
r-j said:
You and me both baby. You and me both.
Click to expand...

why are you scared to quote the parts you claim show that people here do not unerstand GHG's?

why are you so extremely scared to adress this question? will it expose you once mor eas a liar? why is it?

you made a claim, now you are too scared to back it up with evidence?
 
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 entirely
consistent with what you have been told. I repeat, you aren't even aware now much more they know than you do. What you understand so far is choose to zero on a scale of 1to 100.
 
r-j said:
That nobody understands it? Not much at all really. But as to how CO2 warms, that is certainly an important matter. The theory and the predictions from it are certainly based on the physics of CO2. So if CO2 only warms by re-radiating the same photons, at the same IR frequency, it wouldn't warm the air at all. If it transfers energy by other means, then it could warm the molecules of the air, and cause warming of the atmosphere.

It's not a small question, nor it appears, easy to explain.
Click to expand...
like a lot of science, perhaps the it's that it's difficult to understand. Everything ACowen has said is correct, but it assumes you have a certain level of understanding of thermodynamics which I don't believe you have.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom