Well meaning idiots

[ace00]

DOn't worry your little brain over it. You don't have the capacity.

HTH.

Deja-Vu

Did you or your legion of sockpuppets ever make 1 scientific point regarding AGW?

[dang65]

I think they're wrong. It's also a self-contradicting statement.

No it isn't.

If you wanted to measure the average temperature in a room and your thermometer was right next to a kettle, you might adjust the measurement to take the occasional boiling of the kettle into account.

Quite separately, you might establish that the occasionally boiling kettle has no effect on the overall temperature of the room.

Quite different things.

[sasguru]

Deja-Vu

Did you or your legion of sockpuppets ever make 1 scientific point regarding AGW?

Like I said, when you understand how science works, then I can come back and debate with you. Your posts on this thread show that you do not.
Opinions that are the result of random neural firings in your brain are worthless - that's why the scientific method was invented/discovered.

HTH

[ace00]

Like I said, when you understand how science works, then I can come back and debate with you. Your posts on this thread show that you do not.
Opinions that are the result of random neural firings in your brain are worthless - that's why the scientific method was invented/discovered.

HTH

You're an idiot.

I have not seen you provide 1 piece of evidence for any of your specious misguided opinions on any subject whatsoever.

[EternalOptimist]

WHS, and there's also the precautionary principle.

If you demand watertight evidence or confirmation for some drastic outcome, then by the time you get it the outcome may be upon you and too late to do anything about!

Yes the precautionary principal is sound, but there has to be a judgement on the cost vs the risk.
It seems to me with AGW, the cost is way too high and the risk is way too uncertain

[EternalOptimist]

Like I said, when you understand how science works, then I can come back and debate with you. Your posts on this thread show that you do not.
Opinions that are the result of random neural firings in your brain are worthless - that's why the scientific method was invented/discovered.

HTH

you are an undoubted genius, yet sometimes you gibber like a retard.

do you have a mouse called Algernon ?

[Doggy Styles]

Yes, taxing cars is more important to people than having clean water, shelter and food on the table with schools and hospitals.

No, I agree with P. Charles. He is talking about global poverty.

It might be ruthless of me, but is it wise to prioritise feeding the world and exacerbate the problems of overcrowding and using up scarce resources?

If each country cannot look after its own population then it has too many people, and nature takes its course. Otherwise we are just hastening everyone's demise.

[sasguru]

You're an idiot.

Idiot is as idiot says.

I repeat your quote here:

3. Peer review is not in any way equal to scientific method. Never has been, isn't now.

.

The intelligent and knowledgeable of the congregation can make up their own minds.

[EternalOptimist]

Idiot is as idiot says.

I repeat your quote here:



The intelligent and knowledgeable of the congregation can make up their own minds.

I am coming to the conclusion that some people here are only comfortable when they have answers for everything. They must 'know' and they cant stand the thought of uncertainty or not knowing

[OwlHoot]

OK - almost a scientific response.

Question 4: If +ve feedback occurs in the atmosphere (through water vapor or out-gassing of methane) - why hasn't the atmosphere boiled off or frozen solid in the last 4 billion years ?

Why would the atmosphere freeze solid, when it's being heated by the Sun?

But in the past almost all the water on the Earth *has* frozen solid. You probably know that continents move around over millions of years, and when they're arranged primarily "north-south", i.e. with unbroken land masses from pole to pole, ice sheets can grow in a positive feedback loop - The more the ice, the more the Sun's radiation is reflected off it, making everything colder, so the ice sheets grow until they meet at the equator and the whole Earth ends up frozen as solid as a brick (apart from the atmosphere).

The last so-called "snowball Earth" episode like this, about 700 million years ago, lasted about 20 million years, until CO2 released by volcanoes absorbed enough solar heat to start melting everything again.

Luckily, the continents today are aligned more east-west and don't link pole to pole. For example the southern ocean goes right round the world. So there won't be any more "snowball Earths" for quite some time (probably never again now, because the Sun is gradually becoming hotter.)

As for runaway greenhouse warming, well that*did* happen on Venus. But Venus is closer to the Sun, and also isn't large enough to have continental plates like the Earth. So instead of internal heat being steadily released all the time as it is here on Earth by volcanoes and constructive plate margins, it builds up and up under the crust on Venus and every hundred million years or so huge amounts of magma burst out all at once and cover practically the whole planet, and the CO2 isn't absorbed (see below).

You may say OK, but couldn't the runaway effect just happen slower on Earth? Well there's also Newton's Law of Cooling - In effect, the hotter something is compared with its surroundings, the faster it loses heat. So that ultimately puts a cap on temperature rises - Most heat aborbed during the day is radiated away on the night side.

Yet another effect of plate tectonics on Earth is that CO2 is deposited in rocks like limestone and dragged down under the crust by plate tectonics. So that also regulates the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans (over long timescales).

But there's one more dire situation which is thought to have happened several times on Earth in the past - When too much CO2 becomes dissolved in the oceans, they become acidic and eventually oxygen producing life like algae can no longer flourish there. (This ocean algae produces 70% of the oxygen in the atmosphere.)

In the Permian extinction, which may well have been caused by ocean acidification, 96% of all species died. If something similar happened again, we certainly wouldn't survive as things stand.

One last thing. The fact that someone can't answer every objection or question about a theory (or perhaps nobody can) doesn't in itself disprove that theory.