GIThruster wrote:Schneibster wrote:So why are you denying global warming? It doesn't make any sense.
As I have explained many times (you were too busy being an abusive asshole to listen) I think the evidence is inconclusive.
I have a hint for you: I mirror. And if you think I've been an abusive asshole here, you haven't look what else I've done elsewhere. You guys, on an absolute scale, are pretty mild, so I kind of tone it down for you. Try to keep it to your level.
GIThruster wrote:There has been a huge amount of fraud on the AGW side
This accusation, especially in the absence of any reliable evidence whatsoever, immediately tells me I am dealing with someone unreasonable.
I'll do you the kindness this time of assuming you don't know it and are just repeating lies you've heard because you don't know any better.
GIThruster wrote:of the argument and excellent scientists very often poke fun at how ridiculous the pro-AGW arguments are.
14000 to 25.
GIThruster wrote:I used to teach this stuff as a TA at Portland State in Environmental Ethics, and I'm telling you, you do not know what you pretend to know.
I don't pretend to know anything, and it's precisely this kind of comment that started me mirroring you. I know exactly what I'm talking about. I can explain why CO2 is a global warming gas, what its spectrum is, what types of vibration of the molecule absorb and emit what exact wavelength of photon, what the likelihood of that photon being emitted in any given direction is, where the heat comes from, where the heat goes, and where the CO2 comes from and where it goes. Sorry, I think I know EVERYTHING about it. And you don't appear to be prepared to discuss any of it. Have you ever even reviewed either any GISS GCM, or the HADCRUT models? Personally I don't think you know anything about either the physics or the geophysics of the problem, nor anything at all about models.
GIThruster wrote:Most of what you believe is wrong.
You have no idea what I believe. You have only seen me talk about what I KNOW. What I can PROVE. You on the other hand make irresponsible, careless, unprovable statements about other peoples' minds who you have not ever even listened to for a second, because they don't believe what you like, and then pretend they're "abusing" you. If you can't take it don't dish it out, is my advice. I can take it fine; but if I dish it out, I'm not a hypocrite. I never said I wasn't dishing it out. You are; you did.
GIThruster wrote:For instance, the planet is currently in a cooling phase because our sun is in a cooling phase.
It has nothing to do with the Sun, and the Sun is not in a cooling phase; solar minimum was years ago. Solar Maximum is coming up in 2016 or so.
The "cooling phase" you're talking about will lead to the next glaciation in about thirty thousand years. And it's caused by the Milankovic cycles, not the solar cycle.
GIThruster wrote:We don't know what the climate will be like when the sun goes hotter again in a few years,
You're insane. We won't know what the
weather will be like; but we know the climate will continue to get hotter. 95% probability, according to the IPCC AR5.
GIThruster wrote:and because the science is so poor--
The science is not poor. 14000 to 25.
GIThruster wrote:actually qualifies as pathological in many instances--we are not finding out whether our way of life is in danger.
Nobody's interested in your way of life. We're trying to stay alive. You're a nutjob, counting your money while your house burns down around you.
GIThruster wrote:Regardless though, it is entirely true that if the planet heats significantly, there are plenty of ways for humanity to survive.
Sure; remove CO2 from the atmosphere by growing extra stocks of diesel and gasoline. Provided the oil sociopaths don't squish the technology to maximize their profits.
GIThruster wrote:There is after all, an entire untaped continent under ice right now. That's prime real estate that hasn't been used in 30 million years.
And if the ice comes off it, it will take more real estate, currently occupied by 60% of the human race, than it reveals. Not to mention, I assume you think you can move New York, London, LA, and Singapore. I'm gonna guess the residents of said cities are less than sanguine regarding your claims, in that case. I would be.
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.