Quote:Incidently, you already hear the tagline "providng SUSTAINABLE" this or that in advertising. I wonder what it will be a decade from now!
So what do you have to say about the actual science? I assume you are choosing to ignore it.
Quote:Let me get this straight. You railed against someone back and forth for how many posts for saying you refereed to a conspiracy and then go on shortly after to fabricate something about another poster and present as fact while calling him pathetic? After being called on it you then just ignore it? What's truly pathetic is your hypocrisy here.
Aside from that nonsense, I am enjoying this back and forth when it's not completely full of itself.
The other poster clarified the statement. I saw no need to comment further. Maybe I should have added another post to take back the word "pathetic," but I thought that was implied.
Quote:So what do you have to say about the actual science? I assume you are choosing to ignore it.
Yet you have yet to post a single bit of science in your own words on any of the Global Warming threads, just links to press releases.
Quote:Yet you have yet to post a single bit of science in your own words on any of the Global Warming threads, just links to press releases.
All you ever do is post out of context graphs and lie about what they mean. That and claim conspiracy but then deny it. I'll post some science 'in my own words' here in a bit.
You mean the .26% of the greenhouse effect that humans are responsible for? You want to talk about negative feedback loops floricarbons atmospheric composition or the ice core temperature records im game! Id start with the last 18 years that essentially nefate your thesis or the giant fusion engine in the center of the solar system responsible for virtually all the energy on the planet but out of courtesy ill let you choose the direction of our conversation but if yoy are expecting a flat earther with his head in the sand your going to be dissapointed.
Quote:You mean the .26% of the greenhouse effect that humans are responsible for? You want to talk about negative feedback loops floricarbons atmospheric composition or the ice core temperature records im game! Id start with the last 18 years that essentially nefate your thesis or the giant fusion engine in the center of the solar system responsible for virtually all the energy on the planet but out of courtesy ill let you choose the direction of our conversation but if yoy are expecting a flat earther with his head in the sand your going to be dissapointed.
Much simpler than all that, friend. Appreciate the fight in ya tho.
Ok, so before we get into the science of climate change, we need to lay some ground rules. The tool we will use to get us to the conclusion that "Anthropogenic global warming is really happening" will be logic, specifically a formal deductive argument. A good deductive argument necessarily demands the truth of its conclusion.
How does it work?
A deductive argument must have at least 2 premises and 1 conclusion which follows from the premises. If the premises are true, the conclusion's truth is guaranteed.
The most famous example:
Premise 1: Socrates was a man.
Premise 2: All men are mortal.
Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates was mortal.
...
Is everyone still with me? Speak now or forever hold your peace.
The idea that you would presume to lecture everyone here about deductive reasoning is very telling about the level of hubris among ur ilk.
Quote:The idea that you would presume to lecture everyone here about deductive reasoning is very telling about the level of hubris among ur ilk.
I'm sorry but if you are familiar with deductive reasoning and the science of climate change, then you must have already arrived at the aforementioned conclusion.
Is that the case or no?
Quote:Ok, so before we get into the science of climate change, we need to lay some ground rules. The tool we will use to get us to the conclusion that "Anthropogenic global warming is really happening" will be logic, specifically a formal deductive argument. A good deductive argument necessarily demands the truth of its conclusion.
How does it work?
A deductive argument must have at least 2 premises and 1 conclusion which follows from the premises. If the premises are true, the conclusion's truth is guaranteed.
The most famous example:
Premise 1: Socrates was a man.
Premise 2: All men are mortal.
Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates was mortal.
...
Is everyone still with me? Speak now or forever hold your peace.
I'll play. I'll write it out as a computer program and we'll look at the result.
// Is global warming happening?
if (global_warming)
{
manmade();
}
else
{
return 1;
}
}
The result of the program is going to return 1 which is not a good return on a Unix system. It will never call the manmade() function because it fails the first test. I used logic to figure it out. After all, a computer is ALWAYS going to determine a result based on real logic.
Rethorical nonsense instead of reasoned discussion of facts. Now thats change you can believe in!
Quote:Rethorical nonsense instead of reasoned discussion of facts. Now thats change you can believe in!
How very political of you. Are you ready for a reasoned discussion of facts now? I'm going to lay them out for you.
After ignoring the inconvenient facts that i mentioned no doubt.
And by the way, before you post, voluntarily tripple your own gas food and energy costs just to let everyone know you're serious.
Quote:And by the way, before you post, voluntarily tripple your own gas food and energy costs just to let everyone know you're serious.
K
1. AGCC is based on statistics.
2. The statistics used to prove AGCC is occuring were adjusted to achieve the result that there actually is AGCC.
3. Those who preach AGCC financially benefit from their conclusions.
4. Those who financially benefit from claims that AGCC is real have not changed their own behavior.
4a. The math models created from the adjusted statistics are still off by an order of magnitude in real world application.
5. Those who point this out are discounted as heretics against the Received Wisdom of the Clergy of AGCC.
Ok, we will keep it simple for starters:
1. Co2 is a greenhouse (heat-trapping) gas.
2. Human activity is increasing the amount of co2 in the earth's atmosphere.
3. The greenhouse effect exists.
Therefore,
Anthropogenic global warming is really happening.
Chocolate is derived from coco beans, coco beans come from the fruit of a coco tree so in reality, snickers is a salad
Quote:Ok, we will keep it simple for starters:
1. Co2 is a greenhouse (heat-trapping) gas.
2. Human activity is increasing the amount of co2 in the earth's atmosphere.
3. The greenhouse effect exists.
Therefore,
Anthropogenic global warming is really happening.
What you are missing is the magnitude of the effect.
1. Water is incompressible.
2. My body volume is greater than zero.
3. The ocean is made of water.
Therefore, I am raising the sea level of the ocean every time I swim in it.
Quote:Chocolate is derived from coco beans, coco beans come from the fruit of a coco tree so in reality, snickers is a salad
I'll buy that for a dollar