Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Facebook | Twitter | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 
Latest Post:
Started By:
Rank:
Category
3 hours ago.
by Stillhere
harryanderson
#1

Thankfully, the anti-science propaganda campaign surrounding man-made climate change seems to have lost some of its effect.

Are you seeing storm clouds on the horizon? Two recent studies suggest that the latest anti-science campaign is following its forerunners--the propaganda campaigns attempting to refute science that tobacco causes cancer, that CFC's caused the hole in the ozone layer, and so on—into oblivion. Global warming denial seems to have climbed to a peak in 2010, and global warming acceptance is now climbing. This bodes well for rational public policy.

 
 

Member Comments

Kendall78

You haven't destroyed anything that the 97% has said little precious one.

Certain infared radiation can pass through glass...your own information said that.

You agreed with the 97% that CO2 absorbs radiation. So unless you are daft, you should agree that more CO2 should mean more absorbtion.

The blog you cited says that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Is there anything I have listed here that you don't agree with and why?

Posted 226 days ago.

Kendall78

"It is also the radiation absorbed by CO2."

Soooo...you agree that CO2 absorbs radiation. Therefor more CO2 should absorbed even more radiation..right?

Posted 226 days ago.

Kendall78

"even if 97% of the most-credible experts in the field are wrong."

But no one has shown that the 97% is incorrect. You just have misplaced faith that they are.

"when you start with the name-calling."

Hmm, there is a term that fits in with this about you Tired...oh yeah..hypocrite. That's the behavior you are performing right now..that of a hypocrite.

Posted 226 days ago.

harryanderson

No, I think I made myself clear. As you said, I "don't understand why HOW you heat something might be important."

Why don't you explain it to me?

Posted 226 days ago.

Kendall78

Adam and Eve has nothing to do with the topic. Quit deflecting.

From the very blog you cited Tired, it says that certain infared radition passes through glass. That means you are wrong.

The blog you cited also says that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

CO2 has been shown to increase the ability of the atmosphere to retain heat energy.

There is no connection between elections and the discussion of Global Warming. If there was, then the Republicans would be winning more positions than they have.

Posted 226 days ago.

harryanderson

Still won't say why it matters, eh, Tiredofit? Just quit and claim victory.

I don't care who wins or loses myself. That's why I'm not, as you wrongly claim, "upset." I know I'll be okay even if 97% of the most-credible experts in the field are wrong.

That's why I don't reciprocate when you start with the name-calling.

Posted 226 days ago.

Kendall78

@Harry- I still think saying he willfully has his head in the sand is pretty spot on.

He doesn't answer any questions that makes him look bad. I asked him multiple times a very straight forward question but he won't answer it because it would hurt his position.

He can't even be bothered with reading the very blog he takes some selective info from. It even says that there is infared radiation that goes through glass but he won't accept that either.

Posted 226 days ago.

harryanderson

"...a fraudulent science denying jerk who has no connection to our hometown wastes his time with."

That statement is not true. Just another claim you can't back up.

Posted 226 days ago.

harryanderson

Do I think it's accurate? It seems so to me. I don't see why it makes any difference HOW you heat the gasses. And, it seems, you're unable to tell me why.

Posted 226 days ago.

harryanderson

And Tiredofit, I find it ironic that you, who just copied someone else's words without attribution, would call anybody a fraud.

Posted 226 days ago.

harryanderson

Again, I thank you for your participation, Tiredofit. It is useful.

Posted 226 days ago.

harryanderson

"This radiation is strongly absorbed by matter, and will not pass through glass. It is also the radiation absorbed by CO2."

Once again. Why does that matter?

Posted 226 days ago.

harryanderson

Same old Tiredofit. When asked a direct question, you try to deflect attention from it by tossing insults instead of trying to answer the question.

Posted 226 days ago.

harryanderson

Again, why is it important how you heat the gasses?

Posted 226 days ago.

harryanderson

How is it flawed? Why does it matter how you heat the gasses in the jars?

Posted 226 days ago.

harryanderson

And, as I understand it, here is how CO2 causes the earth to become warmer: Sunshine hits the earth. A certain amount of the heat from that sunshine reflects back into space, and another amount is absorbed by the earth, the oceans, and the atmosphere. When the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, more heat is absorbed and less is radiated.

Posted 226 days ago.

harryanderson

Sure, Tiredofit. Maybe the radiation won't pass through glass. But tell me why it matters HOW you heat the gasses. Seems to me the point is that CO2 in a gaseous atmosphere prevents heat from escaping. Do you deny that? Or will you refuse to answer that simple question?

Posted 226 days ago.

harryanderson

Now I'm not an expert. I have neither the time nor the inclination to acquire the advanced education to completely understand this.

Since I'm not an expert, it seems reasonable to believe 97% of the most credible experts in the field, and they say that CO2 is preventing heat from radiating into space.

Tiredofit chooses not to believe the most-published and most-reviewed experts. That is his right. And his position is understandable, since he has written that it's a political discussion, not a scientific discussion.

Posted 226 days ago.

harryanderson

First, Tiredofit had to go deep in the internet to an obscure Wordpress blog. On the other hand, many peer-reviewed scientific papers document the greenhouse gas effect. So 97% of the most-published scientists agree.

Second, the quote Tiredofit plagiarized doesn't deny that the jar with CO2 will heat up faster and hotter. It takes issue with method used to heat it up, but doesn't deny that CO2 makes it hotter. And if you do the experiment, your thermometer will tell you that COs does make it hotter. I guess the post is saying the gasses in the experiment heat up from convection through the glass.

No, Tiredofit's post doesn't say that CO2 is a heat-trapping gas. But it doesn't say it isn't a heat-trapping gas, either.

Posted 226 days ago.

Kendall78

I'll be back later. Have a nice evening.

Posted 226 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or