Do you really think its going to be too late to reverse the effects of climate change?

ashley0323 wrote:It seems alot of people think that its not too late YET, but will be soon. What do you think? Do you think soon, it will be too late to reverse the effects of climate change??

ashley0323 wrote:
It seems alot of people think that its not too late YET, but will be soon. What do you think? Do you think soon, it will be too late to reverse the effects of climate change??

Surface Detail wrote:The only way that we can reverse the effects of anthropogenic climate change due to global warming is to reduce the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere to their pre-industrial levels. This is not feasible with currently foreseeable technology, so the best that we can do is to limit global warming to an amount that humans and other species are able to tolerate.

Most climatologists reckon that a 2 C increase above pre-industrial temperatures is about the limit before climate change starts to cause major problems. In my opinion, it is very unlikely that we will achieve this, so a certain amount of negative impact is inevitable. However, these impacts will become more severe, the more greenhouse gases we emit, so it is still well worth doing as much as we can to reduce emissions.

Nothing says "I am as dumb as a post" quite like demanding a source for science.

Evidence has no role in science

jwoodward48 wrote:Just a scientist.

jwoodward48 wrote:Of course, you're such a genius that they are far below you. I mean,

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:Just a scientist.

Nope. Can't be. Scientists don't believe in violations of physics.

Try again.

jwoodward48 wrote:Of course, you're such a genius that they are far below you. I mean,

If by "genius" you referring to the fact that I stick to science and don't let obvious religious scam-artists dupe me with unfalsifiable gibber-babble then yes, yours is quite the understatement.

I invite you to join me on the science side of the fence.

jwoodward48 wrote:If you won't insult me as I try to find out the truth, then sure. Asking the tough questions tends to lead to you being nasty, though.

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:If you won't insult me as I try to find out the truth, then sure. Asking the tough questions tends to lead to you being nasty, though.

I think both you and I are aware that you aren't very likely to ask any tough questions of your clergy or of the people you trusted who indoctrinated you into a Marxist family of religious faiths.

All you seem to be able to do is to lob easy, softball questions to me and to ignore the easy answers.

Who indoctrinated you into Marxism? Is s/he available to discuss?

jwoodward48 wrote:Hey, have you lived my life? I've asked a lot of questions. Blah, blah, blah...

All you seem to be able to do is to lob easy, softball questions to me and to ignore the easy answers.

jwoodward48 wrote:You haven't adequately responded to a single question of mine. Just insulted me.

jwoodward48 wrote: No. My dad's a socialist, but I had socialist leanings before I discussed things with him. And those discussions were very damn good discussions. Much better than the flamewars I've had with you.

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:Hey, have you lived my life? I've asked a lot of questions. Blah, blah, blah...

Like I said, both you and I know that you aren't going to ask any tough questions of your clergy or of the people you trusted who indoctrinated you into a Marxist family of religious faiths.

jwoodward48 wrote:You haven't adequately responded to a single question of mine. Just insulted me.

...and you're an habitual liar. It just flows naturally with your Marxism.

jwoodward48 wrote: No. My dad's a socialist, but I had socialist leanings before I discussed things with him. And those discussions were very damn good discussions. Much better than the flamewars I've had with you.

So is he available to discuss?

jwoodward48 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:So is he available to discuss?

Nope.

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:So is he available to discuss?

Nope.

That says it all. We're back to your claims of wanting to learn as being insincere.

We're back to you just being a bulveristic scientific illiterate who is preaching a WACKY religion.

jwoodward48 wrote:Wait, what? How did "my father doesn't want to talk with deniers on the Internet, he's a busy man" turn into that?

ashley0323 wrote:
It seems alot of people think that its not too late YET, but will be soon. What do you think? Do you think soon, it will be too late to reverse the effects of climate change??

Tim the plumber wrote:

ashley0323 wrote:
It seems alot of people think that its not too late YET, but will be soon. What do you think? Do you think soon, it will be too late to reverse the effects of climate change??

I have yet to have an credible science shown to me that scares me at all about the prospect of a slight warming of the world.

Any and all talk of tipping points is just drivel. There is no such mechanism out there waiting for us to sin too much to come and kill us or whatever.

Even the slight warming of the world is highly unlikely to be more than tiny rather than slight.

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:Wait, what? How did "my father doesn't want to talk with deniers on the Internet, he's a busy man" turn into that?

There will be no occurrences of you asking tough questions of your indoctrinators, and you won't be bringing any of your indoctrinators here to be cross-examined.

Your claims that this is a learning endeavor for you are dismissed.

Any idea that you aren't here just to preach are dismissed.


.

IBdaMann wrote: Your claims that this is a learning endeavor for you are dismissed.

Any idea that you aren't here just to preach are dismissed.

jwoodward48 wrote:How do you get from that to "you're just here to preach, you don't want to learn anything"? (Also, I could say the same to you.)

IBdaMann wrote:
The main points stand:

IBdaMann wrote: Your claims that this is a learning endeavor for you are dismissed.

Any idea that you aren't here just to preach are dismissed.

jwoodward48 wrote:How do you get from that to "you're just here to preach, you don't want to learn anything"? (Also, I could say the same to you.)

1. You are still operating under the coercive control of your WACKY religious dogma and of your church ... which forbids you from learning anything that puts the faith in jeopardy, including both science and math. You will make the WACKIEST assertions, e.g. "science doesn't apply in my case" or not being able to understand what a domain is.

2. You cannot say the same of me because I'm not making any claims. I'm not pushing any WACKY religion.

jwoodward48 wrote: No. I'm not asking you to repeat yourself. I'm asking you to explain. You don't get the difference?

jwoodward48 wrote: How is "the IGL doesn't apply to gases, because real gases have finitely-sized molecules and intermolecular forces" a WACKY assertion?

jwoodward48 wrote: You claim that the GHE violates the 1st and 2nd LoT, as well as S-B and Planck.

Solarwind wrote: Humans cannot control this Planet's Climate, the Sun, Galactic Cosmic Rays and Nature are at the helm.

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote: No. I'm not asking you to repeat yourself. I'm asking you to explain. You don't get the difference?

I already explained it. You are asking me to repeat myself. I'm not in the mood at the moment.

jwoodward48 wrote: How is "the IGL doesn't apply to gases, because real gases have finitely-sized molecules and intermolecular forces" a WACKY assertion?

It's a WACKY assertion because you don't know what the word "applies" means. You apparently don't see how stupid it is for you to acknowledge that physics applies everywhere always but still try to claim that the physics you find inconvenient "don't apply" in your case.

Perhaps you need to be looking for a different semantic that would actually help you understand the issue. No wait! You aren't allowed to do that. Your religion will not permit it. I'm certainly not going to waste my time writing out an explanation that I can anticipate you ignoring by command of your church.

In fact, I shouldn't even waste time discussing with you. I should just ask Surface Detail what your position is. It would certainly save time.

jwoodward48 wrote: You claim that the GHE violates the 1st and 2nd LoT, as well as S-B and Planck.

I wrote out for you what I claim. You still aren't getting it correct. It's that mental control your religion has over you. It must suck.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Hey IB... guess what.

Bulverism!

jwoodward48 wrote:
Bulverism is where you explain why someone is wrong instead of how they are wrong.

jwoodward48 wrote:
...is that Equivocation?

Besides, if you want to throw out my definition, how about giving us your own?

jwoodward48 wrote:There, see? Laws don't have to apply to everything.

jwoodward48 wrote:Bulverism!

jwoodward48 wrote: A similar thing applies - we agree with each other because we both agree with the science.

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:There, see? Laws don't have to apply to everything.

You are incorrect. You don't understand the word "applicability."

jwoodward48 wrote:Bulverism!

...and you don't understand the word "bulverism."

You are making a list of words you don't understand.

jwoodward48 wrote: A similar thing applies - we agree with each other because we both agree with the science.

You deny science. Specifically, you deny any and all science that runs counter to your religion, e.g. Stefan-Boltzmann, Planck's, 1st LoT, et. al.

jwoodward48 wrote:You keep saying that. You have not shown how any of those laws are violated by the GHE.

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:You keep saying that. You have not shown how any of those laws are violated by the GHE.

You insist that "greenhouse effect" magically creates energy in violation of the 1st LoT.

You ineffectively deny this by simply claiming that no energy is created, but the fact remains that you are claiming the average global temperature increases, and that is the definition of an increase in energy.

You further insist that the 1st LoT can be violated if electromagnetic energy happens to be radiating in the right direction.

You insist that the earth's temperature and earth's radiance can move in opposing directions in violation of Stefan-Boltzmann.

You claim that there is somehow an "atmosphere" or "atmospheric composition" parameter to Planck's ... in violation of Planck's.

You ineffectively deny this at first by trying to treat the atmosphere separately, as though it isn't part of the body "earth"

and then when you fail at that you pout and shift to absurdly arguing that Planck's law somehow does not apply in your case.

You are currently, as I write this, arguing in another thread that thermal convection and conduction work the same as thermal radiation (fallacy)

in an attempt to construct the argument that "greenhouse gas" forms an "insulation" against earth's thermal radiation. This argument will not go well for you.

I don't think there is any science you won't happily deny in defense of your WACKY religion.

You are currently debating with Into the Night over the predictive nature of science. On this topic he and I use different wording. I'm waiting for my turn with you on that topic. I say yes, science models predict nature, but not that he is incorrect (again, we use different wording). Anyway, it'll be glorious.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Is there anything wrong with this definition?

Bulverism is the logical fallacy of (assuming that the opponent is wrong and then) explaining why he is wrong. This is fallacious because it combines the genetic fallacy and argument from assertion. For example, if I explain that Mr. Johnson is only saying that cow's milk is bad for you because he sells almond milk, I am making the fallacy of Bulverism. (If this seems like ad hominem, it should - it's very similar.) The correct way of countering Mr. Johnson's argument would be to, say, point out an incorrect assumption or a faulty logical statement (such as A->B => ~A->~

.

jwoodward48 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:There, see? Laws don't have to apply to everything.

You are incorrect. You don't understand the word "applicability."

Apply: "to be applicable or relevant".
Applicable: "relevant or appropriate".
Newtonian gravity is relevant to many things, but not appropriate for all calculations involving gravity.

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:Bulverism!

...and you don't understand the word "bulverism."

You are making a list of words you don't understand.

Bulverism is when you explain why I am wrong instead of how I am wrong. If you would like to dispute this, then explain how I am wrong.

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote: A similar thing applies - we agree with each other because we both agree with the science.

You deny science. Specifically, you deny any and all science that runs counter to your religion, e.g. Stefan-Boltzmann, Planck's, 1st LoT, et. al.

You keep saying that. You have not shown how any of those laws are violated by the GHE.

jwoodward48 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:You keep saying that. You have not shown how any of those laws are violated by the GHE.

You insist that "greenhouse effect" magically creates energy in violation of the 1st LoT.

Strawman.

jwoodward48 wrote:

You ineffectively deny this by simply claiming that no energy is created, but the fact remains that you are claiming the average global temperature increases, and that is the definition of an increase in energy.

The energy within the Earth system increases. That doesn't violate any laws.

jwoodward48 wrote:

You further insist that the 1st LoT can be violated if electromagnetic energy happens to be radiating in the right direction.

The 1st Law doesn't apply to systems that have energy flowing in and out. Only closed (isolated?) systems conserve energy.

jwoodward48 wrote:

You insist that the earth's temperature and earth's radiance can move in opposing directions in violation of Stefan-Boltzmann.

Yes. The latter is a direct effect of the "dampening effect" of GHGs. The first is a result of that.

jwoodward48 wrote:

You claim that there is somehow an "atmosphere" or "atmospheric composition" parameter to Planck's ... in violation of Planck's.

No, I don't. Strawman.

jwoodward48 wrote:

You ineffectively deny this at first by trying to treat the atmosphere separately, as though it isn't part of the body "earth"

The radiation from the surface is different from the escaping energy. The atmosphere affects the radiation that travels through it.

jwoodward48 wrote:

and then when you fail at that you pout and shift to absurdly arguing that Planck's law somehow does not apply in your case.

Planck's Law doesn't even apply to gases! Why would it apply to systems involving gases?

jwoodward48 wrote:

You are currently, as I write this, arguing in another thread that thermal convection and conduction work the same as thermal radiation (fallacy)

Strawman.

in an attempt to construct the argument that "greenhouse gas" forms an "insulation" against earth's thermal radiation. This argument will not go well for you.

If we are looking at energy flows for the purposes of the 1st and 2nd, thermal convection and conduction and radiation are equivalent. We aren't looking at how the energy is being transmitted, just where from and where to.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Like insulation, GHGs reduce the amount of energy that leaves the Earth system relative to the surface. If you've ever used a spectrophotometer, you'll know that different materials have different transmissivity.

jwoodward48 wrote:

I don't think there is any science you won't happily deny in defense of your WACKY religion.

I'm denying that you are correct. The science is firmly on my side.

jwoodward48 wrote:

You are currently debating with Into the Night over the predictive nature of science. On this topic he and I use different wording. I'm waiting for my turn with you on that topic. I say yes, science models predict nature, but not that he is incorrect (again, we use different wording). Anyway, it'll be glorious.

Indeed. You will be an idiot, and I will be right, and you'll insist that I know nothing in order to distract from this. Keep on typing you glorious nincompoop, we need negative "role models".

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:There, see? Laws don't have to apply to everything.

You are incorrect. You don't understand the word "applicability."

Apply: "to be applicable or relevant".
Applicable: "relevant or appropriate".
Newtonian gravity is relevant to many things, but not appropriate for all calculations involving gravity.

Newton's law of gravity is appropriate for all calculations involving gravity.

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:Bulverism!

...and you don't understand the word "bulverism."

You are making a list of words you don't understand.

Bulverism is when you explain why I am wrong instead of how I am wrong. If you would like to dispute this, then explain how I am wrong.

I already did. Argument of the Stone.

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote: A similar thing applies - we agree with each other because we both agree with the science.

You deny science. Specifically, you deny any and all science that runs counter to your religion, e.g. Stefan-Boltzmann, Planck's, 1st LoT, et. al.

You keep saying that. You have not shown how any of those laws are violated by the GHE.

Argument of the Stone. He has. So have I.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:There, see? Laws don't have to apply to everything.

You are incorrect. You don't understand the word "applicability."

Apply: "to be applicable or relevant".
Applicable: "relevant or appropriate".
Newtonian gravity is relevant to many things, but not appropriate for all calculations involving gravity.

Newton's law of gravity is appropriate for all calculations involving gravity.

Rip van Wrinkle, it's the twenty-first century. Newtonian gravity has been disproven.

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:Bulverism!

...and you don't understand the word "bulverism."

You are making a list of words you don't understand.

Bulverism is when you explain why I am wrong instead of how I am wrong. If you would like to dispute this, then explain how I am wrong.

I already did. Argument of the Stone.

That is not how I am wrong. I am not dismissing your argument out of hand - you have not explained how I am wrong! (Meta is fun.)

What is wrong with my statement? Where does it err?

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote: A similar thing applies - we agree with each other because we both agree with the science.

You deny science. Specifically, you deny any and all science that runs counter to your religion, e.g. Stefan-Boltzmann, Planck's, 1st LoT, et. al.

You keep saying that. You have not shown how any of those laws are violated by the GHE.

Argument of the Stone. He has. So have I.

I would call that "argument from assertion," but meh.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Link to it. You claim that an explanation exists, I claim it doesn't, you can prove me wrong by linking.