How to solve climate change.

Anders wrote:
It would be nicer to all if you could disguss in a more friendly tone, you are all obviously high IQ people all of you, you should have better manners right.

Let us show how we can change things instead of just argue about small details.

I know this is people with knowledge, please tell the world how you will improve the world, dont argue about stuff noone can ever change...

IBdaMann wrote:

Nielsenbr56 wrote:No a fact is NOT what people agree on.

A fact is what people agree on. I gave you the court case example. Perhaps you are too stupid to learn.

If you and I were to agree that Corn Flakes is the best creation mankind has ever made, then it is a fact in our discussion. However, the moment GasGuzzler joins our discussion and claims that Fruit Loops is clearly the best creation mankind has ever made, then all of our positions become our claims and our rationales become our arguments. Intellectual cowards who cannot support their positions but who nonetheless need their positions to be accepted as "facts" try to create breakout rooms in which they ban anyone who does not also agree to their positions.

Nielsenbr56 wrote: Just because people agree an old man lives in the sky called god, or that they live on after dying, does not a fact make.

Yes. That is what makes it a fact. Whenever Into the Night and gfm7175 engage in a discussion, that supposition is very much a fact. However, the moment you join such a discussion, that supposition ceases to be a fact, and becomes a claim.

Nielsenbr56 wrote: A fact in SCIENCE is a theory established as accurate through measurement

This is gibber-babble nonsense. You clearly do not know what science is.

All of science is a fact because everybody agrees to all of it ... by virtue of nobody showing any of it to be false. All of science has passed the scrutiny of the scientific method and nobody has, as of yet, shown any of it to be false. If anyone does show any science to be false, it is discarded

Nielsenbr56 wrote:- and, yes, that 'truth' changes with new measurements, moving us from Newtonian to Quantum Mechanics and will change again, but those are refinements towards establishing a truth independent of opinion (belief).

There is so much wrong with this statement above that I will have to unpack it.

1. If the new measurements differ from the old measurements, then someone screwed up on the measurements somewhere.
2. No, we have not abandoned classical physics.
3. Science does not establish truth and it never confirms anything as "true." Yes, we presume science is true, but with the understanding that we could be mistaken and that tomorrow it could be shown to be false.
4. You are trying to get your speculations relabelled as "fact" and not your mere opinion.

Nielsenbr56 wrote:What is pretty stupid is your non-sequitur that because all substances absorb IR are therefore gases.

That is your position. You defined greenhouse gases as IR-absorbing substances. That was not my definition; it was yours. I will remind you that all substances absorb IR. This means that your position is that all substances are greenhouse gas. I will again remind you that this is a stupid position for you to have.

I will presume that you are not very good at formal logic.

Nielsenbr56 wrote: You asked for a SPECIFIC fact that identifies what GHGs are

Nope. That doesn't make any sense and is nothing I would ever request.

Nielsenbr56 wrote: - and that is, GHGs absorb IR

All substances absorb IR, therefore by your definition all substances are GHGs. You really aren't following your own logic, are you?

Nielsenbr56 wrote: I just forgot you're a troll.

I just forgot, you are a scientifically illiterate intellectual coward who cannot support his stupid positions so he needs a safe space in which to post so that I can't pop his delicate delusion bubbles with my science and/or differing positions.

Nielsenbr56 wrote: I can only presume you also have difficulty using a book to read how to measure gas composition in the air?

I can only presume that you are now realizing that what you wrote previously was terribly stupid, that you are embarrassed, that you realize you will never be accepted as any sort of expert in this forum, and that you must now dedicate your efforts to portraying your stupid claim of knowing earth's quantity of atmospheric CO2 as somehow being my fault.
.

Nielsenbr56 wrote:
So another interesting fact about trolls - seems they are needy - they keep wanting others to engage with them - I guess it is their only source of engagement - must be lonely. Here they are begging for me to engage. Still didn't get the message that intelligent people are not here to waste time engaging with their ignorance.