Wyatt earp
Diamond Member
- Apr 21, 2012
- 69,975
- 16,383
- 2,180
I'm still not clear what a "warmer" is. But the site seems to be having difficulties and it was all I could do to get on page two let alone back up and see if there was any "hasbara" on page one. ;--)
I'm also not clear on what you mean by investment. Typically one would be referring to some financial arrangement. In terms of time I spent about a decade at several universities and the last say 20 or so following the issues and occasionally assisting with various research projects. If thats an investment.
In terms of do I have a dog in this fight. I think we all do, and its imperative that we all realize that.
I was hoping to establish if anyone had a scientific background.
The basics are pretty easy but most of the typical denial arrises from some rather deliberate omissions of those basics.
The first thing I try and do whenever discussing Climate issues with those having trouble with the theory is establish just where all this excess CO2 in the atmosphere came from.
In which case the easiest way to go about that is to discuss isotopic mass balance.
I'm still not clear what a "warmer" is.
The opposite of a denier.
I'm also not clear on what you mean by investment.
Most liberals are unclear on the subject.
If you invest $1 million to build a windmill, how long will it take to recoup the money you spent?
I was hoping to establish if anyone had a scientific background.
If you have a scientific background, I was hoping you could use it to answer my questions.
What is the current "average global temperature"? How do you know?
What is the perfect "average global temperature"? How do you know?
How much do we need to spend to get the climate to stop changing? How do you know?
The first thing I try and do whenever discussing Climate issues with those having trouble with the theory is establish just where all this excess CO2 in the atmosphere came from.
Mostly from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.
I understand that you have questions however without establishing just what your background in science is its not always advantagious to simply start from some random point and move forward from there.
I'm not sure why, if you are upset by the term denier, ( granted it does seem to upset some people ) why you would randomly label me a liberal.
Its always interesting when I'm accused of being a conservative by liberals or being liberal by conservatives. How about if I'm just someone with a healthy background in the sciences who's actually participated in several studies.
I can't really address your economic concerns as they are more ideological that scientific. Economics is more of a philosophy than a science and really has no bearing on the subject.
I'm not sure why you think there must be a specific temperature but the question itself indicates a sufficient level of confusion that it really doesn't warrant a response.
We'd get a lot more accomplished if you knew what an isotopic mass prectrometer was. If so I can skip a lot of basics.
but it does look like you have a grasp on the excess CO2 in the atmosphere having resulted from the burning of fossil fuels. Although lately CH4 has begun releasing in sufficient quantities to rival CO2 as the dominant greenhouse gas. Although I'm curious as to how you came to the conclusion if you don't understand how science made that determination in the first place.
I suppose if you are somehow apposed to discussing mass isotopic balance we could move on to the four major temperature studies and there correlation with Arrhenius's predictions from 100 years ago.
Its not like any of this is new science.
why you would randomly label me a liberal.
It's obvious from your posts.
I can't really address your economic concerns as they are more ideological that scientific.
Economics is ideological? Seriously?
I'm not sure why you think there must be a specific temperature but the question itself indicates a sufficient level of confusion that it really doesn't warrant a response.
Warmers claim that temperatures are too high or are approaching a level that is too high.
They want to spend tens of trillions to fix that problem, but they can't tell us what the ideal temp is?
Although I'm curious as to how you came to the conclusion if you don't understand how science made that determination in the first place.
I do understand how science made that determination.
I'll be happy to continue the scientific discussion, as soon as you let me know the scientific determination of "ideal global average temperature".
I'd like to know what we're aiming for, before we spend tens of trillions. Thanks!
Given that we operate under a three tiered, fiat currency financial system, I think its reasonable to suggest the our monetary policies are more political/ideological in nature. Voodoo economics comes to mind.
Either way its not hard science and has no place in any discussion of climate sciences.
Liberal eh, so a pro gun stance, owning a ranch for years, defending Israel's right to exist and walking around in a cowboy hat makes me a liberal ?
RIIIIIIIGHT
Your continued questions concerning a specific temperature are indicative of a level of misunderstanding that really can't be addressed until you identify just where you fell off the beam.
The four major temp studies including the latest funded by the agnotology supporting Kotch brothers using a hand picked team of fellow deniers actually found slightly MORE warming than the previous three.
maybe you can explain to us why you insist their must be a specific ideal temp and why you think the climate system should be static ?
Also your insistence on again discussing voodoo economics in place of hard science would indicate another basic misunderstanding. The two subjects have nothing in common.
If you want to discuss economics I'd suggest maybe starting an economics thread. If you would like to discuss climate science then feel free.
That ship has sailed over 40 years ago, their is no way you can have an honest discussion about climate change with out economics and politics..
There was always an ulterior motive at least since Greenpeace was taken over.
Hell Naomi Klein and a few others admit it out load nowadays