Quote: Originally Posted by Scott Free
Then why would you compare it to a computer when, apparently, you know better?
Because when you're pressed, you start making excuses about science being this or that. Your computer is made possible by advances in science. Our understanding of the climate is made possible by advances in science.
Quote: I already answered your question.
No, you didn't. You can't ever shoot straight. Are you a politician?
Quote: But if I really have to spell my position out:
Yes, you really do. Because it's not even clear what you think is happening.
Quote: I don't deny GW (as I already said). It is coming from the sun (as I already said).
Except that the amount of energy coming in has been flat/decreasing for the last half century. And, the energy coming in is greater than the energy leaving. If you understand conservation of energy, adding more heat would mean that the Earth must emit more heat back out, thermodynamics. Except that's not happening. Energy is being trapped, and the upper atmosphere is cooling. If more energy was coming in, then the upper atmosphere should warm as the energy passes through.
You sun worshipers are out of touch with reality. Increasing solar does heat the Earth, but solar hasn't been a major contributor since the beginning half of the 20th century.
Quote: Your science is studying the sweater worn by someone sitting beside a heater (to use a metaphor) (as I already said). It therefore doesn't explain GW but explains sweaters.
No, it isn't. See if you actually read the links I posted, you wouldn't say such false things, that is if you can understand what they are saying. We can differentiate between a sweater and the element on the stove. You're just plain ridiculous if you believe that is the case.
You ought to examine where that belief comes from, because it's certainly not from a reading of the primary science.
Quote: This is a pointed question. I do not accept that man made carbon is contributing to current forcings.
Yes, we know. You're a denier.
Quote: The amount is too small and the atmosphere is already saturated by natural carbon,
How do you know it is too small? Source? The atmosphere is not saturated, you can't saturate the atmosphere with carbon dioxide. I think you meant something else, like the infrared bands where carbon dioxide absorbs, but that is wrong as well. Bands can widen due to collisions between molecules. It's called
pressure broadening.
Quote: But you never answered my question: how are you benefiting from all this misinformation (hysteria/apocalypse mongering)?
I don't benefit from your misinformation, nobody does. In fact it's very frustrating to converse with people so ignorant about science in general, and who think they somehow have the answers that people who have devoted a life of study towards have missed.
The only reason I continue to challenge folks like you, captain morgan, slim chance, extrafire and others is because some people might come across this discussion. They might be genuine skeptics. So my hope is that when they see the evidence I post, that they will come away at least with a better understanding of the intellectual bankruptcy of the climate denial movement.
