Sometimes the truth hurts.
As I've mentioned over at RDW, I'm having a problem tracking down references to your assertions, and until I see them in context I can't comment on them. Perhaps you can help me with this one - you mention an article in Science "January of this year" that references atmospheric CO2 levels. It sounds interesting, but I can't find any such article. Do you have the volume and issue number?
Actually, still_, don't waste your time. I found some of the sites that you just copied this stuff off of. I should have known.
with permission, smart ass.what you know is fairly little and misguided. You claim and dont back up your words, only wait for the counter arguement to back up their findings. You cannot make your case.You have this forum. All the space you need. Let's see what you got.
Whether you had permission or not doesn't enter into it. The fact of the matter is that these are a load of assertions that are without attribution. (Was that too big a word for you? Ahh, baby diddums boo. What it means is that there is effectively no way to fact check them, so we hit a dead end. If a fact can't be checked, it ain't a fact, it's an article of faith. And if I'm going to choose articles of faith, it's not just going to be some crap that I've found written by some moron on the internet.)For shits and giggles at lunchtime today I searched the index of Science magazine looking for the "18 times higher CO2 levels than currently exist" and that reference does not exist. Current estimates are that about 45 million years ago CO2 levels peaked at about 1000 ppm and decreased reasonably steadily. That would be less than three times the current levels, which are in the neighbourhood of 350 or 400 ppm. So you see what's happened here - some bozo wrote this statement and tacked on an unresearchable reference like "Science magazine in January" just to make it sound official and you fell for it. It's a standard Weekly World News tactic - "Dr. Stevens at County General in MadeUpCity, Iowa said..." It fools bored dullards all the time. It was about then that I asked you for the actual reference, because if those numbers are real, I'd have to rethink some things I currently believe. I am willing to re-evaluate my position on some of these things because I have not read all of the literature and am not directly involved in doing that kind of science (though friends of mine are). Anyway, that was before I found out that you just idiotically believe everything you read and just copied off some buttfuck website. When I determined that, with the help from my friend Google, I realized that you are in fact a basket case. Now of course I know that I'm actually writing back and forth with an idiot and I'm not going to waste any more time, because it's going to get neither of us anywhere. You will just defensively whine about big words that you don't understand and I'll get a little older. I actually really enjoy discourse on stuff like this, because it is interesting. However, you have no real interest in it, just in pushing your own view, which appears to be pretty woefully uninformed. Bring it indeed, tough guy. If I'm going to waste my time teaching environmental science to waste products, I'll do it in person.
I have neither the desire nor the competence to see whether I am a better climatologist than you are. What would be the point? We only know what experts tell us, me and you. But here's my point. A consensus does exist that global warming is occurring. A consensus does exist that human activity is contributing to it. A consensus does exist that if it continues unabated the consequences could be very bad for us. Throwing out cherry-picked and impressive sounding factoids about CO2 levels in the year 1627 really don't touch the core of the issue for me: the consensus exists. If you want to impress someone with your facts, publish them for other climatologists to evaluate. When the majority of them agree with you then come talk to me. Until then you're a lot like Intelligent Design advocates: taking a scientific issue the court of public opinion where it can be decided in relative ignorance because it hasn't got a chance in more knowledgeable circles.
Posta un commento