CO2 raising temperatures is a physical property of co2 ,and was proved a hundred years ago. More co2 in the atmosphere WILL raise temperatures, it's a question of when, not if.
This doesnt seem right, temperature is a function of pressure, i dont think that any pqrticle can inheretly make anything hotter, as a particle doesnt have a certain temperature attributed it. What its temperature depends on forces upon it. Pv=nrt
Fuck man, this is a proven trait of green house gases. Now you are just getting to the point where you're disagreeing for no scientific reason.
That is not what you said... See this is where things fall apart. Co2 doesnt inheritly cause rising temperatures. If i put a co2 molecule that currently has no atomic motion (aprox 0 kelvin) in a box in space it doesnt cause rising temperatures. However according to your statement it would. Co2. Does NOT inheretly cause risig temperatures. Its not nitpicking but sloppiness like this is failure of thinking that leads to things like that Idiot al gore making rediculous predictions of which he has no certanty whatsoever
I never came close to saying anything like that, not even once. That was your assumption, based upon nothing I directly said. It's not sloppiness on my part, it's a critical failure of you to give people the benefit of the doubt.
Certain atoms and molecular structures absorb different wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum. CO2 is such that it absorbs heat that tries to escape the earth, and radiating it back towards the earth, thus keeping the heat inside the atmosphere. It's pure physics, and it's basically the same physics which causes you to see a certain flower as yellow, instead of black.
ok this is a logical explination, i believe this has been proven tbats fine. Its not what you were saying before.
No, that is what I was saying before. Co2 in the atmosphere
will cause a rise in temperature, for the reason I gave. I'm sorry I didn't qualify that for this to be true, the sun had to still exist, but I figured that went without saying. You were the one who made up an irrational reason and attributed it to me. Again, there's an aspect of critical thinking which involved giving the other person the benefit of the doubt, and not assuming they're saying something absolutely retarded.
You're skepticism is one sided. I'm skeptical we're causing climate change, but I'm also skeptical that I know what I'm talking about. Considering the way to reduce our possible effect on the climate is one which is rationally better (green energy), and better for us in terms of national security, our economy, our health, etc, then I'm gonna go ahead and say we should do those things regardless.
the first part of this is a disaster? Skepticism 1 sided? No, i am a skeptic in the same way scientists wanted proof of relativity. I am not saying i know anythig, but i am skeptical as scientists should. You seem to ignore the possibility that you are completely wrong, and still have failed to produce a logical, mathematical function that relates temperature to our polluting activites.
Again i am a man of science i dont pretend to know what is goin on. And to say that it is right for you to force money out of my pocket to invest in these green energy invrstments to stop the changes in a system of which you know very very little about, doesnt make sense.
Except the proof in this case has been given, there's been a massive amount of studying regarding the issue, and the facts on the ground point to some influence by humans on the earth's climate. It's not as if someone is just putting forward this hypothesis, and not testing it, as you are implying. Scientists have gone over the issue, tie and time again, and they continue to come up with the same results, continue to agree that the earth is warming, and that the most likely cause is human activity. You may not know a lot about the system involved, but there are specialists who do. 97% of them think humans are involved. They didn't just come to that conclusion based upon the physical trait of co2 raising temperatures, but massive studies that look at the climate, and our role in it.
And what's the worst outcome of investing in green energy? That our oceans don't acidify, collapsing the food chain? That my air is cleaner, and healthier for me to breathe, improving my health? That I waste less money on inefficient technologies? That I have cleaner water to drink? It's killing two birds with one stone, and if one of the birds ended up being an illusion, we still killed one bird with one stone.
Topic: "Climate Gate" Debunked (Read 9278 times)
