I am not an environmentalism. I believe that in nature species go extinct all the time and even though humans have caused mass extinction since our evolution, this hasn't caused environmental collapse. From the evidence, a runaway greenhouse effect is a huge threat to humanity and thousands of species. We need real practical policies that counter this threat.
Please provide this evidence... Describe precisely what this 'greenhouse effect' supposedly is, and how it is supposedly happening. How is it warming the Earth? Since heat can only flow from hot to cold, NOT from cold to hot, AND since entropy of a closed system cannot decrease, also tell me how the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has been falsified. Since it is not possible for radiance to decrease while temperature simultaneously increases (ie, they are proportional to each other), also tell me how the Stefan Boltzmann Law has been falsified. There is no threat. My sources are logic, science, and mathematics. I can expand upon this if you'd like...
Basically CO2 is a greenhouse gas because it traps heat. Scientists have verified this property in many laboratory experiments.
Didn't watch the appeal to Mythbusters. It is not possible to trap the flow of thermal energy (aka "heat"). It flows from the sun [HOT], to the Earth's surface[WARM], then back out into space again [COLD]. While it is possible to reduce heat, it is not possible to trap it.
So you refused to watch? I can close my eyes and refuse to look into a telescope, and continue to claim that there are no other planets. Here are a couple more videos: And here are over a dozen papers that documented actual experiments showing the heat trapping of CO2. https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2...ry-measurements-of-co2-absorption-properties/
At least you admit you don't give a rat's ass about the environment and your sole focus is AGW. Thank you for your honesty.
I do care about the environment and probably believe in more environmental regulations than you do. However, the primary goal of supporting the environment should be to help humans. A good environment is good for humanity. But in cases where helping the environment doesn't help humans, then I don't see a reason to prioritize it. How can you oppose the death of a turtle species to bring in green energy when you support the killing of billions of animals every year for human consumption?
Yes, I did. I am talking to you, not to a video. Yes, you could. I did not watch these videos either. I am talking to you, not to videos. I didn't read any of these papers either. I am talking to you, not to various papers. If an argument needs to be further clarified or elaborated upon through use of a video/link/etc., I may take a look at it, but when "holy links" are thrown my way without any semblance of an argument from my interlocutor, I typically ignore them on sight. CO2 cannot trap heat. It is impossible to trap heat. Thermal energy will still flow from the sun, to the Earth's surface, and back out into space no matter how much CO2 we put into our atmosphere... CO2 is not a "magick blanket" which somehow allows thermal energy into Earth's atmosphere while simultaneously trapping it from going back out.
I do not have the technical experience to prove to you the greenhouse effect with scientific equations. I have given you numerous links to studies, and 2 minute videos in which you can clearly see the greenhouse effect occur. If you can't take the time to watch a 2 minute video, there is no way I can convince you of the truth of modern science.
Good to hear! Environmental regulations do not "protect the environment"... Sure... I mean, we'd like to stay alive and stuff... Yup. Okay. How is "green energy" helping humans? I would argue that the phobia of "too much CO2" is actually going to harm humans rather than help them. Let the free market decide which energy sources are best instead of suggesting fascism.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas that warms up the planet, and we are warming up the planet with it because we are pumping out tens of billions of tons of it every year along with methane, another greenhouse gas. Warming will result in higher sea levels, water shortages, increased desertification, increased droughts, stronger storms, and more disease carrying pests. Therefore, we need to move our economy away from it.
Then why are you trying to convince me of the truth of something which you yourself seem to admit that you lack understanding of? It seems to me as if this "greenhouse effect" "crisis" is a faith based belief of yours, rather than a belief based on science. ...of which you have likely never read through for yourself. Could you please express for me the main findings of those studies, and how their methodology and findings adhere to currently standing theories of science? ...of which you have likely never watched for yourself. Could you please express for me (using the information you learned from those videos) how the "greenhouse effect" works and how that process adheres to currently standing theories of science? There are more ways to convince me that the "greenhouse effect" is happening besides having me watch a 2 minute video... I am refusing to check out those sources, in part, because you haven't presented me with any of your own argumentation which would lead me to believe that you have understanding of what this "greenhouse effect" even is, how it supposedly works, and how it supposedly adheres to currently standing theories of science.
Begging The Question. Here, you are simply concluding with your initial predicate that CO2 warms the Earth. This type of fallacy typically results from people who are fundamentalists of their religions. I will break this part down individually now... How is CO2 warming the Earth's surface? This is in violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, as heat only flows from hot to cold, not from cold to hot. The Earth's surface is MUCH warmer than any CO2 molecule... Also in violation of the 2nd LoT is the decreased entropy which would result from the "trapping" of photons in the Earth's atmosphere. Entropy always increases or stays the same in any isolated system; it never decreases. This idea is also in violation of the Stefan Boltzmann law since Earth's radiance cannot decrease while Earth's temperature increases. Radiance and temperature are proportional. Yes, that is what your religious leaders are telling you, but their sermons are in complete opposition to currently standing theories of science. Pascal's Wager Fallacy. Here, you argue that [insert catastrophic events here] will occur if we simply "do nothing". But, what if NOTHING happens from "doing nothing"? The original fallacy was an argument for Christianity. Pascal argued that one ought to "take action now" by becoming a Christian, lest they end up in hell for eternity [the catastrophic event]. But, what if NOTHING will happen if one takes no action [doesn't become a Christian]? This argument doesn't work for AGW just like it doesn't work for Christianity.
The greenhouse effect has been demonstrated in application and I have provided multiple videos demonstrating it and links to scientific experiments as references. Therefore your claim that it isn't real has been refuted.
Yes, and you have not shown any understanding of those videos and links, since you apparently can't put any of that information into your own words. No, it hasn't. You have presented no counterarguments to my arguments. Videos and links are not arguments.
I understand the basics of the greenhouse effect. I have presented a counter-argument. It is that the greenhouse effect has been verified in experiments. References were provided. Case closed.
You seem to only understand what your pastors have presented to you through their sermons. I've presented my case, part of which is in post #91, for how the greenhouse effect models reject science. No, it hasn't. Providing random references which support your religion doesn't "close the case". If I provided references to crossexamined.org and reasonablefaith.org, does that "close the case" that the Christian God exists? I don't think so... Same applies to your AGW faith. The AGW models that "climate scientists" propose reject the laws of thermodynamics and the stefan boltzmann law, it's as simple as that. Either those laws have been falsified, or else AGW is just one big hoax based on religious fundamentalism...
So you are on record as being fine with an endangered species going extinct if you get solar plants in the process in the name of AGW. Thanks for proving my point.
The human species is more important than some bird species. If you want to eliminate extinction then maybe we should ban the building of cities, roads, and farms, since these have caused countless thousands of extinctions. Can I get you on record opposing Trump's wall because it threatens 93 endangered species? Can I get you on record opposing the Keystone pipelines since it threatens 12 endangered species? https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/publications/earthonline/endangered-earth-online-no880.html https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/no_keystone_xl/in_harms_way.html Or do those poor animals only matter when we are taking about stuff you oppose?
And again you show your lack of understanding of the complex and interdependent role of different species and how disrupting this creates a chain reaction felt through all species. Your obsession with an unproven hypothesis has blinded you.
If you oppose windmills because of their impact on species then you must oppose Trump's wall, the keystone pipeline, and human civilization because of their impact on human civilization. Why don't you practice what you preach and live in a cave? Wait, think of all those endangered cave species? Well, go out where there are no animals anywhere and live there.
This is why your position is BS...the solution IS NOT living in the 19th century! For reasonable people there are many talking points and options somewhere in the 21st century and beyond...
