Soren wrote on Mar 12^th, 2011 at 7:32pm:


Let us summarise the nuerotic conspiracy based paranoia of a typical crack pot AGW DENILIAST cult priest.

1. On the Sabbath of the combustion of oil and its derivitives there shalt not emmiteth the gas known in dueteronomy as Carbon Dioxide.

2. Such a gas is NOT increasing in the earths atmosphere as a direct result of such human activites.

3. The gas known as CO2 is not a greenhouse gas

4. THe planets average surface temperature is not increasing

5. EXXON knows best

6. How do I vote fo John Howard again - our most beloved mentor and AGW DENIALIST high priest?

(Axioms 7 and 9 are ommitted due to Psychiatric orders issued against the Church of AGW DENILIASM which has also refused to inlcude an 8th Axiom - ooooh mysterious)
   

Have fun Foolosophy. My approach of attempting to explain the science from all angles is clearly not working.

Soren wrote on Mar 12^th, 2011 at 7:06pm:


Soren - its a simple question - What is your background in science or climatology?

You were not Forbidden to comment or express an opinion.

Its just that when I need an medical opinion on a tooth ache that I have I dont go to my local mechanic.

Your juvernile attempt to avoid the question SAYS VOLUMES.

No more questions your honor

The witness is excused from the box

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 12^th, 2011 at 11:34pm:


Read the rest of the thread. It's a difficult process because I was trying to get some buy-in at each stage. First of all I explained how the greenhouse effect actually works in terms of greenhouse gases  dispersing long wave infrared radiation that would otherwise have escaped into space, then I discussed the actual quantities of carbon dioxide produced using coal and oil production figures in giga tonnes, and demonstrated that it was of the same order of the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere (taking into account that a proportion is absorbed into ocean sinks etc).

We have at least one poster here who can follow the scientific argument quite well.

In my experience ridiculing somebody's position on the matter is probably counter productive, and we just end up with a slanging match, making it difficult for somebody else. We need to demonstrate how the science backs it up, and it's possible to do that using neutral, non-emotive language and without resorting to "appeal to authority". (eg. 2000 Climate scientists can't be wrong, or "what are your qualifications in climate science?")  

Unless you're getting into the details of climate sensitivity and the derivation of radiative forcing equations, it can all be explained by basic science. Now feel free to continue as you are, but I just offered a more constructive approach, although it does take some effort.  

Other people read these threads.  A lot of people in the general community are confused by the various views that are put across. You just have to look at the newspaper reports to see that. An example was an article that asked (paraphrased)  "What do you tell your kids about Climate Change with all the confusing information that's going around?"

Our challenge is to explain it in simple indisputable terms, one mouthful at a time.  Now I know that takes a bit more time and effort, but I think it's worth it.    

Please don't take this as a criticism. I was there once.

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 12^th, 2011 at 9:11pm:



How is all this drivel a response to anything?

Foolosophy wrote on Mar 13^th, 2011 at 9:32pm:


I know what you mean, but let's do it on another thread as opposed to the Climate Science thread . Not everybody who reads these posts is a 'flat earther'.

Ok, I've split this off the Climate Science thread.

ThripD wrote on Mar 14^th, 2011 at 5:08pm:


A certain lake in Cameroon? Is that the Cameroon that is the leading generator of antropogenic CO2 due to its massive steel and manufacturing industries?
Or the Cameroon that has a lake next to a volcano leaking CO2?

Soren wrote on Mar 12^th, 2011 at 7:06pm:


So I gather from your frothing at the mouth in religious tongues that you are not willing to entertain an answer to this simple question?

You have an interesting technique of avoiding the facts and answering questions.

Why would you need to hide behind this childish technique?