Posted on 08/31/2003 6:35:30 PM PDT by Pikamax
Perhaps they can "make a long story short", and identify where JasonC made his mistake.
I did not make it up. That is in essence what they are saying. You refuse to read it so how the heck do you know? I have read it and understand it. JasonC is trying to explain it to you but you refuse to listen.
I am sorry, I do not remember the global warming sky is falling ‘expert’. It was over 10 years ago. I guess my story is irrelevant because I do not remember his name. Fine... whatever.
Because it has already been done. The arguments have been presented to them. They have no substantive answers.
They persist in their contrary opinions but cannot (at any rate, do not) answer with coherent science explanations. Not random guys walking down the street. Serious learned critics of their models. The holes have been pointed out, they gape out at onlookers, and those they have been pointed out to are reduced to hand waving.
You don't seem capable of grasping this point. Learned conclaves of scientists can look at cogent scientific criticisms of their work and be reduced to mere denial (or ad hominum, sometimes), or to spin (talking about side issues not in dispute). If you think it doesn't happen, show me their supposedly coherent, substantive replies to e.g. a Lomberg.
You just don't know the state of play. (Or you assume, wrongly, whenever a scientist is presented with a cogent objection he admits it and retracts his own, now unsupported, assertions. They just don't. They bring up something else and go on wiggling).
It is not surprising you don't know the state of play within the scientific debate, since by your own admission you have no ability to judge any of the actual scientific arguments. My previous comments about pity for the pols who must navigate the subject in ignorance of the actual science were quite sincere, you know, not sarcastic. Without independent access to clear internal evidence about who is making sense and who isn't, of course they can and do easily get lost.
The "candle" in the analogy is not the sun, it is incremental power from CO2 greenhouse. The sun is a "burner" - can keep the earth at ~240K. The whole atmosphere on top of that can boost that to ~290K. But 1W more from a 0.1% increase in the concentration of a trace gas in that atmosphere (aka a small incremental power source, aka a "candle" compared to the "burner" of the sun) can't boost it to 295K - it'd take around 25 times as much.
"But math is hard". You say you have a degree in physics. Show it for a change, and deal.
Stop it! Your experts are claiming they can do something that is impossible. If you read this thread you will see we presented other experts, you can read your own experts math and their ‘mistakes.’ Now it is your turn, do the math or be a sheep!
To be honest with you. Your mind set scares me. Your so-called ‘experts’ are correct no matter what. We have presented facts and other experts to counter your so-called ‘experts’ at the very least there should be some doubt in your mind that your ‘experts’ could be wrong. Any normal person would look into the matter deeper to remove any doubt. But you are different and what I find scary, you disregard any out side thoughts in your mind and relinquish any doubts to your ‘experts’ without even looking into it. You are the perfect example of what we call a sheep.
He didn't even understand the kettle example. He is not trying to understand. In his mind his 'experts' are god. Just forget it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.