Chill!

[MacG]

You asked for links to the IPPC models, I gave you the chapter that lists them. You've been pointed in the direction of the information you've asked for weeks ago. If you were serious about it, by now you could be running the Met Office FAMOUS model in your own office.

1) You make a claim of anthropogenic global warming.

2) I do not belive you and ask for evidence.

3) You tell me to gather my own evidence in support of your claim.

Quite hilarious.

No, he pointed you to evidence, but it looks like you can't be bothered to educate yourself.

Hilarious? Nah, pitiful.

Well, if history prove me wrong, I will have a much easier time apologizing than you will have if history proves YOU wrong.

[UndercoverElephant]

Since none of the "skeptics" responded to this post, I will repeat it.

How is it possible that we can release vast amounts of greenhouse gases (not just CO2, but all the others too) and this doesn't cause climate change? Are you trying to suggest that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist? (i.e. that this is not the explanation for the surface temperature of Venus?) Are you suggesting that somehow those gases we release do not stay in the atmosphere?

I simply do not understand how anybody who knows what the greenhouse effect is and knows how much excess greenhouse gases are currently being released by humans can come to any conclusion other than that AGW is real. Now...if scientists had predicted AGW and we had witnessed 30 years of glaciers growing and ice sheets expanding at the poles then maybe I might be tempted to go back and question the science a bit more carefully, but this is not what happened.

[emordnilap]

Strangely, maybe history will see the biosphere having been compromised by laziness. You know how it is, I couldn't be bothered...

[MacG]

Since none of the "skeptics" responded to this post, I will repeat it.

How is it possible that we can release vast amounts of greenhouse gases (not just CO2, but all the others too) and this doesn't cause climate change? Are you trying to suggest that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist? (i.e. that this is not the explanation for the surface temperature of Venus?) Are you suggesting that somehow those gases we release do not stay in the atmosphere?

I simply do not understand how anybody who knows what the greenhouse effect is and knows how much excess greenhouse gases are currently being released by humans can come to any conclusion other than that AGW is real. Now...if scientists had predicted AGW and we had witnessed 30 years of glaciers growing and ice sheets expanding at the poles then maybe I might be tempted to go back and question the science a bit more carefully, but this is not what happened.

1) Venus shine so bright because it REFLECT most of the sunlight shining on it. That is not in accordance with "greenhouse" effects. Quite the opposite. Please support any other claims about Venus as an argument with a proper reference.

2) You have to put the anthropogenic emmissions in relation to the natural sources, not just juggle around with ONE large number.

[MacG]

CAN WE HAVE THIS THREAD MOVED TO "CLIMATE CHANGE"??

[contadino]

CAN WE HAVE THIS THREAD MOVED TO "CLIMATE CHANGE"??

Or could we have a sub-forum called something like "Black is White" where we can dump threads like these?

[UndercoverElephant]

Since none of the "skeptics" responded to this post, I will repeat it.

How is it possible that we can release vast amounts of greenhouse gases (not just CO2, but all the others too) and this doesn't cause climate change? Are you trying to suggest that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist? (i.e. that this is not the explanation for the surface temperature of Venus?) Are you suggesting that somehow those gases we release do not stay in the atmosphere?

I simply do not understand how anybody who knows what the greenhouse effect is and knows how much excess greenhouse gases are currently being released by humans can come to any conclusion other than that AGW is real. Now...if scientists had predicted AGW and we had witnessed 30 years of glaciers growing and ice sheets expanding at the poles then maybe I might be tempted to go back and question the science a bit more carefully, but this is not what happened.

1) Venus shine so bright because it REFLECT most of the sunlight shining on it. That is not in accordance with "greenhouse" effects. Quite the opposite. Please support any other claims about Venus as an argument with a proper reference.

Oh boy. Well..at least I know what I'm dealing with now.

So you are telling me that the greenhouse effect is not the explanation for the very high surface temperature of Venus, and your reason is that Venus shines brightly because it reflects a lot of sunlight. This tells me that you don't know what the greenhouse effect is - that you do not understand the chemistry and physics behind the mechanism. Before I go on, would you please confirm that this is the case?

2) You have to put the anthropogenic emmissions in relation to the natural sources, not just juggle around with ONE large number.

Correct. And if you do that then you will see that the anthropogenic emissions are indeed highly significant compared to natural sources.

[UndercoverElephant]

CAN WE HAVE THIS THREAD MOVED TO "CLIMATE CHANGE"??

Or could we have a sub-forum called something like "Black is White" where we can dump threads like these?

Indeed. "The Idiots Corner"?

What I particularly like about MacG's position is that there are two entirely unrelated strands of denial in action. Firstly he's trying to deny that human activity wrt greenhouse gas emissions is significant compared to natural sources. Secondly, he is claiming that the greenhouse effect doesn't even exist on Venus - that the basic physics and chemistry which underpins our understanding of the Venusian atmosphere is totally wrong (and by implication, that all releases of greenhouse gases on earth are completley irrelevant, because there's no such things as the greenhouse effect). This is very odd. It reeks of a person who comes to the discussion with his mind already made up, determined to find *some* way of defending his "skepticism", just like creationists, who tend to employ exactly the same "try to cover all bases, just in case" approach to their denial of darwinism.

[Andy Hunt]

CAN WE HAVE THIS THREAD MOVED TO "CLIMATE CHANGE"??

I realise that you are frustrated at not getting your own way, but there is really no need to start shouting. The word "please" also exists you know.

What do we think folks, should the thread go in the climate change forum? There is already one in there entitled "Chill".

[JohnB]

Well, if history prove me wrong, I will have a much easier time apologizing than you will have if history proves YOU wrong.

If no action is taken on climate change, and history proves it to have been real, we will have a lot of suffering, and an uninhabitable planet.

If action is taken, but history proves that climate change wasn't real, we will have a different way of life to what we would otherwise have had.

I think MacG will have a harder time apologising for wiping out much of life on earth, than the rest of us will have for a change in lifestyle. Or is it that if he is wrong, he'll be dead so won't be in a fit state to apologise? That's a big gamble to take.

[JohnB]

What do we think folks, should the thread go in the climate change forum? There is already one in there entitled "Chill".

I don't think it should, but it's too late as it's already been done. It started off as a discussion on cold weather. As the cold weather is about to return, we now risk starting another discussion that ends up as a rant about climate change.

[MacG]

So you are telling me that the greenhouse effect is not the explanation for the very high surface temperature of Venus, and your reason is that Venus shines brightly because it reflects a lot of sunlight. This tells me that you don't know what the greenhouse effect is - that you do not understand the chemistry and physics behind the mechanism. Before I go on, would you please confirm that this is the case?

You made a claim about the cause of the conditions on Venus, I asked for some support for that claim. Prefereably not a blog, Wikipedia or general Google search, but a reference to some scientific paper. I'm still waiting.

[MacG]

Well, if history prove me wrong, I will have a much easier time apologizing than you will have if history proves YOU wrong.

If no action is taken on climate change, and history proves it to have been real, we will have a lot of suffering, and an uninhabitable planet.

If action is taken, but history proves that climate change wasn't real, we will have a different way of life to what we would otherwise have had.

I think MacG will have a harder time apologising for wiping out much of life on earth, than the rest of us will have for a change in lifestyle. Or is it that if he is wrong, he'll be dead so won't be in a fit state to apologise? That's a big gamble to take.

I dont know if I'm supposed to feel flattered or if I just should let my megalomanic side take over completely. If I will be responsible for wiping out much of the life on earth, then I must be quite some guy! Eh!

[UndercoverElephant]

So you are telling me that the greenhouse effect is not the explanation for the very high surface temperature of Venus, and your reason is that Venus shines brightly because it reflects a lot of sunlight. This tells me that you don't know what the greenhouse effect is - that you do not understand the chemistry and physics behind the mechanism. Before I go on, would you please confirm that this is the case?

You made a claim about the cause of the conditions on Venus, I asked for some support for that claim.

No, MacG, I actually asked you a question. This one:

Are you trying to suggest that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist? (i.e. that this is not the explanation for the surface temperature of Venus?

You did not quite say "yes", but your answer certainly implied "maybe." I then asked you another question, which you haven't answered. This one:

This tells me that you don't know what the greenhouse effect is - that you do not understand the chemistry and physics behind the mechanism. Before I go on, would you please confirm that this is the case?

I am asking you whether or not you believe you understand the basic chemistry and physics underlying the theory of the greenhouse effect on planetary climate systems. I strongly suspect you do not, but I am waiting for you to answer the question. Trying to put the ball back in my court by asking me to support the implied claim that the greenhouse effect is real (i.e. that the physics and chemistry in question is sound, and the GE is the correct scientific explanation for the surface temperature of venus) will not work. I could explain this physics and chemistry to you if I wanted to, but I first want to give you an opportunity to tell us what you believe your own current state of knowledge to be.

Just to make this crystal clear: I want you either to admit you do not know what you are talking about (scientifically) or commit yourself to the claim that you do already understand the science and that you think there is something wrong with it. Your move.

[emordnilap]

The problems caused by climate change, inequality, species loss, pollution and energy depletion would be tackled with cap and share introduced worldwide. No 'debate' would be needed, though there are plenty of MacGs out there who would say none of the above is happening.