When knowledge is suppressed we all lose.
- Thread starter Grat3fulh3ad
- Start date
- Status
Perhaps you should read the more detailed explanation...
The one you quoted is the simplified version for simpletons.
Every piece of data and the sources of the data in the intermediate and advanced versions is properly referenced and hyperlinked to the source.
If you'll notice toward the top of the page it says "This post is the Basic version (written by John Russell) of the skeptic argument "It's the sun"."
If you'll click on the "it's the sun" then you'll be taken to a page which contains that simplified elementary version, and also has a tab for those who want a more advanced explanation.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm
All you have to do is put forth a tiny amount of effort, and look for the answers, not for something to nitpick.
If you still can't figure out how to navigate the site by this evening, I'll walk you through it.
Mezz Mezzrow
Member
Why put a fallacy in the simple version? Simple or complex, no explanation should use fallacies. Other pages have fallacies too like "97% of climatologists agree." They might as well put "4 out of 5 dentists agree that Bullcrap brand toothpaste is the shit!" Well, which dentists! What's their reasoning?
Mezz Mezzrow
Member
Here is another bit I find objectionable.
Might the heat from undersea volcanoes not be warming the ocean? More of these are being discovered.
Might the heat from undersea volcanoes not be warming the ocean? More of these are being discovered.
Keep reading.
The scientific evidence is like a jigsaw puzzle. There is no single 'smoking gun', and it is not a house of cards.
eventually you'll have enough pieces in place to see the bigger picture.
Be sure and read the more advanced explanations and all of the debate beneath the explanations.
Surely you don't imagine the scientific community to be unaware of something you thought of.
Keep digging, the datum are all there.
The scientific evidence is like a jigsaw puzzle. There is no single 'smoking gun', and it is not a house of cards.
eventually you'll have enough pieces in place to see the bigger picture.
Be sure and read the more advanced explanations and all of the debate beneath the explanations.
Surely you don't imagine the scientific community to be unaware of something you thought of.
Keep digging, the datum are all there.
No fallacy is there, just not enough advanced information to fully support the assertion... that's what makes it the simplified version.
They do explain it fully, but you might have to do some clicking.
thankfully clicking is not very much of an obstacle, and I'm sure you can do it.
I am willing to walk you through site navigation once if you still need it. We'll know by your next post if your truth seeking or nitpicking.
Mezz Mezzrow
Member
How can one site contain all knowledge on all aspects of such a subject? You seem to have blind faith in the site. If you are so well versed in it I think you ought to answer my questions. Maybe it is you who are copping out. Heat from undersea volcanoes...
Anyone who has had physics 101 knows that the statement you bolded "it's the known physical properties of greenhouse gasses that provide us with the only real and measurable explanation of global warming." is 100% correct.
Perhaps you need to familiarize yourself with the known, observable, properties of greenhouse gasses. The mechanism by which CO2 causes warming is well known, and has been for decades.
We have pictures of greenhouse gasses retaining warmth.
Perhaps you need to familiarize yourself with the known, observable, properties of greenhouse gasses. The mechanism by which CO2 causes warming is well known, and has been for decades.
We have pictures of greenhouse gasses retaining warmth.
The answers are there.
You do not want to be educated on the subject, or you'd avail yourself of that knowledge.
I've answered your questions already dozens of times in GW threads where the questions are not off topic.
The Skeptical Science site answers all your questions.
but you aren't interested in the answers it seems.
I've provided you the information, that's no cop out.
It's up to you to decide to honestly dig through it.
You really should move this discussion to the climate change thread, though, instead of hijacking this one.
If you want me to engage you in this discussion you're gonna have to gain enough background knowledge to understand the answers.
just a few clicks could help you
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-01-physics-i-fall-2003/lecture-notes/
just a few clicks could help you
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-01-physics-i-fall-2003/lecture-notes/
I'm all set... I took physics.
If you ever get caught up with me, dag, I'll bother to address you... until then, I'll ignore your post as the meaningless trolling they are.
learning never ends...
im sure you "took physics" lol
are you telling me you could derive zero benefit from advanced MIT physics courses?
lmao and im the asshole!!!
Nice of you to link people up to things which completely support my assertions, though.
perhaps you should bother studying them.
perhaps you should bother studying them.
and im the asshole..
your fan boy filed to acknowledge the fact i have remained relatively polite in the face of your defensive posturing
Elitist mentality motherfuckers. I can't stand 'em. Big problems in every society in which they inhabit. Truth is, most all of them are dumb fucks that fool nobody but themselves.
Oh, and dumb fucks LOVE bandwagons, because the really don't have to know shit about shit, all they have to do is chime in and rub a nut or two now and again...and they are on the team!
Mezz Mezzrow
Member
I get information from everywhere I can. I'm not going to slavishly pore over this site because you pronounce it to be the arbiter of all things climate change. I think if you were truly skeptical you would not be so "convinced." How is that possible? The minute a skeptic becomes convinced he is no longer a skeptic.
- Status
