aonsquared

Oh I should add to that, basic understanding of logic (it's a branch of mathematics, in case you don't know) and logical fallacies. Your posts are full of that. Here, again, a setting up of a strawman argument, sprinkle in an ad-hominem attack, and no real argument (as this contradicts your earlier positions).

Reading comprehension isn't his strong suit...there's only so much simplification you can do! (well he did post a youtube video claiming people are over-simplifying the description of AGW ) Brenthutch, if you really are serious about discussing this issue please gain the proper technical background and not just propaganda websites and Youtube videos. You will need: basic knowledge of differential equations (most freshman university mathematics courses will have this) basic Newtonian physics (mostly covered in high school level) university freshman-level thermodynamics (gas equation, blackbody spectrum) There are lots of free online courses that teach this, and you should have covered 2) in high school. You really don't need to be an expert, but at least know the language as it's hard to "dumb it down" all the time, and then you criticise people for oversimplifying.

Oh don't worry, he'll cherry-pick something out of the internet. Which is why I pointed out that he's running out of arguments if he has to bring other people's/imaginary arguments into the discussion.

You can't really address my arguments, so you bring other people's arguments and argue as if you're arguing against me? That's what's called a strawman argument. Argue against what I said. This is how you say so much in this topic - your arguments keep shifting, you'll put two contradictory arguments in quick succession, slide around and slip away from arguments you can't win. Then you'll do it again. You've been called a troll, but I can think of other animals that make a better analogy...

You are contradicting yourself again. Your silly video kept saying how complex climate models were (and true, they ARE complex and it is a difficult subject) and now you're setting up a strawman saying it should be simple? Nice try. Litigation takes time and is ongoing. Given how BADLY you've predicted how Tesla stock will fare, will you put your money on this?

Sorry, I should have used the word "effective" instead of "efficient". When the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, "cost-effective" was not a metric that people measured success on. Why does fighting climate change have to be "cost-effective", and fighting the Taliban or ISIS *not* have to be "cost-effective"? Market-based approaches do work somewhat but even the US administration is not doing the things exactly quoted from your source: BOTH points which have been vehemently opposed by climate change deniers. The Trump administration has tried (or is trying) to roll back fuel efficiency regulations, and refused to implement market-based programs like carbon taxes or cap-and-trade programs, or a bigger scheme like the Paris Agreement.

It is happening. However it would be more efficient with government support and policy. Strange how some people are so "free market" when it comes to green technology, but when it comes to warfare, become very socialist. Next time there's a war, the government shouldn't waste money on the military - just tell people to buy their own guns at Wal-mart and make their own way to the front. After all if fighting (insert war here) is good for the security and economy, the free market will take care of it. Blackwater made good money haven't they?

so back to attacking the credibility and integrity of climate scientists "because they over-simplify and their climate models are wrong" via Youtube link. Climate models are complicated, but brenthutch models are easy to predict (and I DID predict it btw)

Prediction: he will attack NASA's credibility and integrity. It's the start of another cycle, so yes we should take kallend's suggestion and stop feeding the troll.

So you're saying, bend over and take it? No wonder you dropped the mic No, this is a technological problem with a technological solution. We can accelerate these technological improvements even faster by giving it proper funding and attention. There's lots of exciting tech on the way. Thanks for conceding.

He's not that consistent. Looking at a lot of his posts, they started with cherry-picked data on how it's not actually hotter, ice in Antarctica is growing, AGW is a myth peddled by people with an agenda. Then he refutes his own point by accepting that it's actually a degree or two hotter, but "who cares it's good for us and plants". Maybe it's not just the climate that's changing, his excuses are too. But he has such a LARGE amount of posts with the first argument, so if he changes his argument now those posts go to waste...

Setting up a strawman argument about a different topic that I never made, then attacking it for being inconsistent? Impressive

As a skydiver from Australia told me recently: When was the last time a skydiver WANTED rain?

sure...

Well I guess I'm done here then...maybe leave a script for future SC readers to follow to save time The script goes: He will attack the credibility and integrity of the person/scientist/institution concerned about AGW He will cherry-pick data that says fires are not getting worse, floods are not getting worse, it's actually getting colder incredibly, he will cherry-pick a sentence even when the NEXT SENTENCE is completely opposite of his argument then he'll completely refute his own argument in 2) and say a degree or two of warming is actually good. Plants thrive in CO2, and things are actually a lot better right now (it's not because of CO2, but he'll ignore that). But press him on it and he will probably deny warming is caused by human activity. Then, he will refute the argument he JUST made in 3) by cherry-picking data again to show the world isn't warming/it was warmer millions of years ago/etc. Don't try the thermodynamics argument with him - he doesn't know it very well and will ignore your arguments there He'll then circle back to credibility/integrity attacks, cherry-picked data, then back to how much plants like CO2 and the cycle begins again!

Ok I take that back. You just don't understand basic thermodynamics.

Your responses are perfectly predictable: CO2 causes AGW you attack the messenger - questioning people's credibility, attacking their person not the message then you say "it's not getting hotter and here I have DATA that it's not, it's getting colder or just the same!" THEN you say "yes it's getting hotter so what, it's good for plants" you do not realise that your statement in 3) is not consistent with your statement in 2)

So I'll say: but there HAS been an increase. Australia for example You'll say: But the fires are BECAUSE OF REASON X (NOT AGW!) If you listen to yourself...do you not realise how stupid you sound?

You keep changing the topic, and running from the main argument...

Also I've never mentioned plants, so you're deflecting the topic again. We were discussing temperatures. Let's remove the millions of uncertain variables affecting an entire planet, and simplify. Simplify the argument to high school level. Let's take 2 identical, adiabatically sealed containers. Fill one with oxygen and water vapour, the second one EXACTLY the same, but replace some oxygen with CO2 (let's say 400ppm). Now let's expose both containers to the SAME amount of sunlight, for the SAME amount of time. Carefully measure the temperatures. Now, if the container with CO2 warms up more, brenthutch pays up, if not, I pay up. Basic thermodynamics. Now will you put your money where your mouth is? How much?

Last time I checked US farmers were having trouble selling their crops, yield was not a problem. And we're talking about temperatures here, nice deflection.

If you only read ONE more sentence after your quotation...geez. In simpler english: When the ice started growing 34 million years ago, it was at 760 ppm and dropping. By the time it was finished growing, CO2 was at 300ppm. This was 20 million years ago. Reducing CO2 levels was the primary cause of the ice forming. By the way, English is not my first language.

Wow, you did not read the entire article you linked to... Let's do a wager then. How much money are you willing to put up?

On Venus, and if the plate was made of lead, then yes well it would be a puddle on the ground so no lasing required

Actually, the CO2 retransmission of energy happens even when it's not focused - in the 70s, astronomers discovered naturally-occurring CO2 lasers in the atmospheres of Mars and Venus ("Nonthermal 10 micron CO2 emission lines in the atmospheres of Mars and Venus", Johnson et al., 1976) Venus, of course, is that nice planet with a balmy surface temperature of 864 Fahrenheit (462 degrees C) mostly thanks to CO2.