> No, I'm simply exasperated at (1) the gross stupidity of
> supposedly-intelligent people, and at (2) the unbelievable
> arrogance of
> the unintelligent and/or uneducated who have absolutely no
> clue, yet
> have the audacity to pretend otherwise.
Irony. Lulz.
> Can you -- generic you -- right here, right now, without
> any help,
> state the three laws of thermodynamics, give an example of
> a perturbation
> function, explain the carbon dioxide phase diagram, and
> solve a partial
> differential equation? If not, then you
> really should not be trying
> to express an opinion on global warming.
I understand all your buzzwords. You are choosing random jargon to intimidate
people. I'm not impressed.
If Al Gore is getting Oscars and Nobel Prizes, then the only qualification you
need to join the debate is to understand science at least as well as Al Gore.
That's pretty much everybody.
I would suggest that understanding the "scientific method" is important. That,
for me, is what made me a skeptic (and what encouraged me to learn
climatology). The IPCC has gaping holes in their scientific method. The worst
is the way computer models have replaced empirical data. The second worst is
the way that historical reconstructions (aka. the Hockey Sticks) are not
reproducible, not statistically robust, and which contain "tricks to hide the
decline". The IPCC, and scientists like Mann and Jones, do things openly and
publicly that no other scientific discipline would tolerate. The Climategate
e-mails don't really show anything new, but have focused people's attention on
these errors. I'll bet money that the next IPCC assessment report will not
contain a graph that "hides the decline" like the current one does.
I'll give you a chance to make me look like a fool. I'm scratching my head
about your "CO2 phase change diagram" buzzword. The partial pressure of CO2
never gets high enough to deposit out of the atmosphere, and I don't think
there are lakes of CO2 under the ocean (where in theory, pressure is high
enough to make CO2 a solid/liquid). I'm at a loss to explain why this has
relevance to the IPCC conclusion that mankind is responsible for global
warming. Please enlighten me, and show everyone how little I know of climate
science.
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
