@metal-brain said"You had every opportunity to show where sea level rise accelerated excessively due to CO2 increase and you declined. Why did you decline?"
"It is true, however, that CO2 causes warming."
In a box, not the atmosphere. There is no evidence that CO2 causes warming in the atmosphere. Repeating a falsehood over and over again will not make it true.
"Stop using the argument that the climate warms naturally as if it disproves greenhouse theory."
Stop using the argument that a warming climate proves anthrop ...[text shortened]... islead than admit you are wrong.
Sea level rise results from warming. There is no better measure.
I did not decline. You dismissed the data out of hand.
02 Nov 19
@deepthought saidSo now you are resorting to slander of a respected Physicist because you disagree with his conclusion? How about stopping slander based on rumor and address the facts he laid out? When you don't like facts you commonly attack the source out of last resort.
Regarding Feynman, an interesting fact is that he was a late talker, he did not start talking until he was three. I found this quote on his Wikipedia page:[quote]I suspect that this [IQ] test [he scored 125 in] emphasized verbal, as opposed to mathematical, ability. Feynman received the highest score in the United States by a large margin on the notoriously difficult Put ...[text shortened]... use disorder (but managed to stop himself), it's entirely plausible he was a subclinical psychopath.
Facts are no trivial matter. Stop avoiding them.
02 Nov 19
@wildgrass saidYou did decline and I never rejected the data. I am the one who posted the data. Here it is again:
"You had every opportunity to show where sea level rise accelerated excessively due to CO2 increase and you declined. Why did you decline?"
I did not decline. You dismissed the data out of hand.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
Give it your best shot....and stop lying. I posted this link for you countless times. You declined then and I'll bet you will decline now by making up some lame excuse or digressing into something else to avoid sea level rise.
Make your case!
02 Nov 19
3 edits
@metal-brain saidDeepthought didn't do slander but merely stated the written and recorded historical accounts about him and I would say seemingly in a very non-biased manner. Give just one assertion you say Deepthought said about him that you say is false and unsupported by any info in any weblink... If you cannot do that then you accusation of slander is itself slander.
So now you are resorting to slander of a respected Physicist
And at least as a human being as opposed to specifically as a scientist, Feynman was probably NOT widely "respected" because, judging purely from some of the written and recorded historical accounts of him, had was known to have a pretty unpleasant character. Not all scientists are generally "respected" by other scientists and what defines a valid scientific claim has NOTHING to do with how "respected" the person is who made it.
02 Nov 19
@humy saidFeynman was right. All the nit picking in the world at his character will not change that.
Deepthought didn't do slander but merely stated the written and recorded historical accounts about him and I would say seemingly in a very non-biased manner. Give just one assertion you say Deepthought said about him that you say is false and unsupported by any info in any weblink... If you cannot do that then you accusation of slander is itself slander.
And at least as a hum ...[text shortened]... t defines a valid scientific claim has NOTHING to do with how "respected" the person is who made it.
02 Nov 19
6 edits
@metal-brain saidNot about the greenhouse effect; More specifically, he denied that there are any greenhouse gases which means he in effect denied that (gas)H2O and CH4 and CO2 absorb infrared to create any warming effect and not even YOU deny this for (gas)H2O and CH4 (only arbitrarily deny it for CO2 just because you don't want it) so if he is right then you are STILL wrong about at least part of it! But instead you are BOTH wrong and science is right.
Feynman was right.
And what about the majority of equally well respected physicist that say he was wrong and there are greenhouse gases and one of them is CO2? Why ignore THEIR EXPERT claims?
02 Nov 19
@humy saidSo still no proof, just rhetoric. You do realize both methane and CO2 lagged behind temperatures in the ice core samples, right?
Not about the greenhouse effect; More specifically, he denied that there are any greenhouse gases which means he in effect denied that (gas)H2O and CH4 and CO2 absorb infrared to create any warming effect and not even YOU deny this for (gas)H2O and CH4 (only arbitrarily deny it for CO2 just because you don't want it) so if he is right then you are STILL wrong about at least part ...[text shortened]... he was wrong and there are greenhouse gases and one of them is CO2? Why ignore THEIR EXPERT claims?
02 Nov 19
@metal-brain saidI respect Feynman as a theoretical physicist, this is different from thinking he's a good human being and it is different from thinking he's a competent commentator on climate change. Thinking that someone is either perfect or evil is known as splitting and is a pathological mode of thought.
So now you are resorting to slander of a respected Physicist because you disagree with his conclusion? How about stopping slander based on rumor and address the facts he laid out? When you don't like facts you commonly attack the source out of last resort.
Facts are no trivial matter. Stop avoiding them.
02 Nov 19
@deepthought saidStill avoiding facts then. I'm not surprised.
I respect Feynman as a theoretical physicist, this is different from thinking he's a good human being and it is different from thinking he's a competent commentator on climate change. Thinking that someone is either perfect or evil is known as splitting and is a pathological mode of thought.
@metal-brain saidWhat facts am I avoiding that are relevant to the discussion between us? I'm questioning your use of him as an expert, I'm not engaging in the rest of the argument. His opinion dates from the 1980's, it's 30 years old, we have new data.
Still avoiding facts then. I'm not surprised.
04 Nov 19
1 edit
@deepthought saidGreat, then use the new sea level rise data to make your case.
What facts am I avoiding that are relevant to the discussion between us? I'm questioning your use of him as an expert, I'm not engaging in the rest of the argument. His opinion dates from the 1980's, it's 30 years old, we have new data.
Proving CO2 causes warming in a box does not prove it causes warming in the atmosphere. Feynman made an excellent case, you are just resorting to "attack the source" tactics because you are incapable of doing it with facts.
There is no evidence CO2 causes warming in the atmosphere. That is a factual statement. It is not my fault you cannot prove that fact wrong.
https://principia-scientific.org/r-i-p-greenhouse-gas-theory-1980-2018/
@metal-brain saidSea level rise data would have very little if anything to do with what he just said.
Great, then use the new sea level rise data to make your case.
So why would he want, like you, to use the mostly irrelevant sea level rise data to try and "make his case" rather than the much more relevant temperature rise data I have already repeatedly showed you and that proves you wrong?
04 Nov 19
@humy saidAlso there's the geological data. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3557064/
Sea level rise data would have very little if anything to do with what he just said.
So why would he want, like you, to use the mostly irrelevant sea level rise data to try and "make his case" rather than the much more relevant temperature rise data I have already repeatedly showed you and that proves you wrong?
05 Nov 19
Notice how alarmists want to ignore sea level data. Now it doesn't matter. Nothing to see here. They told you sea level rise was a problem, now they want you to ignore it.
There is nothing more alarmists hate than actual sea level data. When you ask them to make their case they have nothing. They want to digress into anything but sea level rise.
05 Nov 19
@metal-brain saidI'm not engaged in the sea level rise debate. I'm questioning your use of Feynman as an expert on climate science. He was a particle physicist, and he died thirty years ago. We simply do not know what he would have thought had he been around now.
Great, then use the new sea level rise data to make your case.
Proving CO2 causes warming in a box does not prove it causes warming in the atmosphere. Feynman made an excellent case, you are just resorting to "attack the source" tactics because you are incapable of doing it with facts.
There is no evidence CO2 causes warming in the atmosphere. That is a factual stat ...[text shortened]... ot prove that fact wrong.
https://principia-scientific.org/r-i-p-greenhouse-gas-theory-1980-2018/