3 ms·

You aren't having a discussion. You are arrogantly dismissing discussion and proclaiming yourself not just right, but beyond reproach, while strawmanning your

• defen 12y ago
  How is it a strawman? GP said that a 0.5% increase in energy would correspond to a 0.5% increase in temperature. That's manifestly wrong.
  • quink 12y ago
    No I didn't. I said that it's something like that from a 30,000 view. I even put being happy about a +/- 50% difference without a problem. But if I put 1 energy into object x, at the simplest I'll get something about 1 temperature more if that object is in a vacuum, given enough time. Sure, it's never as simple as that, but that's all I was saying, plus/minus several dozen percent, from a bird's eye view. And greenhouse gases don't just trap incoming energy, but also serve to suppress black body radiation... and are 50% higher now than they were some centuries ago. So, point being, do I agree with you that black body radiation is the ultimate end to climate change? Absolutely. But I've just got to look over at Venus and the Sun to see how that dynamic plays out elsewhere and it's much hotter than 300 K.
  • imanaccount247 12y ago
    Because this: >it identifies a nearly religious zeal on the part of some non-scientists who insist that anyone who does anything other than repeat the mantra "the science is settled; we must implement every imaginable solution except nuclear power" Is not a response to what was said. It is a response to a fantasy opponent that was made up.