Carbon dioxide rise in the atmosphere

[iceaura]

The long rant which presents me as a rightwing is not worth to be discussed.

There was no rant, and the observation was of your posting here - which is in fact dominated by the standard rightwing corporate propaganda feed as is familiar to people in the US. Same issues, same bs, same vocabulary, right down the line.
It's not me presenting you as "a rightwing" - it's you. "Hitlary" ? Dude - - -

As I have said, if I discuss with those from the left, I can use arguments from the right, if I argue with those from the right, I can use arguments from the left.

So you say. But you never have. You always post propaganda from the wingnut right, never from the left, even when you are arguing against a rightwing stance - such as my stance on child labor.

The important political distinction - freedom vs. totalitarism - is almost orthogonal to the left-right distinction.

Yes. Hence my most frequent objection to your posting - you continually confuse authoritarian with left, and left with authoritarian. You seem oblivious to rightwing authoritarian aspects of political reality. Hence your posting of Clinton's campaign financing as an example of leftwinger's naivety regarding campaign corruption - addressed to me, even.

In general, I'm thinking about ways to behave if one is confronted with people who use phrases like "your screwball brain" in their communication

Try modeling your responses after mine to your continual parade of personal attack and ignorant personal speculations.

After all, it's not easy to respond with respect to someone in a climate CO2 thread who regards standard considerations of physical reality - such as the basic feedback effects of CO2 boosting - as "speculative" and "propaganda". And therefore dismisses any invitation to read up on the matter as unnecessary - since they can evaluate propaganda for themselves. They claim.

like the "you are a rightwing fanatic"-cries of iceaura here

As an initial setup, try making a habit of not attaching someone's name to a phrase with quote marks unless it is actually a quote from their posting. Then you won't look quite as dishonest when you put that little twist in (changing their supposed focus from your posts to your self).

Traditionally the right prefers capitalism (economic freedom), while the left prefers sexual and cultural freedom.

No. Capitalism is not "economic freedom", but fully compatible with oppressive economic restrictions (e.g. slavery), meanwhile the authoritarian Left is notably and famously and traditionally oppressive of sexual and cultural behaviors.

Let's look at the extremal points: A totalitarian world government can be based on a nationalistic or racist base, but it would be much more natural to base it on equality and humanism, because this prevents large groups of people becoming automatically enemies of the world government. At the other end, anarchy allows for communistic communes as well as for various small sects of nationalists, racists, religious fanatics and so on, because secession, separation is a basic right. While this seems comfortable with the right, it is clearly incompatible with one of the basic ideas of the left, namely equality. An anarchistic world is not a world of equality.

Once again, you have "authoritarian" and "left" bollixed to the point of completely confusing yourself. I have no idea how best to begin untangling that mess, but one approach might be to start with your notion of "equality": of what? What do you think the libertarian left, among its "basic ideas", holds equal?

And what in that entire delusion of totalitarian humanism opposed to anarchic capitalism brings you to regard science based AGW consideration and alarm as leftwing, propaganda, dominating the US via "state-owned media", and so forth?

 

[river]

Disgree here

No. Capitalism is not "economic freedom", but fully compatible with oppressive economic restrictions (e.g. slavery), meanwhile the authoritarian Left is notably and famously and traditionally oppressive of sexual and cultural behaviors.

Capitalism has been distorted by the present form of Capitalism.

Capitalism is the best form of expression of individualism. Which we should cherish.

But what is happening in the present day of Capitalism is greed and destruction of peoples and countries and in the end our planet.

We can change this destructive aspect of Capitalism with good people who relise that sharing the wealth benifits us all.

 

[PhysBang]

Considering the many German translations of "entertain" I see nothing which fits with my points. I would guess, it means, I'm a horrible person if I do not participate in the everyday minutes of hate against the Holocaust deniers. No problem, if this is what makes me a horrible person for you, I prefer to be a horrible person.

Yeah, that's pretty much it. You want to hate "official stories", which means that you are willing to accept the tripe of anyone who wants to lie to you as long as they do it under the cover of fighting the "official story". You are willing to discount the deaths and torture of millions in order to satisfy your own ego.

Look, people, do not engage with Schmelzer on points. You can't win. He is a crank on physics, on climate science, and on the Holocaust because he wants to be contrary. This is not a rational being that one can sway with information.

 

[PhysBang]

We can change this destructive aspect of Capitalism with good people who relise that sharing the wealth benifits us all.

So, socialism?

 

[river]

river said: ↑
We can change this destructive aspect of Capitalism with good people who relise that sharing the wealth benifits us all.

So, socialism?

No. Just sharing the wealth.

The more money the people have ; the more they spend ; the more they spend the greater the profits. Obviously. And the more of the people that have the money to spend the better. And their standard of living increases as well.

 

[PhysBang]

No. Just sharing the wealth.

So... socialism.

The more money the people have ; the more they spend ; the more they spend the greater the profits. Obviously. And the more of the people that have the money to spend the better. And their standard of living increases as well.

That's how it works if there is socialism to spread the money around, but capitalism has never worked like that except when modified by socialist programs.

 

[river]

So... socialism.

That's how it works if there is socialism to spread the money around, but capitalism has never worked like that except when modified by socialist programs.

True

But the need for socialist programs is based on the attitude of the wealthy. As always.

And tax benifits for the rich is a form of socialism.

 

[Schmelzer]

You want to hate "official stories", which means that you are willing to accept the tripe of anyone who wants to lie to you as long as they do it under the cover of fighting the "official story". You are willing to discount the deaths and torture of millions in order to satisfy your own ego.

Nonsense. What I want is truth, understanding. If the official version is true, no problem. Who tells the truth - an official bureaucrat, or some conspiracy theorist, a left or a right, if he is doing this for money, because he hates somebody, or likes somebody, to satisfy his own ego or to confess his sins, is nothing I would care about. I care about arguments.

To argue about Holocaust is impossible, given that if you doubt it, you end in prison. Experience shows that if it is not allowed to doubt an official version, there is something wrong with the official version. Ok, this may be an exception, I would guess the first exception in the history of mankind for this rule, I don't know. I know that the truth does not need imprisonments of opponents to win. What is wrong, if something is wrong, I don't know, this is not my field of interest.

Once I do not count the deaths and tortures, I do not discount them too. Whatever the truth about the Holocaust, how could that influence my ego? I don't hate Germans (German myself), don't hate Russians, don't hate Jews, where were no libertarians fighting in that war, all the participating states are anyway guilty of a lot of war crimes. Why should I care about supporters of war criminals arguing about who has made more war crimes?

 

[billvon]

Nonsense. What I want is truth, understanding.

Great! Here are some good places to start:

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It allows light to fall on the Earth but blocks re-radiation of infrared. This keeps the planet warmer. This is easy to research. You can even do the experiment yourself with a pyranometer, an IR source and a tank of CO2.

The CO2 absorption band in our atmosphere is almost, but not quite, saturated. That's why doubling its concentration results in the retention of just a few additional watts per square meter instead of hundreds. This is also easy to research. This tells you what the "forcing" from CO2 is - how much additional heat is retained.

We are emitting enough CO2 to increase the concentration of that gas in the atmosphere significantly. This is easy to research as well - calculate the tons of carbon we burn every year (easy to get a decent estimate) then calculate how much CO2 that results in, and how much it will change the composition of the atmosphere (also easy to calculate.)

The Earth's temperature is increasing. Again easy to validate for yourself.

The Earth's temperature is rising at a rate proportional to the additional forcing you figured out in the step above. That is also pretty easy to validate.

Doing the above you will learn a lot and not be reliant on suspect media sources.

 

[sculptor]

Anyone have any links to stomatal studies of mis 5 and mis 11 of species which have changed little in the last 500kyrs?

 

[Schmelzer]

Great! Here are some good places to start:

Fine, thank you, but why do you think there is anything new for me?

 

[PhysBang]

Nonsense. What I want is truth, understanding. If the official version is true, no problem. Who tells the truth - an official bureaucrat, or some conspiracy theorist, a left or a right, if he is doing this for money, because he hates somebody, or likes somebody, to satisfy his own ego or to confess his sins, is nothing I would care about. I care about arguments.

But your behavior belies this claim. You side against GR, against climate change, and against the Holocaust, for goodness sake!

You are just a horrible person lashing out at the world.

 

[Schmelzer]

But your behavior belies this claim. You side against GR, against climate change, and against the Holocaust, for goodness sake!

Don't cry.

Learn to understand that there are minor differences between "side against GR" and proposing a theory which has the Einstein equations of GR as a limit, and where the Einstein Equivalence Principle holds. To understand that even the most ardent proponents of GR try to do similar things (namely to develop a theory of quantum gravity) would be helpful.

Then, learn to understand that one can accept that increasing CO2 will lead to some increase in temperature, and accept that temperatures are rising, but nonetheless reject most of the moral panic and hysteria about climate change.

Learn to understand that can be simply neutral about some claims about WW II history. That one can think that, given that people who doubt the official version are incarcerated, there is probably something wrong with it, else one would not do such things, but nonetheless have no opinion about what really happened, and which part of the official version of WW II history is problematic.

Learn that there is a difference between reasonable adult people and children. For children, it makes sense to simply believe everything parents and teachers tell them. Questioning their claims makes sense even for children - but not to reject, but to learn, to obtain a better understanding. If one becomes an adult, this changes. One has to become more critical, and to reject many things told by the media, the politicians, and others. So, for a reasonable adult it is natural that he disagrees with public opinion in many different questions. And this is not horrible at all, but very natural.

 

[billvon]

Fine, thank you, but why do you think there is anything new for me?

Because you say things like this:
"It is CO2 which is claimed to be a cause of GW. If it really plays a big role is not that certain."

and you admit that you have no reality-based arguments because they are too difficult for you:
"Why not post reality based claims and arguments, instead?"
"Its much more difficult to find them and identify them."

and you admit you haven't studied the topic much:
"I have not done very much to find out the truth."

All the above indicate a fundamental ignorance on the topic. Thus, learning about the topic would result in you learning something new. You then might be able to contribute something from a position of knowledge rather than a position of ignorance.

 

[Billy T]

I think the mods are much too liberal. Jerks, who repeately post false "facts" and have been repeatedly corrected and have been shown mutiple times why their beliefs simple are not true, should get permanent ban.

 

[iceaura]

Then, learn to understand that one can accept that increasing CO2 will lead to some increase in temperature, and accept that temperatures are rising, but nonetheless reject most of the moral panic and hysteria about climate change.

You have no way to identify "moral panic" or "hysteria", or differentiate it from factual analysis of the physical situation. You lack information.

To argue about Holocaust is impossible, given that if you doubt it, you end in prison

Not here. I can say anything I want to, anywhere, about the Holocaust, with no risk of prison. If I want to I can argue about the Holocaust online, with strangers in public, in letters to the editor of my local paper, even (at least, before his death) with my uncle who walked - or rather drove - into this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauthausen-Gusen_concentration_camp. Although there would be a penalty for "doubting" the nature of what my uncle found, at least to his face. He wasn't the type to suffer fools gladly.

Once again, you have misled yourself by mistaking information about the world for propaganda, and evaluating the information as if it were propaganda - as you described earlier, discounting and seeing through the information to some hypothetical underlying reality according to your preconceptions of the source bias. When there is no such bias in the information, this procedure produces delusion.

 

[iceaura]

I think the mods are much too liberal. Jerks, who repeately post false "facts" and have been repeatedly corrected and have been shown mutiple times why their beliefs simple are not true, should get permanent ban.

Not a bad idea, in principle. It would have had me banned quite a while ago - the mods here, as on most moderated science forums, have certain areas of conviction that appear to me to be blind spots (GMOs, nuclear power, a wading ape stage in hominid evolution, etc). And what they think they have "shown" me about my "beliefs" is not distinguishable - in their view - from your criterion there.

 

[Schmelzer]

Because you say things like this:
"It is CO2 which is claimed to be a cause of GW. If it really plays a big role is not that certain."

That does not mean that I think that it does not play any role. I'm unsure if it plays a small or a big role. You may not know about this, but there are a lot of people who do not doubt that temperature is rising, but doubt that the main reason for this is human-made CO2. So, my remark only shows that I have not made a clear decision who is right in this particular question.

and you admit that you have no reality-based arguments because they are too difficult for you:
"Why not post reality based claims and arguments, instead?"
"Its much more difficult to find them and identify them."
and you admit you haven't studied the topic much:
"I have not done very much to find out the truth."

Context? Of course, I will not study every question in detail, the time of my life is not sufficient. I study some of them, in as much detail as I think is necessary. To find out, say, that more CO2 leads to more plant growth, how much detailed research is necessary? To make a reasonable guess if this effect is positive for mankind, how many years you have to study this question? Does it follow that I have no reality-based arguments at all? Does it follow that they are too difficult for me? "More difficult" means I would need some time, not that this would be too difficult for me.

All the above indicate a fundamental ignorance on the topic. Thus, learning about the topic would result in you learning something new. You then might be able to contribute something from a position of knowledge rather than a position of ignorance.

Sorry, there is no such subdivision. There are people who have more knowledge than other people about some particular question. I do not like to present myself as somebody who knows everything. But I also do not tend to make claims without any knowledge as background. In this particular case, you seem to have fooled yourself into thinking there would be anything new in your statements.

 

[Schmelzer]

You have no way to identify "moral panic" or "hysteria", or differentiate it from factual analysis of the physical situation. You lack information.

Of course, to classify a particular thing as "moral panic" or "hysteria" is nothing one can prove out of some facts. Those who are hysterical do not tend to admit this, and in case of a moral panic this hysteria is mainstream opinion, thus, it is the majority which does not tend to admit it. If it starts to admit it, the problem is already over. So, a characterization of society as being in a state of moral panic will remain an opinion of some minority, which cannot prove it to the majority, as long as it lasts. This is in no way related with any lack of information.

I can say anything I want to, anywhere, about the Holocaust, with no risk of prison.

I'm writing from Germany, with my clear name, so, if I would express doubt, I could be easily imprisoned.

Once again, you have misled yourself by mistaking information about the world for propaganda, and evaluating the information as if it were propaganda - as you described earlier, discounting and seeing through the information to some hypothetical underlying reality according to your preconceptions of the source bias. When there is no such bias in the information, this procedure produces delusion.

The obvious error in this is that I do not use preconceptions of the bias of a source. I use some general criteria which allow to identify a bias - say, use of value-laden terminology, failure to present the position of the opponents in a more or less fair way, use of personal attacks, reliance on claims one has no possibility to verify independently, reports of facts one does not like, and so on. Then, I try to find confirmations or refutations of the factual claims. And I care a lot about the logic of the arguments used. One does not have to read very much from one source to get a more or less reliable assessment of a source. What I use only in a very restricted way are preconceptions like reputation as a reliable source in the public opinion.

The obvious conceptual problem with your position is the question how do you identify sources which provide information instead of propaganda. For those, who do not care about this, by using an own evaluation of all the sources they have (so that they have to think about their criteria) one can be quite sure what makes the difference: They usually follow some authority, which tells them which sources of information are correct and which are propaganda. Like joepistole - Western sources are fine, Russian sources are propaganda. Who is the accepted authority depends, this may be parents, teachers, political leaders, priests, whatever. It does not really matter. Once they do not evaluate their sources themself, using their own criteria, their own common sense, they are what I name sheeple.

For those who evaluate their sources themself, it is clear that your statement is not helpful at all, because they know that they have no way to distinguish, with certainty, propaganda from information.

 

[iceaura]

Of course, to classify a particular thing as "moral panic" or "hysteria" is nothing one can prove out of some facts. - - - - . This is in no way related with any lack of information.

You are in error to classify sober and unemotional analyses and discussions of physical facts as hysteria, or panic of any kind. This error is directly due to your ignorance of these physical facts, which makes you incapable of evaluating these analyses and discussions. You lack information.

I'm writing from Germany, with my clear name, so, if I would express doubt, I could be easily imprisoned.

Well, we are in no such danger - so you can see how an unrestricted discussion of the Holocaust looks, easily, by following us here.

The obvious error in this is that I do not use preconceptions of the bias of a source

Yes, you do. You have a preconception of the direction of bias in abstracts of climate research, for example, which prevents you from noticing how often they are biased the other way from your expectations - downplaying and underemphasizing the dramatic implications of their actual data, rather than exaggerating them.

I use some general criteria which allow to identify a bias

They don't work without information. You've made several basic errors here by trusting them in matters unfamiliar to you.

One does not have to read very much from one source to get a more or less reliable assessment of a source.

Wrong. As in the Piketty book - which you dismissed after finding in the first couple pages that he used tax data from businessmen, which they can manipulate, without ever reading enough to see how he used them. (There's a fairly long treatment, later in the book, of how he handled the matter of tax cheating and manipulation, how he treated the data and why, etc).

The obvious conceptual problem with your position is the question how do you identify sources which provide information instead of propaganda.

I check them against verifiable physical reality from other sources, and I check them against developments over time (propaganda cannot be designed to match the future consistently), and so forth.

For those who evaluate their sources themself, it is clear that your statement is not helpful at all, because they know that they have no way to distinguish, with certainty, propaganda from information.

I use overwhelming preponderance of evidence, rather than "certainty". That is available, often. Without it, I suspend judgment - thus avoiding your error of treating information as propaganda, and thereby misleading yourself and miring yourself in delusions.

Regarding the CO2 boost, for example, we have seen a consistent and secure alignment between the AGW alarmists's arguments and reports and analyses of twenty years ago, ten years ago, five years ago, and the events of my experience since as well as the reporting by other, unrelated sources. We have seen no such agreement between the claims of the "other side" and subsequent events or findings. We also have a solid and consistent agreement between AGW analyses and my own knowledge of various topics, as well as the requirements of reason and sense. Again: no such agreement is visible on the "other side" - their arguments are invalid (visible holes in their logic), their assertions in fields familiar to me are often false.

For example: the AGW alarmists have been saying for years that the planet is continuing to absorb extra solar energy via the extra CO2, and it has to be warming something somewhere. That is based on sound physics and observation (of glacial melting, insect range changes, etc) both. The "other side" has been saying the warming has plateaued, based on dismissing basic physics, cherrypicking their start year, and ignoring the visible but slower rise in the temp readings. Recently two discoveries: the data has been biased by an overlooked collection method, whose correction gets rid of most of the supposed plateau; and new data from previously unmeasured aspects have come in contradicting any claim of a "plateau" (such as freshwater lake summer temps, rising twice as fast as the ocean temps and half again as fast as land temps near to them, no plateau at all.)

After twenty or thirty such experiences, every one reinforcing, the preponderance of evidence is that the AGW folks are delivering information and the "other side" is dealing in bs and propaganda. And so forth.