Well, I’m sorry to hear that you’ve been blocked by the questioner – kind of makes it hard to answer. However, you could always add your response to this question.
To answer your question – I have to be honest and say that I’ve seen almost no evidence that the denialists are able to discuss the science of climate change, and in the main it’s because they know so little about the subject.
If you look at responses from those who accept that climate change is happening there is often a scientific element and discussion of some of the more technical issues, we don’t see this happening from the sceptics.
If someone asks a question that warrants any degree of scientific comprehension then the standard sceptic response is a single sentence saying that GW is rubbish or a mass of copypaste from a third party website. This isn’t discussing the science, it’s merely repeating what they’ve been spoonfed.
Can you point out any responses from the sceptics where they have invoked even the most rudimentary scientific comprehension? I’d be interested to read the responses.
Unless one is conversant with the subject matter and has at least some comprehension of it, then one will find it very difficult to engage in any meaningful discourse.
I don't know, but here's an experiment:
From your answer involving CO2 convecting heat, it appears that you believe CO2 captures certain incoming photons and retains the energy. That's not the mechanism by which greenhouse gasses work. The energy is not retained. After a photon is absorbed, the energy is released as an identical or very similar photon in a very short time period. The key fact is that the direction of the emergent photon is random. The result of a "random walk" situation like this is that any directional trend gets erased in only a few photon/molecule encounters.
As opposed to the "capture and hold" scenario, where presumably a molecule that has captured a photon can't absorb another one, this phenomenon doesn't saturate except in the sense that the the thickness that a photon can't find its way out of shrinks. An analogy is in nuclear fission - the first area where the phenomena were studied rigorously and precisely. In most atoms, neutron capture results in a slightly heavier nucleus, period. In U235, the capture results in fission and neutron release. The biggest mathematical problem in the Manhattan was figuring out the conditions under which a neutron couldn't get out without causing another atom to fission. Photon capture and reemission follow those same maths.
My experimental results can be measured by your checking into the meaning of such things as "a very short time" vs the likelihood of another photon encounter, the time until the molecule can collide with another molecule, and the time for molecules to be convected a given distance. I think it may show up here in the frequency of your reference to saturation and minimal greenhouse gas effects.
Jeff M: "Or how about the claim of 'no warming for the past 17 years' when the radiation budget " Even James Hansen had to admit it just before he retired and went into full time communist activism. Even Phil Jones admitted such. Even the latest IPCC report admitted it. Ha! Ha! This email even proves that scientists new about it and deliberately hid the fact, or in fact lied.
http://joemiller.us/2012/08/busted-leake...
You are definitely swimming upstream on this one. The only tool you have left in you box of tricks is calling people liars. Ha! Ha! And now you are obviously frustrated that the tool is broken.
Joseph Goebbels,
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
The only difference between Goebbels and you is that Goebbels knew he was lying.
Trevor: "Can you point out any responses from the sceptics where they have invoked even the most rudimentary scientific comprehension? I’d be interested to read the responses.
"
Here is the response. The earth's temperature has gone down for over a decade. Yet at this same time the CO2 level has gone up. To any true scientist, this would PROVE that CO2 does not control the Earth's temperature. To an unscientific mind, this would only mean that you would smoke another joint or go on a trip to Antarctica.
In direct answer to your question: Just like in Goebbels' quote that the truth is the enemy of the State, in our case, the truth is the enemy of AGW. And these eco-terrorists need to suppress the truth by any means possible. Blocking is one of them.
While blocking is an issue, climate change has become a political debate and that is more about influencing emotion than discussing facts. Arousing passions has always been an element in politics but never in my lifetime have I seen more emotion in an argument than here in this category of Y/A. Emotion is also an element in denial, perhaps the most critical element of it. So the answer to your question-in addition to the blocking issue-is no, deniers are by and large incapable of discussing the science of climate change. They're too emotional.
Perhaps at the core of the argument is what constitutes 'denial' when it comes to climate change and science and that, in turn, begs the question of hat constitutes 'alarm?' We apply both of these labels to others quite freely. It has become part of the 'gotcha' game so popular in partisan politics today. It goes SO far afield at this point that part of the 'game' is actually this: "If I can get you to insult me, then you have lost your cool and therefore you are not credible so I win the argument."
Now you tell me by what fantastic twist of logic this rationale came to be so widely employed? That getting someone else upset enough to call you a name constitutes winning and therefore makes the person who egged the other on "right" in some way or another? Well, it doesn't, but the argument is about power, and impotent people will often do whatever it takes to garner power-and therefore influence-from others. This strategy seems doubly true when it comes to science, because scientists are supposed to be objective, dispassionate observers.
Here in this category of Y/A there is an interesting mix of people; those who want to discuss science, others who are focused entirely on the political aspect of the issue, some who come here for pure entertainment, which appears to often be venting their spleen from things that may not even be connected with climate change, and those of other persuasions. Me, I originally came here to find out more about the weird weather that has been occurring locally and what was influencing it. Now I come here more out of my interest in psychology and why people behave the way they do...because there sure as heck isn't much science discussed here, just as there isn't much politics discussed in Washington, D.C. And that is paralyzing not only science and the progress of the U.S.A. in seriously addressing social issues, but affecting the entire planet as the ripple down effect from U.S. policies impacts other countries, even as their own political processes stall by the widespread use of gotcha tactics and other devices employed to blunt the efforts of others and garner power.
But the simple fact is there is very little actual science discussed here anymore. If someone wants to discuss, for example, the current weather conditions due to the polar vortex, there is little discussion of the polar vortex and the underlying causes because you can almost bet that someone else-or several someones-are going to interject something unrelated, like that Al Gore is a fraud because he claimed to have invented the internet so the polar vortex has nothing to do with climate change. When other people are discussing science, why would such comments be anything other than disruptive, and ultimately lead to frustration and disgust on the part of the people who want to discuss science? Those people are going to eventually express their frustration, and ultimately leave the discussion, and then the disruptive influences seem to claim, with great regularity, that they have "won" and this "proves" that climate is not changing and is not influenced by mankind's activity.
This is just one facet of the arguments that are going on now here, and it may be reaching its apex, which could have any number of outcomes. But if Y/A is indeed a microcosm of the larger world, we may see the pendulum swing in another direction and influence matters in another way, much like the outcome at the polling booths in the U.S. where Barack Obama was given a second term after the pendulum swung-briefly-to the Tea Party and then back. Whether that momentum will carry through the mid-term elections and give more influence to those of Obama's way of thinking is an open question, but there is little doubt that the emotional tactics of the opposition was flawed strategy. We don't have the bellwether of real elections here at Y/A so some people may just continue being people, slow to learn and employing immature devices that they have seen their leaders using, whether those tactics are effective or not.
At this point, I'm just sitting back and watching the show, grateful whenever people here actually discuss climate change and provide useful information. That's how I make my living...not just by watching the weather, but by seeing which way the wind is blowing.
No but realists can. Take the change in outbound radiative frequencies for example. They show a decrease in outbound radiation at greenhouse gas absorption frequencies. Or how about the claim of 'no warming for the past 17 years' when the radiation budget of the planet has continued showing that the rising greenhouse gas concentration has had a very real effect while people like you claim it has not. You always state that real world data overcomes 'models' yet you have ignored the real world data and instead posted the same graphic showing CO2's effect diminishes as concentration rises. However you fails to understand this is 'by layer' not 'as a whole' even though you have been told this many many times. I think that, most likely, the frustration of people that think as you by people that think like me comes from you constantly ignoring every little bit of data that we show because you claim it has been massaged. Yet here you are claiming that you are the scientific one, just as Sagebrush and Maxx do when both of them claim that God has his hand on the thermostat.
Edit: Wow Sagebrush. bringing up climategate again. You truly do stick to things that have already been proven lies.
That's because they say the science is settled. Censorship is how AGW cultists believe they get a consensus
WOW JC you nailed it.
if you have the answer, why bother people with a bogus question?
There is very little 'science' to discuss concerning so called 'climate change' --- there is however a great deal of propaganda.
-----------------------
NO because we are blocked by the questioner
