44 minutes ago, Sven Groot wrote
Okay Maddus, I'm calling bullshit. This is what you said here:
Despite the fact that you didn't change your view on climate change, you did agree that greenhouse theory did not violate the laws of thermodynamics. Therefore, at least you agreed that that argument against climate change was flawed.
And here you are, using that same argument again. So you either have a very short memory, are dishonest (you only said you conceded to end the discussion, not because you actually understood what I was saying), or just incredibly stupid.
Correct, I did not have the answers then, so I conceded. I have learned new things and have changed my mind. Last time I checked, I'm allowed to do that.
Maybe I'm just really stupid, or maybe you are gullible, who knows? Let's try and find out shall we?
I want you to give me your source (a reliable, scientific source, so either an article in a peer reviewed journal or a regular article that cites its sources so I can check them) for the idea that it is the mass and pressure of the atmosphere, not its composition, that causes it to heat the earth.
I'll try to dig up the paper that was a game changer for me, by Mikolsky (or something, why can't these dudes be called Jones?).
I also want you to explain the following, again citing your sources: if the earth is in equilibrium, why has it been both much hotter (ice ages) and much colder in the past? If higher pressure equals higher temperature, then why is it so cold on at the bottom of the ocean?
The activity of the sun and the angle of the earth relative to the sun. The evidence is against CO2 being any factor.
That has to do with the fact that liquids do not compact (much) under pressure. So the temperature of the oceans are dictated by the sun, rather then gravity. As sunlight doesn't penetrate very far into the ocean, they are relatively cold.
Citation for gas; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_law
Citations for oceans; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagic_zone
Again, I want you to cite sources. They don't have to be scientific papers, anything that cites a sufficiently reliable source is okay (even a Wikipedia page with proper citations will do). I just want to know what source of information you are using to base your opinion on, that it's not just because it's "obvious" or "self evident". After all, since you claim to be a skeptic, you must have properly verified sources for your opinions.
It seems like you think I do this for mere amusement, I don't. I'm convinced that they've got it wrong. And I'm convinced people are actually hurting because of the actions we take in order to 'save the world'. I think it's unjust and unfair to condemn people to energy poverty, because we are afraid to share to wealth. None should be forced to live without cheap abundant energy, without it, life is harsh and unpleasant. That's my motivation behind it.