Hey, alarmists...

[Romero]

No-one is denying the earth is getting warmer.

The myth that the earth is getting warmer.

???

[Bricktop]

As a result of man made carbon dioxide levels...*sigh*...



Pedant.

[reel]

Ignoring all of your handwaving and silly, irrelevant ad hominem attacks, the article is interesting and finally you've actually found something of substance.



Noticeably, the good Dr. admits that his theory is counter to the 100 year old accepted theory, so if I were you, I wouldn't just automatically adopt his rationale because it happens to support my argument as you seem to have done, but it certainly bears consideration.



I haven't managed to read it all yet, and so far it doesn't really fit with my understanding of how the process works, which is that the CO2 refracts radiative heat trying to escape the planet.  He talks about the amount of heat being absorbed as though that was expected to increase.  I've never seen the argument stated that way, though he may be talking about the sum total (heat gain, plus heat loss). I'll have a better read of it later.



Anyway, it's the first challenge I've seen to what actually matters in determining whether there is global warming.



I think many of you have taken a dose of your own medicine.  It's more important to you to beat the contrarian drum and talk about politics than to actually listen to what a person is saying and address the question.  Despite your silly accusations, I'm not an alarmist, nor to I believe that global warming is an existential crisis.  I think it could be a risk of one.  Like a whole lot things could be a risk of an existential crisis.  I'm also not worried about it and I have not said anything in support of the political reaction to it.  What I care about is the scientific accuracy of the statements that are made (or not made) in the OP and the root question; Is it happening or not?  And that question is not a complicated one.  You don't need scientific credentials to understand the theory.  As stated, it's been around for a long time, is generally accepted, and the concept is not a difficult one.  My conclusion is that the onus is really on a challenger to prove it wrong in a meaningful way.  The guy in the OP failed miserably to do that.  This guy shows a lot more promise.



When I say "Prove me wrong.", it's not because I'm religiously convinced that you can't.  It's because when it comes to this question, you are parroting a load of horseshit about a lot of things that don't matter (ie. temperatures, politics, effects, etc.).  My challenge is that you actually talk about and look up information on what does matter.  This Ferenc Miskolczi does that.  I have no idea if he's right or not, but at least he's talking about the right subject!

[reel]

Alright, I've read more.  He does address the sum total of heat lost/gained.  His theory is not that CO2 doesn't cause global warming or that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist.  His theory is that greenhouse gases hit a saturation point where rather than continuing to increase heat absorption, they displace an amount of water vapour with an equivalent amount of refractive effect on the emitted radiation, thus keeping a constant balance to the greenhouse effect.  Very cool, if it's true.  



It looks like his theory is currently devised to support his experimental findings, rather than based on further experiment.  For instance, it doesn't look like he's actually measured the CO2 content vs. the H2O content, he's just surmising that this must be the case based on the lack of expected change in the refractive index, but I can't see anything wrong with that theory.



Having CO2 displace the water in the atmosphere doesn't necessarily sound like it's a good thing either, but if he's right it will certainly be revolutionary to our present understanding of atmospheric science.

[Bricktop]

You don't need scientific credentials to understand the theory.  

Yes.



You do.



As in your case, you're applying a layman's understanding of thermodynamics to a living, operational planet.



You have rebutted the view of scientists, yet you do not have the commensurate qualifications to do so with authority. Therein lies the problem. You will AUTOMATICALLY come in with the intent of negating the contradiction to your own, LIMITED, understanding, and enhance the perception that man made global warming is a slam dunk.



Reel, with respect, you can analyse and assess Miskcolczi's published findings all you like, but your conclusions are worthless unless you are a scientific peer.



You are not.



I am not.



I am merely highlighting that man made global warming is not a PROVEN and INCONTROVERTIBLE fact, and efforts to stop climate change will be fruitless and wasteful.

[reel]

You don't need scientific credentials to understand the theory.  

Yes.



You do.



As in your case, you're applying a layman's understanding of thermodynamics to a living, operational planet.



You have rebutted the view of scientists, yet you do not have the commensurate qualifications to do so with authority. Therein lies the problem. You will AUTOMATICALLY come in with the intent of negating the contradiction to your own, LIMITED, understanding, and enhance the perception that man made global warming is a slam dunk.



Reel, with respect, you can analyse and assess Miskcolczi's published findings all you like, but your conclusions are worthless unless you are a scientific peer.



You are not.



I am not.



I am merely highlighting that man made global warming is not a PROVEN and INCONTROVERTIBLE fact, and efforts to stop climate change will be fruitless and wasteful.

No you don't.  Because based on the accepted theory, the layman's understanding of thermodynamics is sufficient to understand the accepted scientific consensus.  I would need credentials to prove it wrong.  I would need credentials to elaborate on it or attempt to further prove it right.  But I don't need credentials to understand it because it's simply not that complicated.





I've rebutted the view of A scientist (the one in the OP) because he did not actually address the question he purported to address.  I don't need credentials to see that.  You are right that I can't rebut Miskcolczi's published findings.  I can read them, I can do my best to understand them, but I can't question them because I'm not qualified to do so and he actually addressed the question.  I found his findings very interesting and hopefully more work will be done to either prove or disprove them.



I disagree that efforts to stop climate change will be fruitless and wasteful.  That's you saying without a doubt that it's NOT happening.  I agree that they might be fruitless and wasteful.  Thus, we should adopt the ones that do no harm or have other benefits.  Your suggestions a page or two back were way more harsh than I would have suggested...

[Bricktop]

Then we are in agreement.



At the end of the day, making the planet cleaner is a good move.

[Anonymous]

You don't need scientific credentials to understand the theory.  

Yes.



You do.



As in your case, you're applying a layman's understanding of thermodynamics to a living, operational planet.



You have rebutted the view of scientists, yet you do not have the commensurate qualifications to do so with authority. Therein lies the problem. You will AUTOMATICALLY come in with the intent of negating the contradiction to your own, LIMITED, understanding, and enhance the perception that man made global warming is a slam dunk.



Reel, with respect, you can analyse and assess Miskcolczi's published findings all you like, but your conclusions are worthless unless you are a scientific peer.



You are not.



I am not.



I am merely highlighting that man made global warming is not a PROVEN and INCONTROVERTIBLE fact, and efforts to stop climate change will be fruitless and wasteful.

No you don't.  Because based on the accepted theory, the layman's understanding of thermodynamics is sufficient to understand the accepted scientific consensus.  I would need credentials to prove it wrong.  I would need credentials to elaborate on it or attempt to further prove it right.  But I don't need credentials to understand it because it's simply not that complicated.





I've rebutted the view of A scientist (the one in the OP) because he did not actually address the question he purported to address.  I don't need credentials to see that.  You are right that I can't rebut Miskcolczi's published findings.  I can read them, I can do my best to understand them, but I can't question them because I'm not qualified to do so and he actually addressed the question.  I found his findings very interesting and hopefully more work will be done to either prove or disprove them.



I disagree that efforts to stop climate change will be fruitless and wasteful.  That's you saying without a doubt that it's NOT happening.  I agree that they might be fruitless and wasteful.  Thus, we should adopt the ones that do no harm or have other benefits.  Your suggestions a page or two back were way more harsh than I would have suggested...

Man has an impact on his environment and that likely includes climate. But, when the question is how much, is it outside historic patterns, is it dangerous and will reducing greenhouse gases really make the earth cooler I am much less sure of myself. The suggested cures such as carbon taxes and cap and trade are middle class destroying madness just like a UN climate fund for corrupt third world countries.

[RW]

No man is an island.  I don't know how anyone can say with a straight face that we don't effect our environment.  



DERP.

[Anonymous]

No man is an island.  I don't know how anyone can say with a straight face that we don't effect our environment.  



DERP.

Environment and climate change are not the same though. We can take soil and water samples along with pollutants in the air to determine if it is dangerous or not. We also know that man is almost wholly responsible. Then we know how to source the cause and therefore the solution to pollution. We cannot combat climate change in the same way.

[RW]

I agree seoul and I'm not sure we can really "combat" it at this point.  Being better to the environment isn't a bad thing though l.  We just have to be smarter about it.

[Anonymous]

I agree seoul and I'm not sure we can really "combat" it at this point.  Being better to the environment isn't a bad thing though l.  We just have to be smarter about it.

I agree too, improving the environment is good for the economy. We've come a long way, but that does not mean we cannot improve our industrial processes. We shouldn't be complacent. Innovation is good for the economy and the environment.

[RW]

Agreed.

[Anonymous]

New Yorker magazine platformed a Swedish climate change activist who advocates blowing up pipelines in the name of climate justice on a recent episode of its "New Yorker Radio Hour" podcast.



Andreas Malm is an associate professor at Sweden's Lund University, and the author of the book "How to Blow Up a Pipeline: Learning to Fight in a World on Fire." Malm's book does not only have an eye-catching title; he actually advocates destroying any and all fossil fuel infrastructure.



Malm appeared on the New Yorker podcast last week, where he literally championed destroying pipelines.

https://twitter.com/AGHamilton29/status/1441994117647568897?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1441994117647568897%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theblaze.com%2Fnews%2Fnew-yorker-climate-activist-pipelines-destroy">https://twitter.com/AGHamilton29/status ... es-destroy">https://twitter.com/AGHamilton29/status/1441994117647568897?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1441994117647568897%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theblaze.com%2Fnews%2Fnew-yorker-climate-activist-pipelines-destroy

[Anonymous]

New Yorker magazine platformed a Swedish climate change activist who advocates blowing up pipelines in the name of climate justice on a recent episode of its "New Yorker Radio Hour" podcast.



Andreas Malm is an associate professor at Sweden's Lund University, and the author of the book "How to Blow Up a Pipeline: Learning to Fight in a World on Fire." Malm's book does not only have an eye-catching title; he actually advocates destroying any and all fossil fuel infrastructure.



Malm appeared on the New Yorker podcast last week, where he literally championed destroying pipelines.

https://twitter.com/AGHamilton29/status/1441994117647568897?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1441994117647568897%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theblaze.com%2Fnews%2Fnew-yorker-climate-activist-pipelines-destroy">https://twitter.com/AGHamilton29/status ... es-destroy">https://twitter.com/AGHamilton29/status/1441994117647568897?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1441994117647568897%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theblaze.com%2Fnews%2Fnew-yorker-climate-activist-pipelines-destroy

He's a terrorist.