Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 34

Thread: What is a good source to refute this denialist argument?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,932

    What is a good source to refute this denialist argument?

    I am a Furry. On a far right Furry forum, I am debating Global Warming deniers.
    One made the "CO2 greenhouse effect is saturated" argument, and I posted the Skeptical Science link to that argument:

    https://skepticalscience.com/saturat...t-advanced.htm

    Here is what he replied:
    "HOWEVER. As the temperature climbs, the radiation frequencies of the heat transmission go up as well, until they reach a point where the primary emission frequencies are not absorbed by the gas in question and it escapes.
    Adding more gas at this point will not further increase the temperature, since the heat that is trapped continues to radiate at frequencies that CO2 will not trap. The writer does not comprehend that the absorption patterns themselves change as the temperature goes up."

    I gave an answer based on my 40 year old memory of Bachelor Level Astronomy, but I would like a much better reply (I don't even remember what the fact that emission curves do not intersect as temperature goes up is called, so I don't know how to Google it.)
    SHARKS (crossed out) MONGEESE (sic) WITH FRICKIN' LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    18,393
    A far right Furry forum... Saints preserve us.

    Grant Hutchison

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    18,393
    On a more helpful note, you might take a look at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...assy-argument/ and http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...gument-part-ii
    So, if a skeptical friend hits you with the "saturation argument" against global warming, here’s all you need to say: (a) You’d still get an increase in greenhouse warming even if the atmosphere were saturated, because it’s the absorption in the thin upper atmosphere (which is unsaturated) that counts (b) It’s not even true that the atmosphere is actually saturated with respect to absorption by CO2 [...]
    Grant Hutchison

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    772
    FWIW, I'm surprised at how often this "saturation" idea is used. I mean, climate scientists are well aware of this effect (and their models incorporate the actual physics), so whoever is floating this idea is either ignorant of the actual science (but is also supremely confident in their own scientific understanding), or is making some sort of conspiracy argument (which may not be expressed as such).

    I wish you strength, Tom Mazanec, I find I can no longer summon the energy to engage in such debates (however, I've found ocean acidification hits hard, especially if one like coral reefs or eating oysters!)

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,799

    Whazzat ?

    Furry ?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,937
    Quote Originally Posted by John Mendenhall View Post
    Furry ?
    You probably don't want to know (but there was an entertaining CSI episode about it).

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    18,393
    Quote Originally Posted by John Mendenhall View Post
    Furry ?
    Yes, Furry.

    Grant Hutchison

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    16,333
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    A far right Furry forum... Saints preserve us.

    Grant Hutchison
    I’m not sure why it being a furry forum is relevant to the discussion (except that, as your link notes, some furries do seem more likely to oppose animal testing and it might be interesting to see if this trend applies to other environmental issues as well.)
    The greatest journey of all time, for all to see
    Every mission makes our dreams reality
    And our destiny begins with you and me
    Through all space and time, the achievement of mankind
    As we sail the sea of discovery, on heroes’ wings we fly!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    18,393
    Quote Originally Posted by KaiYeves View Post
    I’m not sure why it being a furry forum is relevant to the discussion (except that, as your link notes, some furries do seem more likely to oppose animal testing and it might be interesting to see if this trend applies to other environmental issues as well.)
    Yes, I couldn't see how that background was relevant. I'm just amazed that there are enough far-right furries in the world to populate a forum. And my head is dancing with what their fursonas might be.

    Grant Hutchison

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    13,972
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    Yes, I couldn't see how that background was relevant. I'm just amazed that there are enough far-right furries in the world to populate a forum. And my head is dancing with what their fursonas might be.
    Presumably not donkeys.
    As above, so below

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    16,333
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    Yes, I couldn't see how that background was relevant. I'm just amazed that there are enough far-right furries in the world to populate a forum. And my head is dancing with what their fursonas might be.

    Grant Hutchison
    Well, I've seen... certain things... on Reddit, but I'll spare you the mental scars...
    The greatest journey of all time, for all to see
    Every mission makes our dreams reality
    And our destiny begins with you and me
    Through all space and time, the achievement of mankind
    As we sail the sea of discovery, on heroes’ wings we fly!

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,932
    I just mentioned as being what it was. I would not even bother going to a "pure" denialist forum for anything other than curiosity.
    I like the forum for the anthropomorphic stuff, but their calling global warming an idiotic hoax conspiracy was driving me nuts.
    And they are in favor of animal testing (they are ultraconservative Christians foor the most part).
    SHARKS (crossed out) MONGEESE (sic) WITH FRICKIN' LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    145
    I would ask him which of the following he believes:

    1) That scientists of the world are so dumb that they don't know this, but apparently he is such a genius that only he does? If so, tell him to inform the scientists of the world of his remarkable discovery immediately!!

    2) That the scientists of the world are so evil that they are willing to spend their entire carriers knowingly lying about this, and are also apparently so dumb that the topic they chose to lie about is something that he is able to uncover so ridiculously easily that high school students are aware of this. Apparently, the evil scientists didn't think to stop teaching the truth to every child on Earth? Interesting strategy.....

    So yeah, if he is actually going to argue this he is either claiming that scientists are insanely dumb, or are both insanely dumb and evil. I can't think of a third possibility. (as you can tell, like Jean I too have long lost my patience for such arguments. Their arguments are in the same category as young earth creationists.)

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,933
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Mazanec View Post
    I am a Furry. On a far right Furry forum,
    I would suppose many a spelling Nazis feel much fury about your spelling, or is that the way they spell the forum name?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    18,393
    Quote Originally Posted by Superluminal View Post
    I would suppose many a spelling Nazis feel much fury about your spelling, or is that the way they spell the forum name?
    Are you questioning "Furry"? It's a thing.

    Grant Hutchison

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    12,950
    While furry is a thing, it isn’t really the thing this thread is about. If Google* and Wiki don’t satisfy your curiosity, I suggest starting a separate OTB thread about it.

    *Caution: The furry topic is broad enough that search results may include non-family-friendly material, depending upon your filter settings...proving once again, there are some things one just can’t un-see.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. — Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

  17. #17
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,932
    The point I meant to make is that, while it is a denialist forum, it is not a Denialist forum. I would not waste my time debating such. While they deny AGW, that is not the point of the forum.
    They are mostly Bible Thumpers in orientation, and do not engage in the non-family-friendly side of the sub-culture.
    SHARKS (crossed out) MONGEESE (sic) WITH FRICKIN' LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,932
    I think you should make the point that the amount the infrared frequency shifts as the temperature rises, as a ratio to the infrared peak frequency, is equal to the ratio of the temperature rise to the temperature itself (in Kelvin, let's hope you don't have to explain that too). Hopefully this person can understand a quantitative argument involving something as simple as direct proportionalities. A 1/100 ratio of the latter would be completely catastrophic, so presumably he/she doesn't think a frequency shift smaller than that is really going to have any significant effect whatsoever on the degree to which CO2 can intercept infrared light. In short, their argument is ridiculous, but the real question is, will that bother them at all?

    That's always what amazes me about climate deniers. They could probably pose real arguments based around the uncertainties of science, but instead, they use arguments that are so easily dispensed with it makes it perfectly clear they are not really trying to do anything but support their preconceptions. Their arguments are things like, it's snowing in Australia in June, like they don't know the seasons are opposite in the south, or that it was cold yesterday so how can the planet be warming. The real debate should be, is it better to know the truth that evidence brings to us, or to engage in wishful thinking that supports comforting preconceptions? What are the potential pluses and minuses of both approaches to policy making? Until you have had that debate, there's just no point in debating the climate, or the age of the Earth, or much of anything really.
    Last edited by Ken G; 2019-Dec-03 at 10:24 PM.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Central Virginia
    Posts
    2,018
    What is a good source to refute this denialist argument?

    You could always ask them "But what about the planet's oceans, are you ok with the pH falling from here on out? Do you consider jellyfish as seafood"

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    3,035
    It doesn't matter what that guy thinks. Carbon free energy is cheaper, will be cheaper yet. People will flock to carbon free energy.
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    13,972
    Quote Originally Posted by Spacedude View Post
    Do you consider jellyfish as seafood"[/I]
    It can actually be pretty good.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jellyf...hili_sauce.jpg

    It doesn't have much taste, but is crunchy good with something like chili sauce.
    As above, so below

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,932
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    It doesn't matter what that guy thinks. Carbon free energy is cheaper, will be cheaper yet. People will flock to carbon free energy.
    The issue is how much that flocking can be slowed, especially in certain nations relative to others, by disinformation campaigns that we are seeing altogether too much of lately. Vested interests in carbon-based energy have a stake in allying with wishful thinkers that are used to placing preconceived preferences above scientifically established truths. I hope you are right that strong economic pressures will in some sense automatically fix this problem, but I don't have that much faith in blind luck. I can better see Greta Thunberg's point that this is an adult problem that kids shouldn't have to be the ones to fix, but if the adults won't do it, then their kids will.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Very near, yet so far away
    Posts
    297
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    The issue is how much that flocking can be slowed, especially in certain nations relative to others, by disinformation campaigns that we are seeing altogether too much of lately. Vested interests in carbon-based energy have a stake in allying with wishful thinkers that are used to placing preconceived preferences above scientifically established truths. I hope you are right that strong economic pressures will in some sense automatically fix this problem, but I don't have that much faith in blind luck. I can better see Greta Thunberg's point that this is an adult problem that kids shouldn't have to be the ones to fix, but if the adults won't do it, then their kids will.
    I agree to a point Ken, but I'm a little bit cynical. What usually happens when youthful idealism meets the cold light of day?
    I think it takes time for a generation who recognise the problem to actually live suitable lifestyles which their kids then treat as normal. Unfortunately that's too long to wait for this issue.

    Any kid who grows up in a position to make an eventual financial difference to industry will probably have been "infected" with their parents point of view. Religion and politics take a fair bit of changing being so entrenched.

    I hope for their sake I'm overly pessimistic.

    As a side note, I was always into sci-fi as a kid. Even the dystopian variety. Because at least there was a future being discussed . As a child of the cold war, it seemed nuclear war would get us at any moment. For the bogey man to turn out to be something as simple as our choice of fuel is discomforting. See also plastic pollution, blood brain barrier etc.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    18,393
    I believe we might reach "peak Greta" fairly soon. She's essentially unassailable - no interviewer (at least, not one who wants to stay in a job) is going to ask probing, difficult questions of a child who has significant mental health issues, especially when her current crusade is helping her deal with those issues (at least in the short term). So she isn't being held to account in the same way as, say, a climate scientist. But something will give, because it's an unstable situation unless she actually manages to start a religion (admittedly not outwith the bounds of possibility). I just hope the eventual failure mode is a tolerable one for Thunberg, but I do fear for her.

    Grant Hutchison

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Very near, yet so far away
    Posts
    297
    Grant, I agree. Unfortunately she has been manipulated from the start to create a story for the media. I suspect the hope is that when she fades, so will the story.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    16,333
    Well, given that she keeps saying “listen to the scientists”, I would imagine she would want to fade away and have people instead focus on the scientists themselves.
    The greatest journey of all time, for all to see
    Every mission makes our dreams reality
    And our destiny begins with you and me
    Through all space and time, the achievement of mankind
    As we sail the sea of discovery, on heroes’ wings we fly!

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    12,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Mazanec View Post
    Here is what he replied:
    "HOWEVER. As the temperature climbs, the radiation frequencies of the heat transmission go up as well, until they reach a point where the primary emission frequencies are not absorbed by the gas in question and it escapes.
    Adding more gas at this point will not further increase the temperature, since the heat that is trapped continues to radiate at frequencies that CO2 will not trap. The writer does not comprehend that the absorption patterns themselves change as the temperature goes up."

    I gave an answer based on my 40 year old memory of Bachelor Level Astronomy, but I would like a much better reply (I don't even remember what the fact that emission curves do not intersect as temperature goes up is called, so I don't know how to Google it.)
    Perhaps it's expressed above, but are they aware that as the temperature climbs the peak frequency increases but the emission's level of all the frequencies go up as well? It's not the percent that escapes but the amount absorbed, which will increase with temperature.
    We know time flies, we just can't see its wings.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    18,393
    Quote Originally Posted by KaiYeves View Post
    Well, given that she keeps saying “listen to the scientists”, I would imagine she would want to fade away and have people instead focus on the scientists themselves.
    You'd think. But reading extracts and summaries of "Scenes From The Heart" (no full English translation available until next year, last time I checked) makes me think otherwise - her current level of full-on activism got her out of a dangerously bad place, psychologically, so I can't imagine she or her family would want to take the risk of abandoning something that's working pretty well for her at present.
    ("Fade away" is altogether too poignant a choice of phrase, in this situation, if you read about her previous circumstances.)

    Grant Hutchison

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Very near, yet so far away
    Posts
    297
    Quote Originally Posted by KaiYeves View Post
    Well, given that she keeps saying “listen to the scientists”, I would imagine she would want to fade away and have people instead focus on the scientists themselves.
    Heh, unfortunately nobody was listening to the scientists, which is why she got involved. Once she is disappeared from the news, so will the science. In my opinion of course.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,797
    I think Greta is close to being set up as an icon, her face appears on many front covers. The long term fallout is hard to predict. I personally want to see the adaption solutions given some prominence compared to the idea of reversing the warming, and that is not her message.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •