Why is the greenhouse gas theory completely wrong?

hmmmmmmm do think people, this rubbish , the greenhouse gas theory. is real then eh?!

so, everyone agrees that this theory is completely wrong? hmmm

Nah... I think everyone (except for me) is ignoring you. You are completely nuts, you know.

Well, and can you tell me exactly why you think I am nuts?

Sure.

You are living in your own little world while rejecting the reality that the rest of us live in. You say things that are demonstrably false about things that you know nothing about, and then you insult, even attack, people who actually know something.

Let me give you an example.

Currently you are making the claim that this Ebola outbreak will

1) Lead to the government overtly taking away civil rights.
2) Lead to uniformed UN troop marching in the street of New York City.

Most of us would say that these predictions are ridiculous and delusional. Of course, both of these things are easy enough to check in the next few months... if there are actually uniformed UN troops marching in the streets of New York, then I will change my mind about how crazy I think you are.

I only hope that when these two things don't take place (and they won't) that you might start to see that your view of reality isn't reasonable.

Well, so you are actually saying, that because I don't think like everyone else. I must be 'nuts' ? Right?

You absolutely are right, I don't think like everything else, but I don't see how that makes me 'nuts', maybe different, yes. But not 'nuts'.
I am not psychotic (otherwise I was not able to write this), I am not neurotic, I have no strange fears etc etc. My only 'crime' is that , after years of research, have found , that what a lot of people take for granted is simply 'false'. So what?




But could it be, that you calling me or trying to insult me by calling me 'nuts'
(but I don't care what you think about me.) is your defense against ideas you don't like?

Try reading the book from Erich Fromm: Fear of Freedom.
Then you may understand me better,.
But I already know, you are not going to read it, right?

Maybe start doing some independnt research instead of following the flock.
You may be like the lambs, the lambs to the slaughter.

No.

I am saying that you claim things that are demonstrably false (like that there will be UN troops in the streets of NYC) and then belittles anyone who disagrees with you.

You seem to think that any passing idea you have is 100% correct just because you thought it. That you have no expertise and haven't spent the time studying the topic or even learning the facts doesn't matter to you.

That is why I think you are nuts.

You are so incorrect. I don't just 'thought' it. I spent years figuring out how a lot of this world works. So 'haven't spend time studying' is a very ridiculous and extremley stupid and ignorant statement, without any evidence I might add.
I have studied clinical psychology and physics/mathematics, at a university level, alas.
It was the most stupid thing I ever did. Because after that I had to unlearn a lot. I found out they are based on a lot of lies, and learned as dogma's and sold as 'science' and 'science' is nothinmg more then a hardly disguides religion.

And in your case this applies:


The lady protets.................................too much!



You really have no clue at all where I am coming from and you are just follwing the herd.


Good luck with that, you will need it.

This is exactly what I am talking about.

You had some ideas. What science and math and learning were telling you didn't go along with your ideas. Instead of considering the fact that your ideas just might be wrong, you decided to jettison science and math and education.

You really believe that your ideas are superior to everyone else's. This is fine, it is a free country. But it is crazy.

But you should know, if your ideas were really so superior, then they would be demonstrably correct. When you predicted that UN troops will soon be in the streets of NY... that is a pretty brash prediction. If you were as intellectually superior as you think you are, then this will certainly happen in the course of this ebola outbreak.

The problem is that your crazy ideas aren't correct. You aren't making any predictions that are true. You can't even solve Engineer's math problems.

I am one of the few people here who isn't ignoring you. Part of the problem is that you aren't just crazy. You are rudely crazy. You attack people who dare question your crazy ideas even though they clearly know more about the topic then you do.

If you didn't do this, you might see that people treat you a little better.

Unfortunately for you it isn't a theory: it's an observed fact. Methane, water vapor and CO2 (as well as other gases) reflect the infrared portion of the spectrum, thereby reducing the escape of heat from the earth through radiation.

Whether this results in a net heating of the earth is a consequence of a host of other factors, including the presence or absence of other gases in the atmosphere which have the opposite effect; the rate at which atmospheric carbon is absorbed by green plants and the oceans; and the movements of wind and ocean currents and a number of other factors. All this is a dynamic and highly non-linear complex of these and other interactive factors which we can't predict with certainty.

We do know that the earth's climate has changed significantly over time and that such change will likely continue. The geological record does indicate that there have been periods of greenhouse-like heating in the earth's history, but the sequence of cause and effect is not completely understood.

.

No, it really is not, But I wull come back to that.

I think you have an argument with basic physics, not me.

re quahog:
The greenhouse effect has been known and explained for more than a century. It is indeed basic physics and chemistry, as georgeob said. You have zero credibility when you just come out and flatly deny it exists. Try giving some evidence for your aabsurdities, for a change. Not that you will be able to, but at least make an attempt, before we conclude once again that you are a certified nutball If, that is, there is still someone left who hasn't already come to that undeniable conclusion.

What do you mean?

I think my meaning was clear enough. The opacity of water vapor, methane, CO2 and other gases to the infrared portion of the radiation spectrum is a well-established fact, supported by ample controlled measurements. It is also known that the spectrum of solar radiation incident on the earth involves high concentrations of energy at shorter wavelengths that pass through the atmosphere and these gases with little loss or resistance. The thermal energy the earth radiates back into space is concentrated in longer wavelengths, the so called infrared portion of the spectrum, which those gases reflect back to the earth. This is the so-called greenhouse effect. It is based on observed facts and repeated measurements. There is no dispute among scientists about it.

CO2 is reabsorbed by green plants and by the oceans (which concentrate it into calcium carbonate (limestone). The CO2 balance in the atmosphere is a complex problem because, as we add more of it to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels (and breathing), the concentration rises and the oceans and green plants absorb more of it. The net effect however has been a rise in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 which has continued for well over a century. There is no dispute about these basic facts.

The disputes come from effort to predict the future state of the atmosphere - a very complex and difficult problem involving many variables and some challenging mathematical difficulties which in general make such predictions highly suspect (that's why we can accurately forecast the weather for only a week or so}. In addition the economic tradeoffs involved in fixing the problem or dealing with it, and the resulting net effect on humanity are very hard to estimate.

We have some very reliable and inexpensive sources of power that emit zero CO2 - notably nuclear power. Currently it produces about 20% of our total electrical power and does so at a lower cost than either coal or gas, and several times lower than the wind and solar sources favored by zealots. Oddly most of them don't like nuclear power.

You wrote that you would get back to demonstrating the "truth" of your rather odd assertion. Why haven't you done so?

I always have to laugh if I read 'established fact'! just repeating the fairy tale without any independant thought!
You know, repeating and parroting a fairy tale doesn't make it real, mate!

So, almost a month later and you still haven't made any progress on that promised "getting back" to us later. Probably because you can't. You're the one that's pushikng the fairy tale, "mate", not us. Which is why you're a joke to people that actually know what they're talking aboout.

You really don't even know what I am talking about.



btw how time flies!