Conservative Heaven

Conservative Heaven
  • 1421
  • 91
  • 16

My Recent Posts

A blogger recently said to me: "BBC reported in 2007 global warming would leave Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013."
Followed by a second quote:

“Publication of UN climate change report suggesting global warming caused by humans pushed back to later this month"


The second part of this wonderful information refers to the delay of a report, not a delay of an ice-free Arctic in summer by 2013 as reported by the BBC, assuming the report is as stated. The first part neglects to say who the BBC was quoting in 2007 as a source and how credible or not they were (obviously not very, in hindsight). This is such a wonderful example of cherry picking and twisting words by combining “information” from "scientific" news sources.


Who knows? Maybe Al Gore or someone like him said that, but I didn't know Al Gore is a scientist. I pay zero attention to what he says about AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming or human-caused global warming) for precisely that reason. And more importantly, why should anyone care? He's a politician. Politicians of any stripe are generally the absolutely worst sources of objective information in the entire universe.


It's not proved beyond any shadow of a doubt, but solid science indicates strongly, extremely strongly, that AGW is real and already causing big problems around the globe and will get worse before it gets better. It will only get better if we respond intelligently to prevent it from getting worse than it absolutely has to at this point. The effects of what has already happened aren't even close to coming home to roost yet, so yelling loudly that we're at 400 ppm CO(2) in the atmosphere and doing fine is just mindlessly silly.

I guess some people think that political sources of information are scientific method? I don't care whether it's Al Gore or Rush Limbaugh. That's not scientific method. Show me the scientific method that shows there is no risk of problematic global warming and the proof it provides that humankind could not possibly be causing it. Let’s reverse their glaring double standard for evidence and see how they fare?


Oh…maybe some people assume the burden of proof is on us? OK, I'm going to play ignorant, brainless conservative now. I'm going to put my preferred beliefs ahead of reality, any semblance of scientific understanding, or the security of the human race on this planet. I'm going to ignore any indications that an earthquake is about to destroy our small Oklahoma town because none ever has before.

So we put the burden of proof on the "alarmists" and just sit there confident that an earthquake couldn't possibly happen here. After all, it's natural and has happened many times in the past, but never here or in our lifetime, so what's the big deal? Besides, no quake is the status quo and nothing quakes for ever so much longer than something quakes. Yeah! The burden of proof is definitely on those who think the status quo is going to change.


Oh, yes, I forgot. Earthquakes are natural and not caused by humankind. So we should reject out of hand this goofball idea that it's going to happen, since we're not causing it. Oops! It might kill us anyway? Yeah, but what can we do about it? Well, but it's not going to happen in the first place, so that really doesn't make any difference, does it?


But then, what if something we're doing triggers a quake, like fracking, for example? Naaah! Nature is way too big and powerful for us to have any effect like that on it. We're just tiny little ants on a huge, quasi-infinite planet, so it's absurd to think we could have a significant impact on nature in any really global way.


Ok, yeah, I know! The Soviets did indeed explode a 50-megaton bomb in 1961. But see? We're all still alive, so it didn't really matter. We're too insignificant for our technology to do anything to change nature’s behavior.  Of course Sakharov, the bomb’s designer, was just full of stuff when he began to think otherwise.


“…Sakharov…started his practical thinking about world war and peace in 1958...He wrote about the so-called ‘clean bomb’ promoted in the U.S., a nearly pure fusion bomb that produced almost no radioactive fallout. However, any atmospheric explosion of an H-bomb produces radiocarbon from atmospheric nitrogen. And Sakharov calculated, on the basis of available biological data, that radiocarbon produced by a one-megaton clean bomb would result in 6, 600 deaths worldwide over a period of 8,000 years. So, his scientific conclusion was quite definite.

“Sakharov, however, went beyond science to ask: "What moral and political conclusions should be drawn from these figures?" The figures meant that the atmospheric testing of any hydrogen bomb—"clean" or not—is harmful to humans.” (From


[Note: A  50 megaton bomb is 50 times one megaton. If one megaton kills 6,600 people in 8,000 years, then 50 would kill 330,000 people in 8,000 years, but then that’s only barely more than 41 people a year. No big deal, right? Oh, it was your grandmother or daughter who died of cancer? Well, I’m so sorry. Luck of the draw, I guess, if we can call it that.]

Does it really matter either that in 1804 we were already one billion total, double the world population we had in 1650 in only barely more than a century and a half? Now we're seven times the 1850 level and so fourteen times the 1650 level. And what about our vastly increased consumption per capita, coupled with the power of our modern manufacturing technology, its exponentially growing need for energy and fossil fuel (so far), not to mention waste disposal and other kinds of pollution? After all, the real increase in GDP per capita in constant dollars has only doubled in the U.S. since 1969. Even in the world as a whole, it increased by only 89%, a whole 11% short of doubling. OK, so we doubled world population in the same time frame. That multiplies world consumption by almost four (3.8) in 44 years, about half a long human lifetime. So what?


Oh my! We're growing exponentially? What's that?! We conservatives know very well that things don't change like that. Things really stay pretty much like we always thought they were, don't they? Change is a stupid liberal idea! We don’t even believe linear projections into the future from what we've already done, so forget about exponential growth and doubling every 50 years or so. We don’t even know what exponential means. Yikes! We've deforested half of the original forest land worldwide in the time since the year 1620? But that’s a full four centuries out of the thousand centuries (100,000 years) or 0.4% currently estimated as the time humankind has been around (unless you believe the universe was created 6,000 years ago in our local Milky Way galaxy, which requires light 100,000 years to cross and is only one out of hundreds of billions of galaxies in the universe).


Now the so-called independent, but in reality the stinking liberal we conservatives think he actually is, says the calculations that follow are not intended to be perfectly accurate, but only pretty good estimates. He doesn’t even claim them to be perfectly representative of how it all actually works. He dumbly thinks they should serve to give us some feel, though, for the order of magnitude by which human impact on the planet is growing, especially if we're extremely conservative with the numbers we're not fully certain of.


So world population has increased by a factor of 14 since 1650. We have deforested half the original forests in the world since 1620, roughly the same time period. In only the last 50 years we have increased human consumption by a factor of four. The best estimates show real GDP per capita (constant dollars) increased by about a factor of 40 since 1650. If we average these two figures, pretending in the 50-year case that nothing changed before then, we average the increase by four times in that period with a factor of 40 since 1650 and we get (40 + 4)/2 for a factor of 22 for the time since 1650, an extremely conservative estimate. OK, so let's see:


14 (population factor) X 22 (GDP per capita increase) = 308


Factoring an extremely conservative worldwide GDP per capita increase since 1620, we have multiplied the human load on the forest land that keeps nature nurturing life on the planet in 2013 on about half the forested land we had back then by a bare minimum of more than 300. That makes at least 600 times the load on natural forest we had in 1620 (but more likely double that). This even ignores the effects of waste and pollution products of every kind. Hmmm...yes, this is conservative indeed (anything but politically conservative, though).


Now let us suppose again that we human beings are too insignificant to affect the natural world significantly, 50 megaton H-bombs notwithstanding. Never mind that our consumption is increasing exponentially and we've increased the responsibility of existing forested land to keep the planet healthy by at least 600 times since 1620 by the most absurdly conservative estimate. Let’s just ignore the increasing power of our technology to affect the environment, plus the waste and pollution we continue to produce. Make sense to you?


It sure does to us conservatives! Yes, we're just too insignificant and puny as human beings to do anything significantly bad to our world and our environment, the air we breathe, the water we drink, or hurt the wildlife and forests that keep nature in balance, etc. We can just go forth happily and unthinkingly screwing around with nature with impunity all we want to and nothing bad will ever come of it.


It's just those damn, frickin' liberals who imagine any of this could possibly be important! Yes, our politics are really messed up, but that's only because we've got an n-word socialist for a president. That he wants to do anything about any of this is just a despicable strategy to implement socialism. If it weren't for that, I mean if we could just eliminate all the stinking liberals and leave the world like it always was and ever will be, forever and ever, Amen, then we could all just be happy together, especially when we find the few disgusting liberals still hanging around and have lots of fun torturing and/or lynching the suckers.


Mike Haluska Added Jun 18, 2014 - 11:51am
George - I was about to post a reply but you covered every base I would have with excellence.  Robert is no doubt directing much of this at me, but sadly (as I have told him many times) I am NOT a conservative nor Republican. 
I always find Robert's math amusing - for instance:
"50 megaton bomb is 50 times one megaton. If one megaton kills 6,600 people in 8,000 years, then 50 would kill 330,000 people in 8,000 years"
He is simply the most linear thinking person I have ever come across.  Where does he get this "data" from?  Did he subtract out the number of people who would have died from Cancer regardless of radiation exposure?  Does he assume that future generations will be stupid enough to live in a radiation hazard zone?  
For whatever reason, he sees himself as some sort of "savior" and anyone who disagrees with him as a selfish, wasteful, evil, corrupt, short-sighted polluter.  He really went off the deep end with this one.
Robert Wendell Added Jun 18, 2014 - 12:20pm
Well, you all seem to miss the sarcasm. The "n-word president" remark was Robert Wendell putting words in the mouth of imaginary conservatives, in exact imitation of some of the worst real conservative stuff I've actually heard. Remember, I was born in 1944 and grew up in the Jim Crow south, so I recognize racism even when it isn't so explicit.
Show me a state governor, for example, shaking her finger in the face of a sitting president before Obama. That n-word comment didn't come from nowhere. As to his being half white, that's a joke, isn't it? You say he's half white just because his mother happens to be fully white? How much of our African American population has pure African ancestry? I've lived with blacks on the south side of Chicago in the late 60s. I learned to notice the occasional, but pretty rare pure African (actually from Africa) walking down the street from being with African American friends who would point it out in their casual conversations.
The math is not trying to be serious. The point is it would have much greater than a one-megaton bomb's effect. The comment about the cancer that would have occurred without it is utterly irrelevant scientific stupidity. The bomb increased the rate. That most cancer would have occurred  without it doesn't change that one iota, so just how idiotic do you think people with a few marbles upstairs find that point? People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones even if the article were not sarcastic and so most of it not representative of my views.
Sakharov's math is probably not exactly perfect either, but he was smart enough to design a 50-megaton H-bomb that was very likely not nearly as clean as the ideal his calculations assumed. He became a victim of the Soviet gulags for his dissident activism. You conservatives should admire him for his guts and clear vision about what's right and wrong. You might actually learn something from him.
Robert Wendell Added Jun 18, 2014 - 2:08pm
Speaking of linear thinking, the worst example of that I know of comes from a dufus who keeps repeating an alleged analogy to the way greenhouse gases work with diluting thermal energy by pissing in the ocean. That is a perfect example not only of an absolutely irrelevant point scientifically, but it is as perfectly linear thinking as could ever be where it would have zero applicability even if the analogy worked at all. Mindlessly muddled babble abounds!
Stone-Eater Friedli afronum Added Jun 18, 2014 - 2:29pm
This is cool, congratulations. The humor drips out of every line :-) Sarcasm at it's best!
Robert Wendell Added Jun 18, 2014 - 3:02pm
Thank you so much, Jurg! It's nice to get an occasional comment from someone with his head on straight and who actually understands what he reads. You're a breath of fresh air!
Robert Wendell Added Jun 18, 2014 - 3:08pm
"Did he subtract out the number of people who would have died from Cancer regardless of radiation exposure?  Does he assume that future generations will be stupid enough to live in a radiation hazard zone?"
The entire world in Sakharov's calculation was the "radiation hazard zone" or does this guy think the atmosphere remains static for 8,000 years? In that case, it's no wonder he thinks AGW can't be real! The calculation was only about additional cancer deaths in the first place, so how much sense does it make to subtract the ones who would have had cancer anyway? What a math wizard this guy is, huh? I knew he didn't understand science, but his misunderstanding of math deserves another booby prize. The most elementary math and science just whiz right over his head. Wow!
"I agree he is a socialist but your terms n-word socialist and lynching the suckers is why conservatives get a bad name."
He thinks I said Obama is a socialist! This an excellent example of reading comprehension asymptotically approaching zero. Please note that some conservatives don't need any help at all giving themselves a bad name.
Robert Wendell Added Jun 18, 2014 - 10:00pm
Jurg, by the way, you didn't conclude that I'm a racist, while the lily white author of the first comment did. Think there could be some strange inability to be objective about anything there? Does calling the president "half white" say anything about the author of the phrase in light of the mixed race ancestry of close to 100% of African Americans?
Conservatives even talk about "reverse racism". What's that? As far as I can tell, racism is just racism no matter who is guilty of it. If a person is not racist, why would that person even think of such a phrase as "reverse racism"? I know very well, for example, there is black-on-black racism. Most whites are so disconnected they've never even heard of terms like red bone and high yellow. Conservatives, however, if they ever even find out about such things, are thrilled to know it exists. Why? I think it makes them somehow feel better about their own racism, although they never admit to themselves that they have it.
Note also the use of countries, the plural of country instead of the possessive country's. I find a high correlation between lack of literacy and the kind of free-association, psychedelic stream of consciousness "logic" that extreme conservatives are so habituated to. That's how they read what you say, too. They just pick out certain words you used that they can hang their "hate" for your "views" on, string them together with whatever "logic" suits their self-blinding purposes, and then accuse you of having said that.
All this is what makes them such huge suckers for the propaganda machine of the financial elite that manipulates them into supporting the elitists' sense of financial entitlement to rip the rest of us off while getting these suckers to hate the opposite end of the economic spectrum, the poor, for taking relative peanuts away from us as taxes.
This is the magician's trick of misdirection to fool the audience. The elites also play their conservative supporters by the easy task of sparking their resentment of people smart enough to see through their games. This shows up as the suckers' hate for whoever is smart enough to try to tell them what's really going on and the knee-jerk "liberal" label for anyone who tries, no matter what positions the so-called "liberals" actually take on other issues.
Johnny Fever Added Jun 18, 2014 - 10:36pm
The reason the burden of proof is on the alarmists is because your solutions costs piles of money and can fundamentally change our current way of life.  Accordingly, if you want to rock the boat you better be 100% you’re right. 
A great example of what I’m talking about is ethanol.  Alarmists convinced everyone that ethanol was an important product to help stave off global warming.  So they then forced consumers to buy ethanol blended gas and provided all sorts of subsidies for the production of ethanol.  The result, more land was needed not only for food but also to power vehicles.  Corn exports declined dramatically and there were food shortages and riots all over the globe.  This caused even more land to be converted for human consumption.   Not only that, but creating ethanol requires tons of energy versus the relative small amount of energy it takes to extract oil from under the surface of the earth and transport it in pipelines.  Few environmentalists support ethanol anymore.
The total cost of the alarmists pushing the consumption of ethanol is significant.  More importantly, it was totally unnecessary.  So yes…the burden of proof is on you alarmists.  Oh and by the way, the next time you come up with some harebrained scheme to save the earth please also provide the science which details how many degrees it will reduce the temperature.  
Robert Wendell Added Jun 18, 2014 - 10:57pm
"How would paying the ruling caste for the indulgence of poisoning Gaia be considered anything but attempting to ameliorate injustice with injustice?"
Assuming this refers to carbon swaps, credits, or cap and trade, I invite anyone who wishes to do so to explain how any of those ideas have anything to do with paying a "ruling caste for the indulgence of poisoning" our planet. Conservatives always argue for free-market economics. I'm for truly free markets, too, but conservatives really mean unregulated markets, which never are nor ever can be free.
The irony here is that carbon swaps, credits, cap and trade, etc. are schemes designed to create financial incentives to lower CO(2) emissions using market dynamics rather than directly imposing Draconian regulations decided by political committee on industries that emit CO(2). You would think conservatives would like the market incentives better than direct imposition of regulations, but no.
Why? Because most of them tell us it's just fine and dandy to emit all we want forever, and also wantonly burn up valuable fossil chemical stocks so future generations can't make plastics or enjoy any of the multitude of other important uses for them, and pollute as much as we like in addition. To heck with future generations. We'll all be gone by then.
That helps me understand why so many conservatives are so quick to see military solutions as so wonderful for so many problems around the world. We don't know the people most affected, they're far away, and so why should we care? The same goes for people far away into the future. You can bet we would be mad at past generations for doing that to us, though.
Funny how things change when you're on the wrong end of the stick. Don't you just love how religious conservatives can be such hawks and want to kill Muslims left and right no matter whether they're radical Muslims or not and still pretend to believe in the Golden Rule? I guess the Golden Rule only applies to us in the good old U.S.A., but doesn't apply internationally? Well, maybe just it applies to everyone in the U.S.A. except those they decide to label "liberal".
Robert Wendell Added Jun 18, 2014 - 11:21pm
"The reason the burden of proof is on the alarmists is because your solutions costs piles of money and can fundamentally change our current way of life."
The energy revolution is the next big technological revolution to follow the industrial and infotech/digital/space revolutions and will be the most significant. It will return trillions on the investment. The real question is this. Which costs the most in the long run, burying your head in the sand and doing nothing or putting your economic engine behind solutions? I predict that within the next decade we will have made advances in energy technology that will make the quote above look flat out idiotic.
We will reap huge economic benefits that ignoring reality could never have provided. That would remain true even if AGW were nothing but a liberal scam as some "think". The digital revolution was financially rewarding in terms of billions. The energy revolution that is about to happen is worth trillions.
Conservatives don't follow real science, though, so they never even know anything about what's really going on that's not already filtered through their conservative sources. They're not really interested enough in that kind of technology and often not of any kind of technology to want to bother. Real science and technology don't fascinate them. No, all they know about technology is either what directly affects their work if they work in technology in the first place, or what they read in their beloved political sources.
Stone-Eater Friedli afronum Added Jun 19, 2014 - 5:23am
"Does calling the president "half white""
In my opinion the term "half white" is some form of racism. It indicates that "white" would be the first choice but, never mind, "half white"  is better than "black"....I haven't heard anyone saying "half black" before...
Racist people don't know what they're talking about. They're just plain dumb and/or ignorant and adopt arguments from other sources, their club friends, certain TV stations or whatever without questioning them. If you get to the bottom of it, these people are not satisfied with their own life, and what's easier than to blame immigrants, minorities, people who have a still lower stand in society than themselves, for their own bad luck or inability ? I tell you, I had lots of discussions about that subject before, and more often than not people with racist tendencies or open hate against certain groups of people changed their mind when I came along with, say, an African friend and they started to discuss. First of all, the 1:1 talk made them lose their false "courage" they show when in groups, and secondly they were forced to listen. And most of them had to admit after that they were just plain wrong, like, "I never thought of that"...
"f a person is not racist, why would that person even think of such a phrase as "reverse racism""
Good point ;-)
Robert Wendell Added Jun 19, 2014 - 11:07am
Sheesh, Jon. Are you talking to me at the end? Did you even read the article? Have you read any of the comments, like the one above? You don't understand sarcasm? You didn't get that I'm making fun of stupid conservatives and racist talk? Read the article again and then read some of the comments and my responses, especially Jurg's two comments.
Mike Haluska Added Jun 19, 2014 - 12:12pm
Russ - from the article you mention:
"Yale law professor Dan Kahan target="_blank">posted on his blog this week that he analyzed the responses of more than 2,000 American adults recruited for another study and found that, on average, people who leaned liberal were more science literate than those who leaned conservative."

illustrates how easy it is to blow elephant sized holes in the arguments of liberal arts majors.  There is a reason the liberal arts don't require science and math - you guys suck at it!  How do liberal arts majors conduct "science"?  They take a POLL!  You make a statement/question and count which side is more popular.  Robert loves this brand of science . . .  CONSENSUS!
Stone-Eater Friedli afronum Added Jun 19, 2014 - 12:21pm
Image polishing ? As far I can remember Sarah Palin was the scientific hero of the Tea Party. But since I'm not American I probably don't have a right to comment that subject ;-) But I assure you we have the likes in Europe as well. Difference is we don't take them seriously...
Robert Wendell Added Jun 19, 2014 - 12:53pm
It's OK, Jon.
Robert Wendell Added Jun 19, 2014 - 12:59pm
"There is a reason the liberal arts don't require science and math - you guys suck at it!  How do liberal arts majors conduct "science"?  They take a POLL!  You make a statement/question and count which side is more popular.  Robert loves this brand of science . . .  CONSENSUS!"
I do not! This is a bald faced lie. Not all animals are dogs, but all dogs are animals. Being a dog does not disqualify the dog as an animal simply because all animals are not dogs. Consensus is not science, but science not only includes, but requires the consensus of scientists in confirming hard, empirical results.
This doesn't imply, and neither have I ever implied, that a consensus of opinion constitutes proof of anything, including AGW. However, many individual pieces of the AGW factors we know about have been scientifically, empirically verified. This cow poop keep popping out again and again because its source seems intellectually incapable of following the exactly parallel logic in the dog example.
Robert Wendell Added Jun 19, 2014 - 1:00pm
Mike says he's not a conservative, but he gets riled by anything that dumps on them for the stupidity so typical of so many of them.
Robert Wendell Added Jun 19, 2014 - 1:19pm
I agree that lots of liberal arts people are technically challenged, but music is one of the more technically sophisticated disciplines in the arts. There are more engineers and scientists in amateur orchestras around the world than from any other single area. The musicians who do well in music theory are not technically challenged. Many music people who are not technically oriented hate music theory because it is intellectually demanding and quite rigorous. I loved it and always got an A.
Funny though, that one of the most technically challenged engineers I've ever had any dialog with would bring this stupid point up. He still doesn't get that because all technically challenged musicians are musicians doesn't imply that all musicians are technically challenged. He sure is, though!
Mike Haluska Added Jun 19, 2014 - 2:13pm
Once upon a time there was Person A and Person B.  Person A studied hard in high school, got accepted to a prestigious engineering college, graduated near the top of his class, went on to work as an engineer in several industries, earned his Professional Engineer License in several states, ran his own engineering consulting practice and is well-thought of among his peers over a 30 year career.
Person B did NONE of the above but lobs insults over an internet wall at Person A and demands to be taken seriously as Person A's scientific equal.
One day Person B asked the Blue Fairy to make him into a legitimate scientist, and the Blue Fairy replied:
"I can change a Wooden Puppet into a real boy, no problem.  Changing a liberal arts major into a scientist - that's 3 levels over my pay grade!"
Robert Wendell Added Jun 19, 2014 - 4:41pm
I'm really, really glad I'm NOT this guy's scientific equal. He needs me to have a university tell him the difference between knowledge and dead information learned by rote. No wonder he had to study so hard. He makes dumb statements about subtracting people who would have had cancer without the H-bomb and then pretends he understands much of anything at all.
You know how many PhD holders there are who can't think their way out of bear's bathroom? How many scientific discoveries have been made by people who had zero formal education in the sciences? Some people don't recognize anything for themselves. They have to have a university tell them on some piece of paper that doesn't always mean what it pretends to mean.
This guy's attitude toward the arts stinks. Real artists are creative. They think for themselves. They invent. They improvise. They arrange. They compose. They understand structure both intellectually and intuitively. They have brains that integrate science and art. Musical aptitude and mathematics are often closely related.
Some very solid studies have shown that accomplished musicians have some parts of their brains that are larger than they are in non-musicians. Music requires fine integration of many diverse parts of the brain. People in the U.S. typically can't sing any more because Republicans as a whole have been too stupid to appreciate the value of art in society.
Mindlessly muddled babble abounds.
Robert Wendell Added Jun 20, 2014 - 11:35am
Yeah, it is kind of funny, isn't it, Detlev? They're self blinded, so they don't get much of anything, really. They let their traditional beliefs, often dictated and motivated by their backgrounds, preferred social environment, religion, etc. trump facts, science, math, logic, pretty much everything. The problem is it seriously affects reality in very negative ways.
Mike Haluska Added Jun 20, 2014 - 12:16pm
Robert - wrong again!  I love the arts, especially music and motion pictures.  Unfortunately for me, I have absolutely no aptitude for music and I would really love to play an instrument.  How someone can read two lines of music simultaneously and play one line with the left hand and the other with the right hand is astonishing to me.  I know I can't look at two equations and solve one with my left hand and the other with the right hand!
I do, however possess one artistic gift - I can draw very well and conceptualize in 3D.  This gift has proved useful in drafting (remember drafting boards & T-Squares?) and in field engineering.  The gift is somewhat mitigated because like a lot of males I don't see colors very well, so I specialize in drawing (pencil & ink) and calligraphy.  The hand-lettering on my engineering drawings passed for letter guide templates.
My hostility towards liberal arts is stereotypical and I apologize for that.  I am sensitive to how difficult it must be to master a musical instrument for instance, and I would be the first to chastise any engineer who derided a musician's skills or talent.  Likewise, I am sensitive to bombs thrown from the "other side" toward technicians/engineers/scientists by liberal arts majors.  As a teacher of music, you must not only know how to play music, but guide others of all ranges of talent/aptitude/desire towards reaching the best of their ability.  I applaud you for that skill, and recognize that you couldn't have done it as long as you have without dedication and talent.
Robert Wendell Added Jun 20, 2014 - 10:15pm
Well, thank you for that, Mike. But remember your implication that because I'm a musician I can't know anything about science? You haven't apologized for that. You reliably overlook that I worked in electronics for ten years and have barely fewer undergraduate credits in physics and math than I would need for a minor in them.
You also ignore that from the seventh grade on I never scored less than 99+ percentile in those subjects on either aptitude or achievement tests. In those days, no one ever even thought about teaching to the test or even had access to what was on them. They were not used to evaluate the teachers, but were used by our guidance counselors (as they were called and actually were in our schools) to help guide us and help us focus on what we were cut out to do in life.
I don't simply know how to troubleshoot solid state electronic circuits. Mere technicians with weak knowledge of how the circuits actually work typically learn to troubleshoot despite this weakness. I understand the physics and technical parameters of the components and the way they interact to make the circuits work. That's what made me such a superior troubleshooter to the other employees around me.
The technicians often could only troubleshoot circuits they were already very familiar with. It was kind of rote learning from lots of experience, which works a lot of the time, but fails when the problems are unusual, or put another way, statistical outliers in terms of the nature of the problem. Those take real understanding to fix. 
I also worked in software client support for vertical market industrial software that started at $30,000 back in 1990, whatever that would be equivalent to today. I managed the support service for four of the six years I did this work. I worked daily with managers of Fortune 100 companies. I flew to Mexico four times to deliver software training in Spanish. I wrote the translation to Spanish for the A++ network administrator and computer repair technician certification tests.
Because of both my physics background and writing skills, I worked for a couple of years as a technical writer. I wrote manuals for both software and very sophisticated industrial hardware that involved a lot of physics. I had very limited time to interview the product engineers and witness equipment in operation. I was the top technical writer for the company for deeply technical matters. The users of the equipment fed back that they understood much more clearly and were much more efficient at using the equipment after my manuals became available to them.
So where does this leave all your past stuff about liberal arts majors' inability to understand science and technology. Your correct observation that most liberal arts majors are woefully incapable of this kind of thing doesn't mean I am incapable, now does it? You said it yourself. Correlation is not causality.
Yet you have documented right here your clear belief that it is by taking the correlation between liberal arts majors and technical incompetence as not merely failing to prove I'm competent in science and technology. No, it goes to the extreme of pretending that it DISQUALIFIES me as having any understanding of science. Where's the scientific method or even valid logic in that? Practice what you preach, pal!
All the while you prove your lack of qualifications despite your credentials by making statements that anyone truly knowledgeable in even the most elementary science instantly recognizes as utterly absurd, then try to defend that by citing your credentials for the humpteenth time.
Robert Wendell Added Jun 20, 2014 - 10:33pm
I used to recruit contract engineers for the commercial avionics industry, too. The engineers loved me because I understood their resumes. The really competent managers did too, because they recognized that I never submitted inappropriate resumes. I was the top producer. Most of the managers I worked wanted engineers who had worked with the precisely relevant nuts and bolts a, b, and c yesterday or they wouldn't hire them.
That's because of their experience with the typical American engineer. I had quite a few engineers available who were Russian and Ukrainian immigrants. The electronics engineers knew mechanical and software engineering, too, backwards and forwards...and the other engineers, vice versa. The software engineers knew the hardware, too, right down to the bare metal.
The managers usually didn't want them because they typically hadn't done the pertinent nuts and bolts a, b, and c yesterday. They were foolishly applying American criteria to these incredibly competent engineers. However, the very few I managed to place despite this ran circles around the American engineers. One achieved a very challenging goal in two months the employed engineers had worked on unsuccessfully for two years.
We billed him out at $165/hour in 1997. He had a daytime job and did this in the evening. He billed as if he were full time. The hiring manager knew it and didn't care. He just carefully hid it from the bean counters. By the way, this man was Ukrainian, but correlation isn't causality, unfortunately for you.
So I have a lot of experience in recognizing truly competent engineers and those who aren't. My checkered career path full of technical background goes against me in music because of the same mindset you've displayed all along under many articles, but working in reverse. Dumb, but that's life. This is despite my master of music attached to a 3.95/4.0 GPA at the University of Florida and recordings of stellar performances I've directed.
You might consider that my background, which includes managing the logistics and scientific test protocols at eleven agricultural sites in tropical crops in Guatemala in 1985 for an American company and the statistical analysis of multiple soil tests and crop yield checks along with all the above could actually indicate some significant breadth and depth and the ability to transfer knowledge across widely differing disciplines. So now what was that again about how my liberal arts degree disqualifies me as having any real understanding of science and technology?
Mike Haluska Added Jun 21, 2014 - 11:25am
Robert - If I was trying to establish superior Musical credentials and practical experience to yours and I cited evaluating musician resumes, fixing stereos, working in the department next to musicians, etc. as evidence, I doubt you would acknowledge me as remotely equal in qualifications and knowledge.
And what exactly does "managing the logistics and scientific test protocols at eleven agricultural sites in tropical crops in Guatemala" mean anyway?  What did the "managing logistics" entail, exactly?  Ordering office supplies?  How about those "statistical analyses of soil tests/crop yields"?  You made a spreadsheet of fertilizer contents?  Kept records of how many bananas per acre?  This is the stuff an undergrad engineering intern is assigned.  You like to spew technical sounding jargon in the hope it will impress me - it doesn't. 
I'm willing to bet that a lot of people can listen to musicians play and rate their abilities even though they themselves can't read sheet music or carry a tune in a bucket.  People who are well-known movie critics can't act or direct.  You confuse your "after the fact" evaluation of the work of others as evidence that you could have done a better job yourself.  I will concede you know a lot more about the subject matter of science than the average Joe, but that doesn't qualify you to be considered a scientist/engineer. Being conversant in a subject doesn't make you an expert in it - actual practice does.  Data collection, translating documents from Spanish to English, reading articles is not actual practice!     
Robert Wendell Added Jun 21, 2014 - 6:55pm
"You confuse your 'after the fact' evaluation of the work of others as evidence that you could have done a better job yourself."
Does anyone else notice how glaringly obvious it is that this guy cherry picks the heck out of everything to make his points? There is no good faith in this kind of rhetorical nonsense.
"Good faith discussion requires consideration of the full body of scientific evidence. This is difficult when confronted with rhetorical techniques which are designed to distort and distract. Identifying and publicly exposing these tactics are the first step in redirecting discussion back to a focus on the science."
There has been no good faith discussion in the anti-AGW comments above. No matter how much long established science I've introduced to this discussion here and under multiple other articles, there has been no direct response to any points in those arguments.
If there really is a scientist somewhere inside Mike, why doesn't he ever show up? Instead, he makes blatantly irrelevant "analogies" such as pissing in the ocean or a hot ember melting an iceberg, which only prove he understands NOTHING at all about the way greenhouse gases work even after he gets a clear tutorial on it. When provided with information about how they work and asked to critique it by locating any specific flaws in it he can find, he ducks out while ignoring how obvious it is that he does so and even denying that he does.
If there is a real scientist hiding in there somewhere and my arguments are really flawed, why doesn't he find any specific flaws in the scientific arguments I present or even try to...ever!? Instead he simply repeats what any moron could come up with, that it's just a bunch of baloney or nothing but a meaningless repetition of standard scientific principles I could have copied from anywhere.
Well, that they are indeed, but only if we ignore the meaningless part or that I just copied them and with no understanding at that. The problem is they debunk everything he says. He never even starts to address that. His arguments are 100% rhetorical and include zero legitimate science because he simply doesn't understand science even when it kisses him in his clueless face. Nothing he says can counter that until he decides to concretely demonstrate that he actually understands the real science of how greenhouse gases work. If he does, it will of course utterly undermine his whole position, so I'm quite sure he has little motivation to do that, to put it very mildly.
Robert Wendell Added Jun 21, 2014 - 10:53pm
"How about those "statistical analyses of soil tests/crop yields"?  You made a spreadsheet of fertilizer contents? Kept records of how many bananas per acre?"
So stupid! No idea what I said really implies. Mindlessly muddled babble abounds.
Mike Haluska Added Jun 22, 2014 - 1:35pm
Robert - I ask simple questions and all I ever get in return is a bunch of "because I say so" jibberish.  Just answer the Frakkin' questions, they're simple, straightforward.  Why can't you just stop trying to "appear smarter" than me and stop claiming I don't understand science? 
Robert Wendell Added Jun 22, 2014 - 2:07pm
I've already done that multiple times. Learn to read. You don't simply prove you don't know any science with your super-stupid, completely irrelevant "analogies". You prove you can't even understand what you read. Go back and read my previous comments if you want answers to your questions. You may have to go to my profile and click on comments to other articles you interacted with me under to do so.
I directly show the flaws in your "scientific" arguments. I point out the fallacies in your "logic". I show how insubstantial your sources of information are. You never return the favor. It would require confronting the actual science to do so, which at this point you've very successfully convinced me you're incapable of doing. Instead you use blatantly diversionary tactics, all the tactics listed in the study I quoted above plus a few.
The bottom line is that you show absolutely no good faith or integrity in the way you discuss issues we disagree on. There is nothing scientific about that, nor does it remotely resemble any kind of honest discussion. I'm completely disgusted with dealing with your glaringly dishonest tactics and cherry picking, which you did just above on my experience. If you have any sense at all, you know that I know science much more deeply than you do. If you really, truly don't know that by now, you've got to be a total moron or hopelessly self-deluded.
Mike Haluska Added Jun 22, 2014 - 7:30pm
Robert - I think we are accusing each of the same offense.  Tell you what, you select one point you want me to directly address and I will do the same for you.  No dodges, no diatribes on thermo, no calling each other names, etc.  Deal???
Robert Wendell Added Jun 22, 2014 - 9:23pm
So you call it a diatribe on "thermo"? By that do you mean thermodynamics? You think gas spectroscopy and infrared heat are governed by the laws of thermodynamics, which apply very specifically to thermal heat? You don't know anything at all about quantum theory and how it relates to gas spectroscopy? Thought you were a scientist (oops, the tip of my wooden nose just poked a hole in the wall).
Thermodynamics has to take into account radiant heat, but radiant heat is not itself governed by the laws that govern thermal heat, since radiant is electromagnetic energy, photons, and does not itself have any thermodynamic properties at temperature, pressure, mass density or specific volume, specific heat, total mass, or total volume. It only influences them and is influenced by them.
So you're perfectly willing to discuss this without dodging anything but the central mechanism underlying AGW, which is radiant heat, the only form in which heat can either enter or leave the planet? How generous of you!
You're really fond of loaded questions, aren't you? Flake off, dufus! You're one of the following: one of the dumbest/ignorant or self-deluded or dishonest people I've ever encountered anywhere. Take your choice!
Robert Wendell Added Jun 22, 2014 - 9:30pm
The most astounding thing to me as that you seem to be totally clueless that anyone in the public who happens by and has just a little elementary understanding of real science can see right through your charade. Even reasonably intelligent people who don't know any science can easily see the underhanded, diversionary, fundamentally dishonest tactics you shamelessly resort to.
Robert Wendell Added Jun 22, 2014 - 9:46pm
Ladies and Gentlemen, I've just been invited to a discussion with an alleged scientist whose position is doggedly anti-AGW. He has generously offered to participate with me in an honest discussion of the issue as long as I avoid talking about the pertinent science.
Mike Haluska Added Jun 23, 2014 - 2:02pm
Robert - humor me.  You can go on and on about whatever you want in your response.  Pick one point and I pick one point regarding AGW.  Tell you what - since you don't like analogies I will not use them in responding to your point. 
Well, I just challenged you directly and gave you all the advantages you want and tied one hand behind my back.  What are you going to do Robert?  If you're true to form you'll chicken out and go into a 14 paragraph diatribe accusing me of asking "loaded questions", bla bla bla.  ANYTHING BUT accepting the challenge!
Robert Wendell Added Jun 23, 2014 - 5:50pm
Who was the one who has a long history of rejecting challenges when I do not?! I have to leave right now for an engagement. I'll be back.
Robert Wendell Added Jun 23, 2014 - 11:24pm
First, you never responded to my challenge, so why should I accept yours? I certainly don't owe you one as you brazenly imply. However, I will respond to yours.
Do you agree that all energy and the only energy that enters the earth system (planet plus its atmosphere) and is actually absorbed (not reflected right back out without ever being absorbed) leaves it exclusively in the form of radiant energy in the infrared spectrum?
A simple "yes" is fine unless you don't agree. If you disagree, please explain exactly what the alternative form is that your disagreement inevitably implies.
This is one simple point at a time as you requested. If you disagree, it is  natural, normal, and logical in good faith discussion to expect an explanation of the scientific basis for your disagreement. A simple "no" or any kind of dodge in violation of the commitment you made with your challenge will not comply with this normal and very reasonable request.
Mike Haluska Added Jun 24, 2014 - 1:32pm
Robert - your comment:
"Do you agree that all energy and the only energy that enters the earth system (planet plus its atmosphere) and is actually absorbed (not reflected right back out without ever being absorbed) leaves it exclusively in the form of radiant energy in the infrared spectrum?"
my response is - what does this have to do with predicted outcome vs actual outcome of AGW forecasts?  It doesn't require a reply because it has no relevance to the main point of the debate! 
Robert Wendell Added Jun 24, 2014 - 2:26pm
Your response is absurd, It has everything to do with the science. If you don't believe there is any science involved , but only your politics and your a priori assumption that its all a hoax, we have no basis for discussion. I pay no attention to the political side of this discussion, but only the science.
If, on the other hand, you think there is a scientific basis for either of our positions, but my question has nothing to do with it, you're a scientific basket case. You're the one who proposed one point at a time and that you would not dodge anything. This is just another dodge. If you get to decide whether to dodge or not, your offer is not a real offer and your alleged "commitment" is a transparent sham. So answer the damn question or shut up!
Mike Haluska Added Jun 24, 2014 - 4:21pm
Robert - I didn't say your statement on thermo wasn't based in scientific fact!  I said it wasn't relevant to the statement I made.  I asked you how AGW could be considered valid since NONE of the results agreed with prediction for the past 40 years.  Suppose a scientist predicted that based on his theory that  "A" would occur and it didn't.  Instead of agreeing that there was a problem with his theory he quoted you laws of electromagnetism, you would say he's evading! 
That's what you're doing - I point out a glaring problem with AGW and you go off on some diatribe about thermo!  NOBODY CARES WHAT YOU THINK SHOULD HAPPEN - IT DIDN'T!  You are preoccupied with trying to show how knowledgeable you are instead of dealing with the statement.  That's the problem with Consensus Science - it's all opinions and polls!  
Robert Wendell Added Jun 24, 2014 - 4:50pm
"...what does this have to do with predicted outcome vs actual outcome of AGW forecasts?"
You promised not to dodge any science points I bring up. To pretend that the science underlying greenhouse gases is irrelevant is absurd on its face. Your "analogy" with magnetism is another dishonest diversionary tactic and completely inapplicable, since greenhouse gas science has everything to do with climate change.
Then you ask this loaded question as an excuse for dodging the pertinent science, declaring it not pertinent by YOUR arbitrary political criteria. When did you stop beating your wife? Same thing. The assumption underlying your question is a flat out lie. I've debunked it again and again yet you keep repeating it.
You get this from conservative media and not from any scientific study from anyone but fake authorities. Of course, you accuse the whole climate science community of being fake authorities, so there can no discussion on that basis. Yours are non-scientific, strictly political arguments. You committed to avoiding that. This has nothing to do with the known science underlying the fundamental AGW issue, which is whether 400 ppm CO(2) has a significant effect.
You deny it does, but refuse to deal with the science that proves it does?! This has nothing to do with models or the accuracy or not of the models. Even so and contrary to your assertions, they have been incredibly accurate, both in explaining past climate and predicting future climate in real time so far. You deny this. So there is no possibility for a good faith discussion there. I proposed we talk about the pertinent science and you accept, yet then avoid it.
The most fundamental issue, quite independent of the accuracy of exactly how much CO(2) affects climate according to the models, is whether 400 ppm of CO(2) is enough to affect the climate significantly. If you refuse to deal with this, you refuse to honor even your own challenge after refusing a bunch of mine to engage in a real scientific discussion rather than this kind of diversionary nonsense!
If you're really a scientist as you say, why do you refuse EVERY TIME  to participate a real, honest scientific discussion instead of the nonsense you copy and endlessly repeat from the media?!
Mike Haluska Added Jun 25, 2014 - 10:08am
Robert - your assertion:
"You promised not to dodge any science points I bring up. To pretend that the science underlying greenhouse gases is irrelevant is absurd on its face."
is wrong!  I didn't say the science underlying greenhouse gas is irrelevant, I said the actual IMPACT of CO2/greenhouse effect on the Earth's climate is INSIGNIFICANT!  You can't refute that because:
1) The actual data doesn't support it
2) No causality can be shown
3) The actual amount of CO2 contributed by HUMAN activity is miniscule - the "effect" of TOTAL CO2 doesn't even register, why would less than 1% of that total be significant?
4) The Earth has seen 400ppm in the past (Middle Ages - which AGW researchers in UK tried to get removed from the data), NOBODY BOILED TO DEATH, LONDON WASN'T UNDER WATER, POLAR ICE STILL REMAINED, ETC.
Robert Wendell Added Jun 25, 2014 - 10:31am
All wound up with wondrously wild, aimless, unworthy and witless words? (Translation: Too late, pal! You really messed up!)
Robert Wendell Added Jun 25, 2014 - 2:27pm
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Please observe that my compliance with Mike's agreement to discuss science only, free of politics, point by single point and he would respond in kind has produced no fruit because of the blatant intransigence and diversionary tactics of which he has been guilty all along. He simply doggedly repeats what he BELIEVES to be true and refuses to confront genuine scientific arguments in blunt violation of his commitment if I agreed to accept his challenge despite his repeated refusal to accept mine to do this from the very outset many long months ago.
Mike simply declares that a scientific point I make is irrelevant and so not worthy of a response, even though the aim of the sequence of following points I intended to make one by one per his request was to establish its relevance. This is worthy of intense ridicule for its blatant circularity. In other words, the entire extent of Mike's "scientific" stance is to repeat others' "science" from his highly questionable sources (to put it very kindly) and simply declare that it's all true because it simply is.
Robert Wendell Added Jun 25, 2014 - 2:29pm
Then Mike pretends to be an expert on scientific method! Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-odd inn-fee-neat-tomb
Mike Haluska Added Jun 25, 2014 - 6:09pm
Robert - how old are you???  Which of the 4 items I listed are not true?  Simple question, true or false.  The kind of questions that people who rely on bullshitting their way out of answering a direct question with a direct answer.
I could understand your refusal to address my points if I made complex, convoluted statements for you to address.  Why are you so afraid to just say you can't refute them, you can still admit you've been duped.  
Robert Wendell Added Jun 25, 2014 - 6:25pm
If you could read, dufus, you would know that I already answered every one of your ridiculous assertions multiple times. You refuse to honor your own commitment and then turn around and throw this kind of unconscionable cow poop at me? Why didn't you just answer my question instead of another obvious dodge?
That's what you promised to do and you didn't. So why are you expecting me to do what you refuse to do? I've gone the second mile with you and you haven't gone the first with me. So why don't you just tuck your stinking, poop laden tail between your legs and slink off?! You're apparently too addled to be embarrassed by your own obvious stupidity.
Mike Haluska Added Jun 26, 2014 - 10:37am
Robert - Use "cut & paste" and show me your so-called "answers".  And don't use responses like "your sources are from Fox News" and "you are stupid" or any other Frakkin' opinions.  Tell you what - I will whittle it down to one point:
1) NONE of the forecasts made by the AGW proponents over the past 40 YEARS have been correct!  No boiling to death, no NYC & London under water, polar ice caps melting, worldwide crop failure/famine, etc.
Now I will sit back and wait for 75 paragraphs on some lame technical dissertation on how thermal radiation isn't the same as convection or some other totally unrelated bullshit.
Robert Wendell Added Jun 26, 2014 - 2:22pm
I don't honor requests for participation that you won't grant yourself. Your dirty, underhanded, grossly dishonest games are  disgusting and I refuse to play, but you have refused all along from the very beginning. All you had to do was answer one question at time and I would have shown the relevance or you would have had to irrationally deny at least one basic, long established scientific principle.
You knew that and that's why you have always refused to go point by point to what you know would be an inevitable conclusion. You know that would not allow you to play this stupid game of assertions that you simply declare to be true and your lame, irrelevant dodges. You don't have the cojones to go point by point with simple up and down agreements or disagreements. That's all I asked. But you do have the cojones to attempt a reversal and put that on me. 
My scientific discussions are highly relevant, you know it, and that's why you won't participate. It would also require you to actually deal with real science that would reveal your abysmal ignorance, as if that were not already clear. You don't want the genuine science to trap you into admitting the truth. That is just rotten and stinks to high heaven. You're an intellectually dishonest coward.
As for your cut and paste suggestions, just go back and read what I've already said. I'm not taking the trouble. You're way less than worth it. You can go to my profile and search my comments. They're all there from the very beginning of my participation in Writer Beat. You don't understand enough to even appreciate their relevance in the first place, so I don't think you'll bother either. You're an absolute, unconscionable jerk.
Mike Haluska Added Jun 26, 2014 - 4:52pm
Robert - I did search for a direct response through all your posts, several times!  What I found was represented by your response above.  I'll say this, you're a lot more reliable than AGW in terms of predictability! 
Robert Wendell Added Jun 26, 2014 - 10:54pm
Show me one question to which I never responded. Remember, there can be several comments in between, since no one can answer everything at once. Of course, you think even mentioning infrared radiation is irrelevant even though it is the exclusive means for heat to leave the earth and the only gases capable of radiating it by the very way they are defined are greenhouse gases. So your argument that infrared is irrelevant and all heat is subject to your thermodynamic analogies even though infrared has no thermodynamic properties is simply nuts...loco...bananas. Get it?
Robert Wendell Added Jun 26, 2014 - 11:54pm
So you can repeat as many times as you like that infrared and greenhouse gases are irrelevant, but that's just your religious dogma and nothing more. Repeating this dogma doesn't make it true, yet what else have you done? I'll summarize that for you.
1. You repeat that the accepted models have been inaccurate, but that's simply a lie promoted by industrial interests and some very ignorant conservatives. I quote highly respected sources that roundly contradict that and you refuse to accept that information, justifying your refusal by claiming a massive hoax and cherry picking "evidence" from like-minded sources.
2. You say polar ice isn't melting and cite one year when there was an increase in the middle of a hugely opposite and irrefutable long term trend and apparently expect intelligent, informed people to accept that.
3. You say I didn't address your dogmatic pseudoscience when in fact I did, but you don't count it because it contradicts your religious dogma.
4. By the weirdly illogical criterion in point 3 my response to your argument for greenhouse gas irrelevance becomes automatically irrelevant according to your "thinking". That's a guaranteed win for you if you believe in circular arguments, which when all is said and done are all logically reducible to "I'm right because I'm right." You just make the circularity so elaborate that it confuses scientifically naive conservatives who already want to believe you and turn around and accuse me of that because I take the time to methodically debunk all your points. Then you have the cojones to claim I don't respond to your points. Are you going to say again that I'm not responding right here and now?
5. You challenge me to make a single scientific point at a time to which you committed to respond with no dodges using irrelevant replies, political arguments, or a simple refusal to deal with my points.
6. You dodge with a flat refusal to give a straight yes or no answer to the very first point in a sequence intended to show that infrared heat and greenhouse gases are highly relevant. Why?...because you say they are irrelevant. If you're interested in an honest discussion, why don't you just humor me and respond anyway? Your exceedingly lame "out" doesn't cut any mustard whatsoever with anyone a little ahead of a slightly intelligent ape.
Discussing this with you is worse than arguing with a creationist who believes the universe was created 6,000 years ago despite our planet being 30,000 light years from the nearest edge of our own galaxy (Milky Way) that light takes 100,000 years to cross and its only one out of hundreds of billions in the universe.

Now if you continue to insist that I haven't addressed all the points you recently specified above absolutely head on, you're as disgustingly dishonest as I already know you are. You also didn't look very hard if you think these are not repetitions of already much and uselessly repeated responses of mine to you right here and under other articles.
Mike Haluska Added Jun 27, 2014 - 7:59am
Robert - if you answered direct questions the way you on this website you'd be thrown in jail for perjury.  Now listen carefully for the last Frakkin' time:
I didn't say INFRARED RADIATION is not significant!  I said the effect of CO2 greenhouse on Earth's climate is NOT significant.  It's not my opinion - it's a Frakkin' fact because the ridiculous warming and side effects (floods, ice caps melting, etc.) predicted NEVER occurred! 
Explain this to me if CO2 is so critical to planetary temperature:  Mars atmosphere is 99.9% CO2 - why isn't warm on Mars?  Despite its distance, doesn't the magical "multiplier" of "radiant greenhouse" over millions of years overcome other more SIGNIFICANT factors?
Robert Wendell Added Jun 27, 2014 - 11:41am
So why don't you answer the question? Why do you refuse? What are you afraid of? What you claim to be predictions were not predicted to have already happened unless you cherry pick stupid outliers on which there was no scientific agreement.
Your ignorance regarding Mars is typical. Its atmosphere is extremely thin. That's plenty enough reason that it doesn't warm the planet any more than it does. But it does, by the way. It would be still colder if not for what's there. So just how intelligent do you think your assessment is without accounting for how much atmosphere even exists on Mars?
Do you also admit infrared is the only means for energy to leave the earth? That was my question. You seem to have almost agreed on that, but you're not specific enough and I have a few more questions. like whether you agree that the very definition of greenhouse gases is that they are uniquely capable of absorbing and emitting infrared radiation at atmospheric temperatures, whether the radiated energy is acquired by kinetic collision with non-greenhouse gases or direct infrared absorption.
If a gas can't do this, it's not a greenhouse gas by the very definition of what a greenhouse gas is. Nitrogen and oxygen aren't. Of all the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, CO(2) is 95% of the total. Do you really refuse to believe any of this kind of very solidly established, elementary scientific fact? If these are indeed scientific facts, how does any of this make CO(2) insignificant? Citing alleged predictions that haven't happened doesn't constitute a scientific answer. So which of these facts do you disagree with?
Mike Haluska Added Jun 27, 2014 - 1:13pm
Robert - your assertion:
"Of all the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, CO(2) is 95% of the total. Do you really refuse to believe any of this kind of very solidly established, elementary scientific fact?"
is pure bullshit!  Water vapor is several orders of magnitude greater than CO2, methane or any other trace "greenhouse" gas!  Solid facts - you wouldn't know science facts if they walked up and bit you on the ass.  Go ahead and google or you can use NASA's own data.  In addition, water vapor is much more powerful in creating "greenhouse effect" than CO2. 
To top it off, of the smidgen (less than 400 ppm) of CO2, less than half a percent of that total is attributable to human activity!  So EVEN IF CO2 was significant, there is VIRTUALLY NOTHING WE CAN DO TO REDUCE IT!!!
here is one of many sources that have conducted research, you can find hundreds of other that verify:
Climate Modeling through Radiative-Convective Models, Ramanathan & Coakley, Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics 

The importance of water vapor in regulating climate is undisputed. It is the dominant greenhouse gas, trapping more of Earth’s heat than any other gaseous constituent..
Mike Haluska Added Jun 27, 2014 - 1:20pm
Robert -
On average, the temperature on Mars is about minus 80 degrees F (minus 60 degrees C). In winter, near the poles temperatures can get down to minus 195 degrees F (minus 125 degrees C). A summer day on Mars may get up to 70 degrees F (20 degrees C) near the equator, but at night the temperature can plummet to about minus 100 degrees F (minus 73 C).  ALL of Mars atmosphere is CO2, so according to your "greenhouse multiplier" crap it should be toasty warm year-round.  The reason Mars DOESN'T warm up is because there is NO WATER VAPOR in the atmosphere! 
Robert Wendell Added Jun 27, 2014 - 10:25pm
Amazing how you religiously avoid the central thrust of everything I ever say. The atmosphere on Mars is extremely thin (one 117th that of earths') and yes, it would be a lot warmer if there were enough atmosphere, which is  about 95% CO(2), to heat the water there up enough to turn it into vapor. The water is there, you know. You're so biased you turn evidence that hurts your position to favor it (in your mind).
Your arguments are not really yours. Every site I've been able to find that makes your arguments is funded by ALEC, the Koch brothers, Exxon, or shows some other financial connection to industrial energy interests wishing to maintain the status quo. You blindly copy them with a clear lack of understanding of enough science to recognize the fallacies in their "science".
Mars has a much more elliptical orbit than earth, so solar forcing varies greatly. It is at an average 1.52 times the distance of earth from the sun. By the inverse square law, since this is close to the square root of 2, it receives on average about half (43%) the solar forcing of earth.
Even with roughly the same amount of CO(2) per unit surface area of Mars as the earth, it nevertheless has about one 117th of the density of the earth's atmosphere. This means that kinetic energy transfer to radiant energy at the infrared spectrum of CO(2) from Brownian motion is also one 117th of that in the earth's atmosphere even if the atmospheric temperatures were equal rather than the much lower temperatures on Mars.
Further, increasing the temperature increases the vapor concentration remaining in the atmosphere of earth with no increase of total water. Water vapor simply becomes a greater portion of the natural water cycle. In this regard from
* Over 20% increase in humidity with 3 deg C global temperature 

* Tropics will have 55 deg C of latent heating potential instead of 45 deg C
This is a strong positive feedback loop that multiplies the effects of CO(2) enormously, since water is twice as strong a greenhouse gas and there is much more of it. Because water vapor cannot exist below freezing, it cannot swamp CO(2). The temperatures below freezing on earth above the troposphere are too low for water to remain vapor. However, CO(2) remains gas there, and the nature of gas is such that it distributes at the same concentration up to very high altitudes (about 80 km). Of course, the atmosphere is thinning as altitude increases, but the relative proportion remains essentially constant. 80 km is a lot of depth, enough for CO(2) to weigh quite a lot per unit area (pressure).
Please note that I don't just copy information from scientific sources, but understand the scientific import well enough to tie it all together into a coherent picture from information accumulated over a long period of time of having studied the issue. I don't see any anti-AGW arguments at all that ever do this.
Robert Wendell Added Jun 27, 2014 - 10:42pm
Mike: "Robert - your assertion:
'f all the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, CO(2) is 95% of the total. Do you really refuse to believe any of this kind of very solidly established, elementary scientific fact?'
is pure bullshit!"
I should have qualified that by excepting water vapor. However, although water vapor is indeed the most dominant, this is true only in the troposphere. The total amount of water on earth is not increasing significantly at all, so cannot contribute to global warming in that way. Very importantly, water vapor can't operate as a greenhouse gas or even exist below freezing, so it stops at the troposphere. Nevertheless, in the troposphere as climate warms, water becomes a greater portion of the natural water cycle and greatly amplifies the warming effect of the other greenhouse gases.
Please pick any one specific point in my arguments you disagree with and back it up with a scientific rebuttal and not just opposing opinions. Otherwise, don't bother to reply!!! This is what you asked of me. Now I'm turning the tables. I will delete any comment that fails to comply with this request. You have no right to complain about that if you refuse to comply. It's simply your own request turned around and pointed straight at you.
However, if I have to delete any comment of yours for failure to comply, if at any moment you decide to comply, I will NOT delete that comment. If I do have to delete a comment, I will first provide a specific explanation for the deletion and give you time read it and comply if or when you decide to.
Robert Wendell Added Jun 28, 2014 - 11:27am
What very little science there is in your response is elaborated with tons of extraneous garbage and false information, such as your undying claim that water vapor swamps CO(2) without considering that it doesn't exist below freezing so there is no water vapor above the troposphere while CO(2) continues at the same concentration (currently 400 ppm) up to 80 km altitude. Cherry picking pieces of science fact while ignoring essential mitigating facts is extremely unscientific, especially for someone who claims to understand scientific method.
So I"m going to delete this comment. You did not comply and that is clearly deliberate. You have no leg to stand on, since you are not complying with your own request to me to present one point at a time.
Stone-Eater Friedli afronum Added Jun 28, 2014 - 12:13pm
Wow. There's a war going on and I don't have a weapon :-) Keep up the good work ;-)
Mike Haluska Added Jun 28, 2014 - 6:09pm
Jurg - this is a little spat.  Robert is no dummy and he devotes a lot of time to reading about science and its relation to serious issues, which is a lot more than I can say about 98% of the people who pretend to care.  He just bought into something before he really took the time to think about it objectively, like a lot of people. 
Sooner or later he'll come to the conclusion based on lack of actual evidence and exposure of those perpetrating this fraud that he was conned.  After all the fury he directed at me I would like a front row seat to watch him barbeque the AGW crowd.
Robert Wendell Added Jun 28, 2014 - 8:29pm
Be it known:
My "fury" to which Mike alludes is simply an attempt to get him to participate in an honest, scientific discussion that doesn't presuppose a hoax. For the sake of a clear, objective argument, I've requested that he ignore his belief in a hoax and deal objectively with the science alone, free of politics.
I ask merely that he look at data and well established scientific facts and principles and responds to them in kind without gross oversights, cherry picking of facts, ignoring context, and extremely frequent diversionary tacticsApparently he thinks, quite rightly, that if he honors my repeated requests to do that, in his view he will be "corralled" into having to deal with real science and it will NOT favor his position.
He will not let himself be, in his view, "boxed in" and so have to abandon his endless sophistry, quite obvious to anyone reasonably objective and intelligent. It is not even necessary to know any science to detect his sophomoric evasion of an honest, forthright discussion. No matter what the source or the theme under discussion, I find such dogged attempts to thwart a truly objective discussion extremely disgusting and I have zero respect for anyone who indulges in it simply to protect his dogmatic stance and his need to be right at all costs, including any remote semblance of intellectual integrity.
Stone-Eater Friedli afronum Added Jun 29, 2014 - 1:32pm
Well...I was always interested in astronomy, although more in combination with the Kuiper Belt, the Oort Cloud and interstellar space, the earth itself and our own anthroposophy.
But nevertheless when I google the subject of Mars atmosphere, I find that in heights between 25-50 km the mars atmosphere has even too much water vapor, but the small quantity of aerosol cannot bind the water to get it back on Mars. I also find the 95% CO2, Oxygen about 1.3% and the rest is nitrogen.
Maybe that clarifies the debate a bit ? ;-)
Robert Wendell Added Jun 29, 2014 - 2:55pm
Jurg, I do not have to spend nearly as much time reading as Mike assumes. He ignores that I have a huge storehouse of scientific knowledge accumulated over many years, including two years of in-depth training in electronics and ten years working in the field, two years of undergraduate work in physics and mathematics, etc. I never had to take notes in any field such as science or math, because I have always scored 99+ percentile in aptitude and achievement.
I even scored that in math on my GRE, although my degree was in music. I understand what I learn, so I don't need notes. Conceptual knowledge doesn't require taking notes when you simply understand the principles underlying it. Mike clearly shows at every turn that he has no such ability. He demonstrates it with his own words and thermodynamic "analogies" that are absurdly irrelevant to the role of CO(2) in climate change. He admits above the infrared radiation is not irrelevant, but refuses to deal with it nevertheless.
He assumes a priori that CO(2) has no role, and irrationally uses this assumption to consign any discussion of the actual role of CO(2) and how it really works to irrelevance. He illogically refuses on that basis to allow any discussion that would establish its relevance. In other words, his argument is patently circular, since it disallows any discussion that would otherwise challenge his assumptions.
Robert Wendell Added Jun 29, 2014 - 3:10pm

"petitio principii
(also known as: assuming the initial point, assuming the answer, chicken and the egg argument, circulus in probando, circular reasoning [form of], vicious circle)
"Description: Any form of argument where the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises.  Many people use the phrase “begging the question” incorrectly when they use it to mean, “prompts one to ask the question”.  That is NOT the correct usage. Begging the question is a form of circular reasoning.
"Logical Forms:
Claim X assumes X is true.
Therefore, claim X is true."
"Any form of argument in which the conclusion occurs as one of the premisses. More generally, a chain of arguments in which the final conclusion is a premiss of one of the earlier arguments in the chain. Still more generally, an argument begs the question when it assumes any controversial point not conceded by the other side."
Robert Wendell Added Jun 29, 2014 - 11:32pm
Imagine! We get this kind of blatantly obvious circular reasoning from a guy who claims expertise in not only science, but the scientific method! It's all right here above and in quite a few comments under other articles, both mine, his, and others'.
Robert Wendell Added Jul 1, 2014 - 12:07am
You just completely trust your bogus sources and repeat whatever they say blindly again and again as if it were all gospel. You put down any real scientific discussion as "technical jargon and data" despite its clear and easily confirmed validity. You refuse to disagree with any one point of it directly because you would confirm you're the scientific know-nothing that you actually are if you were to dare.
I have clearly given you very direct answers...something you absolutely refuse to do, then laughably (if it weren't so sick) accuse me of it. I've debunked multiple times your incredible but increasingly favored line about 40 years of predictions that didn't work. You just cherry pick ridiculous, sensational stories in news media, none of which represents anything the scientific community at large specializing in climate science has ever endorsed. You repeat lies about alleged inaccuracy of climate change models that have in fact been extremely accurate (within hundredths of a degree Celsius), the very small errors of which have been on the conservative side.
The logical fallacies you've been guilty of you have repeated again and again for anyone with a brain to observe for themselves, yet you somehow delude yourself that this is not apparent. The one I called you on above is staring anyone who can read English and understand it right in the face right here under this article not very far above it. You argue like a politician who banks on the ignorance and blind enthusiasm of his followers to ignore your gross deceptions. If you really believe yourself, you are a true basket case.
Robert Wendell Added Jul 1, 2014 - 3:59pm
IPCC expert Joe Schmoe? Why don't you quote all these "experts" who blew it and provide the sources? Where's your evidence? Some models have been tested forward ten years and were incredibly accurate.
We've had some time since modeling started, or haven't you notice that? Reading the wrong stuff? What are your sources? News media? What do they know about science? 
So you've abandoned your goofball argument that CO(2) couldn't possibly matter? That's why you refuse to deal with it? Because since you have all this other "good" stuff with which to "debunk" AGW the real science is all moot now? Why did you back off from a challenge you proposed? Think participating might ruin your dumb, fluffy game? Can't show me exactly how and where the circular logic you've been using doesn't fit the fallacy I called you on?
You don't need that incredibly stupid, circular argument anymore, or the other strictly thermodynamic "analogies" like "pissing in the ocean" and a "burning ember beside an iceberg" or similar scientific nutcase stuff? You're finally getting that only a total scientific dunce would even begin to think those "analogies" bear any relationship to greenhouse gas behavior?
And why shouldn't I distance myself from Gore or any other political source of what is supposed to be scientific information? You would do well to imitate that, since your whole argument is based on bogus information from political sources. You seem to think just repeating what they say is science. Yeah, you yell about scientific consensus as bad science, but buy political consensus on an issue for which only science can provide any information that is the least bit objective. Is your de facto definition of scientific method political consensus among hard-headed, right-wing nuts?
Robert Wendell Added Jul 1, 2014 - 4:03pm
Mike: "As I predicted, anything BUT a straight answer!"
Given the clear documentation of your inane arguments you've left us here and elsewhere, why don't you just give up on your feckless and self-evidently absurd attempts to turn your asinine tactics around and accuse me of them? When have you EVER given me a straight answer and when have I failed to?
Robert Wendell Added Jul 1, 2014 - 11:45pm
I have deleted Mike's comments for the reasons already outlined. These not only include his refusal to honor a commitment he made with his own request for a particular approach to discussing AGW. It also includes the useless exercise of continuing to deal his inability to understand and address any arguments with which he disagrees. He fails to recognize the obvious absurdity of his circular arguments, guaranteed to make himself right in the eyes of no one other than himself and others even more incapable of reason, if such a thing is conceivable.
I presented Mike with a very rational way to conduct a coherent, point-by-point discussion that eliminated evasions and diversions. I asked him to either respect my request to implement it or simply not reply. He responded by immediately violating the requested conditions I set forth for a rational discussion and instead continues in the same old, useless, intellectually dishonest mode. He is guilty of the worst forms and most extreme degrees of sophistry. 
noun ˈsä-fə-strē

: the use of reasoning or arguments that sound correct but are actually false

Full Definition of SOPHISTRY

:  subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation

Mike fails miserably when it comes to the subtlety aspect, however. 
Mike Haluska Added Jul 2, 2014 - 11:11am
graphic didn't show - go to part II of:
Robert Wendell Added Jul 3, 2014 - 11:58am
The IPCC is not my source or an authority I use on this subject. I deleted your comments in accord with the conditions I set in order to constrain this discussion to science and not politics. The IPCC, although it has scientists working for and with it, is fundamentally a political organization. I will continue to delete your comments unless or until you show the guts to participate in a real scientific discussion absent irrelevant diversions, politics, etc. from each single point at a time (per YOUR request) I make in accord with your challenge.
My conditions and deletions of all of your comments that fail to comply have a single purpose. They are designed to avoid the endless cycle of diversionary tactics and circular arguments. Your ridiculous excuse for not doing so is that my refutations of any of your premises are irrelevant because they're wrong.
Your conclusion is already embedded in your premise and so by your "logic" any discussion that refutes it becomes irrelevant. Nice way to guarantee your conclusions are "right" according to your own absurd and obviously circular, self-confirming criteria. I'm just not willing to continue to participate in such endless absurdity.
Robert Wendell Added Jul 3, 2014 - 12:52pm
The following quotes are from Mike's link above, which I'm leaving in despite the obvious political bias in the principal tenor of the article, since it openly admits something Mike has completely and repeatedly denied. All of the very few real scientists who remain skeptical concede that CO(2) has a clear and scientifically understood effect on climate by its uniquely important property of radiative transfer and its relative abundance above the troposphere where water vapor cannot exist.
Mike cites articles that favor his general opposition to the reality of AGW despite that they completely trash one of his main arguments, namely that 400 ppm can't have any significant effect. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. These excerpts are key to understanding the reality if you ignore the obvious political bias:
"While the basic premise of global warming has a solid basis in fundamental physical chemistry -- that carbon-containing gases trap sunlight, turning it into heat -- a great unknown is how the Earth will respond to this heating by increasing levels of atmospheric carbon...
"Glaciologist and climate researcher Prof. Heinz Miller of the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research told Der Spiegel, "The stagnation in temperature does not negate the physical evidence of global warming.  [But a] scientific study is not a guarantee for infallibility.  There is still a considerable need for more research." 
Now here's an interesting article that cites evidence from the other side of the AGW issue. It provides links to two other very accurate predictions as well:
Here are a couple of excerpts, but I highly recommend following the link for context:
"Sawyer also discussed several other important aspects of the Earth's climate in his paper. For example, he addressed the myth and misunderstanding that as a trace gas in the atmosphere, it may seem natural to assume that rising levels of carbon dioxide don't have much impact on the climate. Sawyer wrote,

'Nevertheless, there are certain minor constituents of the atmosphere which have a particularly significant effect in determining the world climate. They do this by their influence on the transmission of heat through the atmosphere by radiation. Carbon dioxide, water vapour and ozone all play such a role, and the quantities of these substances are not so much greater than the products of human endeavour that the possibilities of man-made influences may be dismissed out of hand.' ...

"All in all, Sawyer's 1972 paper demonstrated a solid understanding of the fundamental workings of the global climate, and included a remarkably accurate prediction of global warming over the next 30 years. Sawyer's paper was followed by similarly accurate global warming predictions byWallace Broecker in 1975 and James Hansen in 1981."
By the way, the article Mike cites grossly downplays the obviously correct general trend. Mike pays attention only to the intensely skeptical rhetoric of the article in general. He loves to cherry pick the cherry pickers.
Robert Wendell Added Jul 3, 2014 - 2:23pm
Gilbert: "Robert.... you have not changed a bit in the past year. Still full of yourself."
So exactly what is it about the arguments I make for or against any position that leads you so inevitably to the conclusion that I'm "full of myself" other than that you don't like my positions? You think because I know that strong arguments are not just opinions and that mere opinions are not strong arguments just because they're yours make me "full of myself"? Please be specific. Everybody's right to an opinion does not make everybody's opinion right, or do you think it does? If so, why?
Do you think pointing out logical fallacies or the ability to do so is being "full of oneself"? Do you think exposing badly biased sources, biased thinking, or distortions of meaning by taking things out of context qualifies for your description? If not, then what does? If you can't answer that, could that mean you're so full of yourself you can't admit when someone you disagree with is right? There are an awufl lot of people like that in this world. Could you be one of them?
Robert Wendell Added Jul 3, 2014 - 6:07pm
Gilbert, what have you done more than make empty, unsupported assertions? I can do that, too. I support my assertions with valid reasoning and well vetted sources. If you use invalid logic, I will show you why it is invalid and give you a reference with definitions and examples. I'm not merely making assertions as you assert above. 
Any slightly intelligent ape can make unsupported assertions. If you think that kind of language is bad style, I assert that your nasty slights richly deserve that kind of style. I'm responding in kind, but I don't just make empty assertions. Where do I do that? Show me and everyone else here or shut your silly mouth.
Robert Wendell Added Jul 3, 2014 - 6:46pm
Mike Haluska Added Jul 4, 2014 - 1:15pm
"Any slightly intelligent ape can make unsupported assertions."
You mean assertions like?
 * there is a giant island of plastic trash in the Pacific Ocean
 * 95% of greenhouse gas is CO2
 * polar bears are stranded on ice flows due to polar ice melting
 * consensus is an integral part of Scientific Method
 * we understand all the causalities of the Earth's climate
Robert Wendell Added Jul 4, 2014 - 1:53pm
I was wrong about the island of plastic trash, but there's enough to make ships and other sailing vessels complain about it. I freely admitted that at the time. When was the last time Mike admitted he was wrong about anything at all, including his frequent and undeniable logical fallacies?
The 95% was an inadvertent omission that I corrected. I meant to limit that to everything above the troposphere. Water vapor cannot exist at the temperatures above the troposphere. Mike knows that, but wants to hammer away at it forever because he has so few valid issues with me to pick with.
Don't remember ever saying that polar bears stranded were stranded on ice. I did read somewhere that was happening and might have believed it. I don't know the truth of that either way. Neither does it prove anything either way.
Consensus is simply agreement and every textbook on the hard sciences in the entire world agrees on pretty much everything, so consensus doesn't disqualify anything as science or we would have to disbelieve pretty much everything in every hard science textbook. Consensus is an insufficient but necessary condition for scientific method. Mike's conjecture is that consensus can only mean a group's majority opinion. That is false.
However, I have even conceded many times that the scientific consensus on AGW is a majority opinion in the community of climate scientists and does not represent a rigorous application of scientific method to prove that AGW is real. We both know that such proof is impossible, but consensus doesn't invalidate what we do know about the major influences on climate. None of this even remotely implies that AGW is not real, since there is overwhelming evidence that it is, which Mike manages to avoid by filtering out everything but those sources favoring his position. 
Never said we understand all the causalities for the earth's climate, but have stated quite the opposite multiple times in replies to Mike, which he deems to ignore so he can add this to his list of vacuous accusations.
Robert Wendell Added Jul 4, 2014 - 2:01pm
I have very directly and specifically addressed every one of Mike's points. When has he EVER returned the favor?
Rick O Shea Added Jan 2, 2015 - 9:50pm
Robert, you said: "Politicians of any stripe are generally the absolutely worst sources of objective information in the entire universe."
You are absolutely correct; and that begs the question:  As the UN IPCC  is a political organization, are you willing to denounce the spearhead of climate change regulation publicly, as having zero credibility? 
According to Ban Ki-moon, secretary general of the United Nations, CO2 regulations "must include an equitable global governance structure":
Global governance is what climate change regulation is all about.  The power to regulate access to energy and thereby the regulation of all economic activity.
It is no accident that the UN's UNODA and IANSA seek total civilian disarmament.  If the UN and its stooges have all the guns, they have absolute political power.  Consensus thinking on climate change and all other matters, or else.
Mike Haluska Added Jan 5, 2015 - 1:27pm
Hey Wendell - your statement:
"Water vapor cannot exist at the temperatures above the troposphere."
is more jibberish.  The closer the atmosphere gets to vacuum levels (outer space), the only state it can exist is either vapor or small crystals. 
Mike Haluska Added Jan 5, 2015 - 1:27pm
Hey Wendell - your statement:
"Water vapor cannot exist at the temperatures above the troposphere."
is more jibberish.  The closer the atmosphere gets to vacuum levels (outer space), the only state it can exist is either vapor or small crystals. 
Robert Wendell Added Jan 5, 2015 - 2:31pm say that none exists above the troposphere is an overstatement, I admit. However, crystals are not a greenhouse gas, and the little water vapor that exists is just above the tropopause in the lower stratosphere. It is far too little to swamp other greenhouse gases. Further, there is enough CO(2) above the troposphere to be opaque to infrared at its signature wavelengths. So at the wavelengths water vapor has in common with CO(2), virtually all the radiant energy from the piddling amount of water vapor above troposphere gets re-radiated by CO(2) to leave the earth system. This is far from any situation that could possibly swamp CO(2).
Rick O Shea Added Jan 5, 2015 - 8:58pm
Considering the near vacuum above the troposphere, how close are CO2 molecules to each other?  What percentage of IR photons pass between them unimpeded?
Robert Wendell Added Jan 5, 2015 - 9:13pm
Rick, very unlike water vapor, CO(2) remains at 400 ppm right up to 85 kilometers (53 miles). Of course, the atmosphere is increasingly thin as we go up, but it is so deep that, as I've already said, it is opaque to radiant heat at its signature wavelengths. I've also already said either here or elsewhere that 68% of all radiant heat leaves us from CO(2) radiative transfer. Radiant heat is only way any heat can leave the earth at all since space is a vacuum and doesn't conduct at all. None of this is theory, by the way, but hard data. We measure it from space.
Rick O Shea Added Jan 5, 2015 - 10:45pm
So, CO2 helps cool the earth by radiating IR into space.
In fact, you make it sound as though the earth would overheat if CO2 levels are too low.  Brilliant.
Robert Wendell Added Jan 6, 2015 - 12:24am
Rick, I liked your apparently honest attempt to ask a pertinent question instead of your usual irrelevant foolishness. I was hoping you had switched to a more intelligent mode for discussion and I was respecting that. However, in light of this last reply of yours, I already know how utterly naive your attempts at scientific deduction are, so you don't have to keep trying to prove it over and over.
Also why do you so easily doubt such hard data and so easily accept the foolish arguments you keep quoting from your bogus sources? Why don't you back up and take a sincere look at yourself in that regard? Are you really totally incapable of that despite your claims to the contrary?
CO(2) naturally radiates on both directions equally and gets tons of help in the downward direction from water vapor in the troposphere below. CO(2) is an essential contributor to whatever the long term global average temperature happens to be, which is by its very nature the long term global average equilibrium temperature that balances heat radiating out with heat absorbed by the earth system.
That equilibrium temperature is an absolutely direct result of whatever long-term, global, average temperature it takes to guarantee that whatever energy enters the earth system also leaves it. This is not weather, nor is it even climate in the narrower sense. It is smoothed out, long term, and completely and totally global climate, which is a very different animal from local weather events or even climate in a seasonal since.
If this output energy failed to balance the input energy by being either too high or too low, the long term average, global temperature would either spiral indefinitely downward or upward accordingly and we would all disappear back into the earth without reproducing. Temperature is a thermal parameter, so it is not directly involved with heat leaving the earth system. No thermal energy can leave the earth system except by conversion to infrared radiation that goes both back into space and back toward earth.
This is called radiative transfer. 68% of the portion that leaves earth leaves via CO(2), so it is critical to balance at temperatures that make the earth either more or less habitable at whatever latitudes, etc. Greenhouse gases are defined as those gases capable of radiative transfer at infrared (radiant heat) wavelengths. Nitrogen and oxygen (i.e., 99% of the atmosphere) are not greenhouse gases, so they contribute absolutely NOTHING directly to what leaves earth by means of radiation into space.
Thermal heat, which is measurable as temperature, can and does move by conduction and convection up, down, and sideways (horizontal convection equals advection, e.g., wind) throughout the atmosphere (and also the ocean). However, the heat stored in non-greenhouse gases as thermal energy stimulates radiation in greenhouse gases (NOT measurable as temperature, but only as quantum states or radiative intensity, e.g, watts per unit area) by their perpetual collision ( which is what manifests as temperature) with greenhouse gases. This is what radiative transfer means: thermal energy (i.e., the Brownian motion and resulting collisions in gases measurable in the aggregate as temperature) stimulating higher quantum states that radiate virtually instantly by falling back to their normal quantum states.
So there is nothing wrong with CO(2) per se. It is essential to the balance in the climate that allows earth to be habitable. To argue, as so many conservatives do, that this makes it wonderful no matter how much of it we add is absurd on its face. It demonstrates an ignorance of very basic science that be laughable if it weren't for its serious political consequences. You can rest assured that anyone who uses that kind of argument is disqualified right out of the gate.
It is all a question of balance. That the earth has in the past survived much worse is little comfort (another ridiculously ignorant anti-AGW argument), since if some of those conditions were to repeat, humankind would be erased from the planet, never mind the extreme fragility of our current delivery systems for food, energy, and water.
You should know that I didn't have to copy and paste this from anywhere. It is strictly a spontaneous brain dump straight into this comment because I do indeed understand science pretty darn well. This is all very basic physics as it relates to climate science as opposed to short-term, local weather patterns. Although it is not currently possible scientifically for anyone to show a causal connection between any particular severe weather event and AGW, all the simulation models empirically tested to be most accurate predict an increase in local ex
Robert Wendell Added Jan 6, 2015 - 12:26am
extremes of both heat and cold as well as a statistically increased frequency of severe weather events.
Robert Wendell Added Jan 6, 2015 - 12:28am
In the first part of this comment, I meant "sense" instead of "since".
Robert Wendell Added Jan 6, 2015 - 12:50am
You see, Rick, your last comment takes one little piece of the pie and from it infers something totally ridiculous that in some kind of self-satisfied derision you then assign to what I said. Really?
I weigh enough to make my bathroom scales settle on 210 pounds for my 6'2" frame. The scale's internal mechanics push back enough to balance it right there on that number. You forgot the logical equivalent of half of this example in your last reply. Brilliant!
So, Rick, you keep defining with ever increasing resolution the exact level of your scientific understanding and aptitude for genuine critical thought. Maybe you should seriously consider quitting while you're still only a few light years behind. You might recall that this is available for public viewing and only others equally thought-challenged will fail to notice that.
Rick O Shea Added Jan 6, 2015 - 12:57am
Thanks for taking the trouble to use your own words, rather than copy and pasting Robert.
Robert Wendell Added Jan 6, 2015 - 2:28am
You're welcome, Rick. It's just easier to copy and paste arguments that counter arguments I've already debunked tons of times right here in WB. I get a little tired of repeating myself because those who comment refuse to go read my other articles and my replies under them despite my convenient links to places in which I've already done similar and sometimes much more complete brain dumps.