Your apology is accepted.
Anyway, since you're inability to understand math has been well established years ago (no, I didn't forget that you can't manage simple equations). I don't think your conclusion that more scientists reject climate change (If I recall, a study of ACTUAL scientists, found the opposite). If you've got evidence otherwise, prove it.
Your entire decision NOT to believe climate scientists is because they can't demonstrate to you how C02 gets into the upper atmosphere, since it's denser than 02? Seriously? That's the most idiotic statement on this entire board. Seriously?
Seriously?
Since in your world, our entire atmosphere is a strata of gasses based on their chemical weight, we live in a 100% C02 environment. With N2 and O2 on top. Any rocket that makes it off the ground (impossible since fire can't burn without oxygen) will detonate our entire upper atmosphere which suddenly consists only of oxygen molecules.
The rest of your argument is of similar layers of nonsense.
victor809 wrote:
Victor, Victor, Victor...
My assertion about the number of scientists that reject man-made client change is about as provable as your following statement:
"...but to be so certain that man-made climate change is a myth, based on what I'm gonna assume is a high-school level science education, when large numbers of scientists who have dedicated their life to the topic believe otherwise, simply because you're sure they're all trying to conspire against you... well that's some interesting hubris."
There were LOTS of Nazi scientists that had some very interesting views on Eugenics and racial profiles. Just because a lot of scientists dedicate their life to something doesn't mean that they are either knowledgable or correct. So, you can spin your BS they way you like, I can counter with just as much BS. Please, sell your snake oil somewhere else.
And I LOVE this one:
"...because they can't demonstrate to you how C02 gets into the upper atmosphere, since it's denser than 02?"
You know, Victor, for someone with such a condescending attitude towards people with "high-school level" educations in science, you should know that there is a distinction between mass (weight) and density (weight and volume). I specified weight. You chose "density," which requires a specific volume.
Molecules move based on their energy, which waxes and wanes over time, but the atmosphere is not only affected by the energy of a specific molecule, it is also affected by the pull of the earth's gravity (which is why we have an atmosphere in the first place). The pull of the earth on a molecule is proportional to its mass and not "density." Which is why a molecule of CO2 coming out of the exhaust of an automobile will reach a point of equilibrim based on its energy loss and the pull of the earth's gravity, and fall in below something like O2.
And yes, CO2 is heavier than the surrounding air, with a molecular weight of around 44. O2 comes in around 32, N2 around 30, Ne around 20, and He around 4. The only thing in the earth's atmosphere that isn't heavier than CO2 it Krypton...and I don't see any scientists bleeding out their eyeballs about how man-made Krypton is causeing "climate change."
Granted, wind has something to do with the composition of the breathable portion of the atmosphere, which has more to do with the Sun than a coal-fired electricity turbine. But if no external factors were brought into play, then yes we would have an atmosphere that would exist in stratas, much like how oil and water seperates when mixed together in a bottle.
This whole "heavier than air" thing is the reason why they use dry ice in fog machines at those Justin Bieber concerts you regularly attend, Victor. It's also one of the reasons why you don't have a lot of stuff growing in the upper elevations of mountains, and why the atmosphere is so thin on the top of K2. Mainly because O2 molecules - you know, the stuff we breate? - cannot reach all that far up into the atmosphere...and therefore don't.
All of this is pretty much grade-school educational stuff. Maybe you should revisit some of those classes, there Victor. You might learn something. Especially the difference between mass and density.
But hey, if you want evidence about the number of climate change skeptics, here's a start:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)
The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.Victor, you of all people should know better than to play this kind of game with me.
Face it, Victor, you've replaced a guy with a robe and staff as your prophet with some guy with a lab coat and a clipboard (and maybe a pcoet protector). But it is still the same kind of worship to a god you cannot see, hear, or touch. So you're no better than the people of faith you routinely mock.
