The Dunning-Kruger effect
- Thread starter futurecurrents
- Start date
I have a degree in environmental science and have been following this issue for thirty years.
It's not that I'm that smart. The majority of people in the US also understand the very simple reality of it. It's that the deniers are so stupid. I'm sick of the right-wing stupidity. Especially because they are trying to trump science with political ideology. We don't need that shit.
The fact is that CO2 levels have gone up 35% in the last 150 years due to man. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. How could that NOT make temps go up? It's a very simple common sense thing......... that the fossil fuel industry doesn't want you to think about. The basic science of AGW is settled. 97% of the world's climatologists and all the world's science organizations are in agreement about it.
We all already know that, dummy.
First of all, there is absolutely NO evidence that the increase in CO2 levels is due to man. Get a grip.
The reason CO2 does not contribute more to any warming is because after a certain point, more CO2 has very little effect. It's like painting a window to block the sunlight. After you have painted it once most of the light is blocked. Continuing to paint it produces a smaller and smaller effect.
This has been explained to you over and over and you still don't get it.
Now, go back to the top of this post and read first part again.
That's interesting. A good friend of mine who was enlisted and then an officer in my field for 25 years has the same degree as you. He finds my arguments perfectly sound, the same ones you claim make me incredibly stupid. He respects the numerous awards I recieved in surface observations and upper air soundings...again, the data used in climate modeling. How should I percieve that against what you say? Well he worked in the field for almost as long as you followed it. I'll take his word over yours.
Let me make this simple. Keep your insults to yourself, and I'm happy to debate with you, otherwise, fuck off.
I've never disputed that with you regarding CO2. Never. I simply stated some things might be signs of a major change coming; something you yourself said is in the works in about 1000 years. Sun activity is confirming that in some circles. You never explained to my why man made CO2 can stop it (the next ice age). On the other hand, the cold snaps may simply be nature balancing out increased heat near the surface that might be caused by man. Certainly those increases will be more noticeable toward the equator which will increase the flow from the poles. I'm not making that call either, but I'm keeping an open mind about all of it. Increased hurricane activity is also a major heat redistribution mechanism.
You mentioned albido last night. Explain why increasing Earth's temp won't increase cloud cover (which some believe it will) which itself would increase the albido and thereby reduce the warming that is occuring by the trapping.
Regarding the fuel industry: I don't consider the fossil fuel industry in my views of the issue. I also ignore gov agendas, which makes both agendas pretty damn easy to see. I'm simply stating to you that CO2 might not make a difference. Nature has a way of balancing things out, including where temperature changes occur. It was the planetary release of CO2 and other gasses that ended some (all?) of the prior ice ages, including snowball Earth. I'm sure you are aware of that.
I worked in the field of meteorology for 5 years, about the same time you were obtaining your degree, and I've been following my field as a hobby ever since. Did you plot that skew-t yet? It will open your eyes about vertical atmospheric dynamics.
