Within the last week or so I concluded a “debate” with a cult member, in which he ignored the entirety of the original post, and more or less simply kept repeating the tired, very old themes which constitute the catechism of the apostolic church of which he is an eager member. He left with his mind unchanged, and utterly convinced that despite the fact that I kept refuting his arguments, or showing their irrelevance, that he was right and I was wrong. This is the nature of the beast.
You don’t debate, in my view, to change minds. The people opposing you are so emotionally dedicated to their views that they will ignore absolutely EVERYTHING which fails to support views they did not reach rationally, and which they thus cannot defend rationally.
You debate to learn, because you learn under duress, in challenge.
Here, I refined my arguments yet further. The “debate” is in the Comments section.
Here is the thing: according to ALL ACCOUNTS our atmosphere is ALREADY absorbing all the radiant heat in the frequencies, roughly 13.5 to 17 microns, where CO2 is relevant. CO2 only affects about 8% of the total spectrum of infrared–heat bearing–radiation, and it is already absorbing 100% of that 8%.
This means that NO amount of further CO2 concentration will matter AT ALL.
Here is my summary of the argument from there. The first quote is from a cult members website:
“We see that for the pre-industrial CO2 concentration, it is only the
wavelength range between about 13.5 and 17 microns (millionths of a
meter) that can be considered to be saturated. Within this range, it is
indeed true that adding more CO2 would not significantly increase the
amount of absorption.”
If you look at the “wings” what you see is it is very inefficient at absorbing IR radiation.
A quote from here, which I have already linked: http://nov79.com/gbwm/prmr.html
“Climatologists
say radiation on the shoulders of the absorption peaks does not all get
used up. They say 5% is functional, and the greenhouse effect of CO2
occurs with this 5%. The 5% number is rationalized fraud with no
evidence or objective basis.”
He goes on: “Sometimes, the claim
is made that the absorption peak will widen as CO2 is increased. It
absolutely will not. The width is dependent upon the energy state of the
molecules, and increasing the concentration does nothing to change the
energy state. All real measurements show this. How can so much crap
enter real science? It shows that this subject is not real science.”
I want to be clear, too: warming, per se, is not evidence. Evidence of warming, then, is not evidence, either, of anything but “weather”, which is a synonym for climate change. The climate changes daily, the world over.
Not only is the Global Warming idea ludicrous, not only is it a horrific commentary on the capacity of scientists for corruption, but it is clearly a conspiracy conducted by those I have taken to calling Neomalthusians (aka Chicken Littles and Petty Tyrants) to support global tyranny.
We swim daily in a deep sea of lies.