palerider
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2007
- Messages
- 4,624
there is ALWAYS an energy release.
And when it is released, where is it released to, and where is it released from? When there is a release of energy at one point, there is always a gain at another point. Most of the energy budget, as it applies to the atmosphere is in the form of latent heat and there is no such thing as an energy release that doesn't result in a gain in some other part of the atmosphere.
i know the terms, i was asking you to see what you know, and you know little
There is a large difference between knowing the terms and knowing what they mean. I note that you shied entirely away from the responses to your silly questions about greenhouse gases, atmospheric winds, and carbon sinks. One of us knows little, but it isn't me.
... If you don't have any understanding of a subject, you should probably not try, because of how stupid you appear to be.
Name calling in lieu of actual debate. I wondered how long it would take you and now I know.
this subject has experts, and unlike the politics boards of the Internet, you can be dead wrong about your statements, your opinions hold no weight against plain hard mathmatics. after all, math is the basis of all sciences, and math is recognized all over the world as no where near a pseudo science.
Yes it does have experts; on both sides of the argument and the ones on the AGW side of the argument routinely ignore science that is in direct opposition to their findings and they continue to make predictions based on terribly flawed computer models. The actual scientists are simply gathering information and trying to learn enough to actually understand how the components that make up the global climate interact with each other. The pseudoscientists, on the other hand, are using very selective bits and pieces of information to try and paint a picture of man's responsibilty for a naturally occuring cycle. It is clear which category you favor.
would you consider mathematics a pseudoscience?
No I wouldn't. And oddly enough, mathematics has been used more than once to expose the statistical fraud of the pseudoscientists who are promoting AGW theory. But then math is not the "science" in question here is it?
save a minute and don't bother to respond
Apparently that woud be so that you don't have to answer the rebuttals to the little questions that you raise. You have already dodged 2/3 of the issues you raised.