Repost… So a denier who falsely claimed to be a physicist was brought to my attention. For your amusement. Also, this is why you should never claim to be a physicist when you aren’t and then say bad science.

re: #557 Wondering Aloud

Can anyone here give me a realistic way in which warmer would be worse? Just asking because most of the land in the Northern Hemisphere is closer to the pole than I am and I am freezing my but off.

Well, to name three,

1. Major inhabited areas underwater rendering millions homeless coupled with a massive loss of capital.

2. Shifting growing patterns leading to drastic reduction in global food output. The midwestern US, for instance takes a big hit.

3. Lack of fresh water for areas dependent on meltwater for water. The U.S. SouthWest loses very badly.

Don’t worry too much though, folks like freetoken 565 I don’t see any way in which “physics” supports catastrophic global warming or even significant warming by CO2

.

Really now… Perhaps you have studied quantum mechanics then. What happens to a CO2 molecule when it is hit with IR? Answer, it absorbs the IR and since energy is conserved, it vibrates and gets hot. Even small amounts of CO2 in an overall atmospheric mix keeps a planet quite warm, as otherwise most of the IR would radiate back into space. How would you refute these basic facts?

Just for the record physics is my field and I read a lot of the supposed evidence in the original papers.

This would be called a lie. Honest. You are a total liar. How am I so certain? Answer, if you were a physicist, you would never have made such a stupid statement about CO2 like you did above. You would know Quantum Theory. Now, since you either don’t know or have discounted quantum theory when you shouldn’t have, you are clearly lying.

Further, if you were a physicist, you would give a reason, data or at least a mechanism for why the data you claim to have read is not good. I.e. you would object like a scientist might, if there were many left who doubted AGW, and further, no-one doubts that CO2 is a GHG.

BTW, I actually am a physicist. You are some twit from the internet who thinks that lying about his knowledge will help his case.

Before you tell us to “accept what has been learned by scientific endeavor” are you aware that the actual evidence actually disproves the catastrophic warming models?

NO, because it does not. Care to give us a reference for this? Care to show us some data or give a mechanism for this outrageous and false claim? If you were a physicist, you would know that you need to back up insane claims rather than just spout them.

We say fails to support…

We being who? Right-wing fruit loops who are pretending to be scientists? Sure you do - but not the physics community. In fact, The American Physical Society, APS, (ever hear of that?) made it quite clear what the physics community thinks.

aps.org

WE, as in physicists, say

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

The “consensus” is definitely not what some of you think it is

.

It is true that some people (idiots like you specifically) deny that the consensus is overwhelming.

There is no consensus nor even any significant likelihood of catastrophe from AGW.

Really, did you see the APS statement?

Funny that as the evidence grows weaker the alarmists seem to get more shrill.

That would be called projection. Perhaps you should study physics.