The Circular Reasoning Greenhouse Gas Theory Argument
Written by Joseph E Postma
I just had a very long conversation with an academic colleague here at work, one who I’ve actually anonymously quoted before in my videos and on some posts. He is of the climate alarmist persuasion.
The conversation/heated argument went on for quite some time, and his position reduced to the one we are all familiar with:
The climate greenhouse effect of the flat Earth model isn’t the real climate greenhouse effect. The real climate greenhouse effect is inside the large-scale models and is naturally inside such models.
I pointed out that this is a very strange disconnect, and that when I ask climate scientists for the REAL climate greenhouse effect and references as to how it actually does work, they all reference back to the flat Earth models. He said well that’s because it is only conceptual, and so I then asked again for the real thing.
I also pointed out that, sure, the flat Earth model is conceptual, but it demonstrates a principle and a mechanics which comes OUT OF ITSELF by necessity, and that even still it should still conceptually function in a real greenhouse, which it does not.
This is the extent of their position. I pointed out that it is a closed loop: that when they say that the real climate greenhouse effect is in the GCM’s, and when asked for references as to how it work they then refer to the flat Earth models which should function in a real greenhouse but don’t, that a closed reference-loop is created here in which no reference to how the climate greenhouse actually works is provided *other than* the flat Earth derivations (which should function in real greenhouses, but don’t).
Again, a pretty obvious self-referencing loop, and an easy decision and conclusion to make. But they just seem unable to acknowledge the meaning of it, the reality of it, the impetus of it, etc.
Anyway, the entire hallway could hear our conversation/argument because my office door was open. Crickets out there when he finally left…..
I had cornered an alarmist cult member on the fact that only a tiny amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is from anthropogenic sources. I made the point that if all man made sources were removed overnight, the reduction of CO2 levels would be almost unnoticeable. In other words, if all mankind was wiped off the planet overnight, the CO2 levels wouldn’t change significantly enough to change anything. Cornered….
Well, guess what the response was! He said that I was completely off base because climate scientists weren’t actually focused on CO2 at all. That CO2 was only a very small part of anthropogenic climate change. That actually, they were more focused on things like urban sprawl and how parking lots were changing our climate.
I then asked what all the Carbon tax business was about and he responded that it was political hype and not actually what the “real” climate scientists are focused on. It was more about urban sprawl and parking lots. That’s what real climate scientists study and he doesn’t really like getting caught up in all the political stuff.
Ridiculous and disgusting conversations with these lunatics. High level sophistry…… twisted logic pretzels that become impossible to even follow or argue against. Cognitive dissonance loops that almost pull you in, leaving you reeling and confused. Meanwhile, they feel highly intelligent as they bath in the flood of cognitive dissonance they create.
Read more at climateofsophistry.com
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.