|
Phydeaux -> RE: Who Worries about Global Warming? (4/7/2014 1:39:33 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tkman117
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tkman117
So critical thinking that humans can affect climate by their activities? Or the critical thinking that assumes that because we humans are so tiny that we can't change something as great and mighty as our planet earth? Honestly man, I've read the numbers, and they don't match up with the ones from Bullshit Mountain [8|]
Because the critical thinking is this:
Lots of water from melting ice caps and other ice sources + Water from combustion reactions = More water in the climate system
More water in the climate system = increased warming due to increased water vapour + a rise in sea level attributed to both extra water and increased temperatures.
Do you not realize the irony of your statement?
Thats not critical thinking *at all*
quote:
I don't think I can get any simpler than that, but if you try hard, you might understand it [:D]
Ah so every result leads to the litany of global warming. I was trying to have a discussion with you to prove that
a). You need the ability to reason, and use math in this kind of argument.
b). As I showed, the water from combustion is actually immaterial to the argument, at least as far as raising sea levels. But you need the ability to make those determinations - and you don't have them.
LOL, you are honestly too funny bro. You say that it's not critical thinking and you fail to even tell me what is critical thinking/show me an example of such. I have the ability to reason just fine, I've got a grasp on reality and what is happening around me. Something yours truly sorely lacks.
So you say I don't need straight numbers to do this kind of critical thinking, then I use critical thinking and you say I need the ability to reason and use math in this kind of argument, when you just said I don't need numbers! WTF man, if I don't have any numbers then I'm supposed to use critical thinking, you can't argue that I'm not doing math when I essentially did math without any numbers! [:D] Seriously, if you're going to indirectly call me stupid, don't go contradicting yourself like that, it's just pathetic [:D]
4 degrees my ass, where's you get them? Did your kid happen to make them for you one afternoon and you felt so proud of him/her that you hung them in your office? [:D]
And you didn't show shit with combustion water, you said 0.1mm, there was no supporting evidence. Not to mention I was simply humouring your whole water thing because I felt it would give you a chance to feel smart for once. OF COURSE COMBUSTION H2O IS MINIMAL BY COMPARISON TO THE ICE SHEETS. You have massive blocks of ice breaking off ice sheets daily which contain more water than carbon based fuels do. Its a no brainer.
First you can't even get simply facts right. Please quote me where I said 4 degrees.
Second, I never called you stupid. I'm much more inclined to call you lazy, uneducated or naive.
Here's the definition of critical thinking:
he National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking (a non-profit organisation based in Canada)[2] defines critical thinking as the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.
Here was your quote:
Because the critical thinking is this:
quote:
Lots of water from melting ice caps and other ice sources + Water from combustion reactions = More water in the climate system
More water in the climate system = increased warming due to increased water vapour + a rise in sea level attributed to both extra water and increased temperatures.
A short hand, generalized regurgitation is the opposite of critical thinking.
Blindly accepting that the waters of combustion either does or does not affect global warming - again, not critical thinking.
There is a blatant falsehood in your regurgitation. More water does NOT necessarily mean increased warming.
More warming might mean more water vapor in the air. More water in the ocean - but it also means less ice.
Look, I gave you the opportunity to prove you had some kind of skill with critical thinking, or math. The back of the envelope calculation doesn't take 5 minutes to do, it is trivially easy if you have any kind of math or science background.
But you couldn't do it. When you challenged me to do it, I did it fairly facilely.
Finally, you resorted to personal attacks, again. Sterling example of the AGW modus operandi.
No doubt learned in the finest liberal school. Just curious. How's the review of Svennie going?
|
|
|
|
