●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive
Forgot your password?
Close
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load 500 More Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
byAnonymous Coward writes:
Anyone that can make it through an undergraduate text on atmospheric science and still maintain that CO2 does not cause warming is fooling themselves. One one side of this argument we have idiots who fundamentally do not understand what they are arguing against. Radiative transfer is not that hard, and if you're going to argue that the science is bullshit, then you should know the science. Not the global climate simulations, but the absorbtion spectra of various gases in the atmosphere, because those can be
bybuddyglass ( 925859 ) writes:
The main skeptic with whom I dialogue holds the following beliefs:
1. Warming is happening.
2. CO2 concentration is atypically high.
3. CO2 concentration is atypically high due to man-made emissions.
4. CO2 concentration has some upward effect on global temperature.
However, he also holds these beliefs:
1. The earth's climate is too complex to accurately model and predict.
2. There are feedback mechanisms that mute the severity of CO2-induced warming.
3. Even if warming happens at the predicted rate, we
byAnonymous Coward writes:
The main skeptic with whom I dialogue holds the following beliefs:
3. CO2 concentration is atypically high due to man-made emissions.
It's not. All those fossil fuels, and we're just starting to burn them, have been living biological stuff before. Before they were, the C they contain was in the atmosphere as CO2. Given the aggressiveness of O2 it's quite probable, that there's enough fossils to burn until all O2 is used up. Even under those conditions (or even especially under those conditions) live was possible. Otherwise those fossils wouldn't exist for us to burn. Climate might change, possibly to a state less desirable for humans, but
byCayceeDee ( 1883844 ) writes:
It's not. All those fossil fuels, and we're just starting to burn them, have been living biological stuff before. Before they were, the C they contain was in the atmosphere as CO2.
Different kind of Carbon which is how we can tell the increase is from fossil fuels.
You might also want to think about the difference in timeframes. It took millions of years to remove the carbon, but we have replaced it in less than 100 years.
Parent
twitter
facebook
●ent threshold.
●nt threshold.
●threshold.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Slashdot
●
●
Submit Story
It is much harder to find a job than to keep one.
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Working...