for having the integrity to admit that they screwed up the first time.
Absolutely. So many companies would have tried to say that protection was "good enough" or "unlikely to be exploitable in real situations".
Oh come on, can't you recognize when someone's just trying to get a rise out of you.
Being trolled isn't something I expect to happen in a conversation of this sort, no. I notice that some people have modded you 'insightful' so obviously your trolling was either not obvious to them, or it's okay to broadly denigrate a large group of people here on Slashdot by posting untruths. Because it's fun?
So - no.1 is the argument that you propose as "the truth"?
Percentage is a perfectly valid way of measuring CO2. Anyone with any understanding of math can convert it to PPM at will. Scientists can operate perfectly well with either number, and will use whichever is most convenient at the moment.
I'll take that as a yes.
If indeed, you already understood that
(a) the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was only 270ppm prior to the industrial age and 400ppm now and
(b) this represents a percentage increase on baseline of 48% and
(c) since you yourself can calculate the concentration in CO2 as a percentage (0.007%) and
(d) You readily accept that CO2 contributes some 25% of the total geenhouse effect (30 degrees c)
How is it that you can claim It's hard to believe such a small change could make any noticeable difference at all, and I've heard people say AGW is impossible because it is so small, just like you are saying it's obvious because it's so big.? Are you incompetent? Are you being a little dishonest?
Lovely. Truthiness. Which of these things then, is the truth? 1. CO2 concentration is measured in ppm and always has been since the days of Fourier/Tyndall.
I honestly hope you one day discover how silly you are for posting this. I hope when you figure it out, you are wildly entertained.
So - no.1 is the argument that you propose as "the truth"?
1. CO2 concentration is measured in ppm and always has been since the days of Fourier/Tyndall.
2. It's "hard to believe" that adding millions of tons of CO2 and measurably raising CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere would lead to climate change.
And they're / we're doing that because all of the global warming extremists want to wreck prosperity in pursuing actions that will not work.
You are basically admitting that the contrarian case is denial. "We don't like the consequences of anthropogenic cliamte change, so we'll pretend that there is a problem with the science".
Why don't you come out and say it: climate change is real, but you don't want to do anything about it. If you think you position is defensible, why not state it in the clear? What are you afraid of?
If you _ever_ outline a course of action that will _increase_ prosperity and solve the problem at the same time, then you MIGHT have a chance of getting the plan approved by all.
If you think the current plan doesn't work, the most helpful thing to do would be for you to suggest a plan that does.
And we don't need the plan to be approved by you. To a limited extent, some discussion can be entered into around phasing in alternate energy sources, although why anybody would want to keep coal plants is beyond me, I guess they support the buggy whip manufacturers. However, you have removed yourself from the table by disputing the science. This is an absurdity - nobody is going to negotiate for a new 'mutually acceptable' view of the science. It is what it is, you don't vote on it.
and I've heard people say AGW is impossible because it is so small
I assume you challenged those people to learn some mathematics? Hint: CO2 levels are measured in ppm (that is parts per million).
Understanding is always the understanding of a smaller problem in relation to a bigger problem. -- P.D. Ouspensky
