I would advise everyone to read the [following] link entirely from the top down.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallo ... rospection
It [the entire page] accurately reflects this entire thread [so far] as well as the previous thread (old timers will recognize it, if not, do a search). Or you can just ignore it...
No really, read the whole thing! You'll definitely recognize the behavior! You'll also learn how to deal with it; this might save you some grief insofar you learn to disagree and just accept that some people will be, eternally, fact-resistant. Those who've taken an interest in Dreyfus learning levels will also recognize the "advanced beginner" stage of learning of the typical Gish Galloper and how it centers on the vulnerabilities/ignorance of the average [STEM educated] human in the 20/21st century. I would treat refuting arguments point by point as a personal learning experience (which can be valuable in and of itself), but realize that you're really arguing about issues that where initially discussed before World War 1.
Therefore, if you're interested in actual
science rather than the appearance of it, you'll learn a lot faster by reading a basic book (see book recs. above a few pages ago) first than via the process of debating, just like your time is spent better reading a basic textbook on microbiology than debating whether "humans evolved from monkeys" with someone who've "done their science" because they "read all the facts on the interwebs" and have "all the youtube videos from Dr J. S. Carberry to prove it".
As far as the scientific insight goes, this entire forum thread as well as most of the previous one still revolves around issues that were scientifically settled somewhere prior to the 1960s. Yeah ... pretty much like the previous thread. It's just repeating the same refuted arguments over and over again.
For those who are still frustrated as to why we're still "debating" climate science issues that were mostly resolved 50-100 years ago, realize that creationists still complain that "humans didn't evolve from monkeys" almost 150 years later and that they will likely keep complaining for a long time. On the interwebs, the same issues will be brought up over and over as long as a sufficient number of people care to comment on them. It's a viral memetic reservoir.
Straw man argument or perhaps not?:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_fl ... _societies (yes, that's still a thing almost 400 years after the fact. Nutters never die! Just realize that you can't get all of them and that maybe 9/10 is good enough?)
This is also the case for climate science even if it's is as old or older than evolution. Here's a bunch of seminal papers for the scientifically inclined to enjoy just to point out how far back this goes ... not surprisingly, it is, after all, based on basic science:
https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/paper ... 7Trans.pdf (Fourier in year 1827 explaining the greenhouse effect---that's 6 years after Napoleon died... and 8 years before the first electric car was devised, and just after humanity discovered the existence of Antartica) --- That's the Fourier of the Fourier-transform which most STEM folks should be familiar with. I realize I have to be careful here having previously put my foot in it claiming that "every high school student knows this" and then learning that this is not always the case).
http://www.jstor.org/stable/108724 (Tyndall in year 1861 (around the time the six-shooter was invented) measuring the absorption spectra of CO2 and putting some numbers on it. That's still on the level of those spectrometric measurements I otherwise claimed would be within the capabilities of the average HS student these days although I should probably revise. Point being that anyone with an appropriate MSc and who actually cares to do so can replicate that experiment for less than $5000 or so. This showed that CO2 was the greenhouse gas that Fourier discussed.)
http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896 ... 173546.pdf (Arrhenius in year 1896 pretty much starting the theoretical foundations. Now this is some serious work that remained largely unaltered for almost 50 years and still serve as the foundation for undergraduate noobs. It used the idea of Fourier and the data of Tyndall to put a number on the impact/energy balance. His number is incidentally quite close to the currently accepted number. Obviously we were nowhere near using general circulation models at that time---those started around the 1980s. We're just about the point of page 10 or 15 of a modern climate science textbook /sarc/ ... point being, though, that the proper understanding from 120 years ago was quite close to current results that use far more advanced models.)
I'll mostly stop here because I know that only wonks will read this far so why bother
You can ask, but I'll only answer insofar I get the impression that you're somewhat beyond basic scientific understanding of this field as per year 1940.---The biological equivalent of knowing/acknowledging the existence and connection between DNA and genes. If not ... well ... there's not much anyone can do. It is what is it.
The AIP (American Institute of Physics) has a several pages on this suitable for the average concerned scientist:
http://history.aip.org/history/climate/Radmath.htm ... suffice to say, the skeptical points that has be brought up in this thread and the previous thread mostly date back to before WWI. I've yet to see any kind of skeptic argument that's more advanced than year 1960 or so (one-zone models).
One of the cooler things about the AIP link is how the US military had to go beyond the simplistic slab-models (in astrophysics, these are known as zero-dimension (0D), point-, box-, or one-zone models) which prevailed in years 1900-1950 in order to get their heat-seeking missiles to work above the cloud level. (Keyword cloud: remember this whenever some denier mentioners water vapor and realize that clouds are only relevant in the troposphere whereas GW happens above that ... something that scientists realized in the 1950s because they needed to shoot down enemy planes .. yet deniers keep bringing it up over and over and over ... hmmm, derp derp, oh well.)
Key point: CO2 absorbs infrared radiation, so if your
fox 2 munitions is dialed on a frequency that happens to be absorbed by CO2 in the upper atmosphere, ... well, then you're SOL. This research actually contributed some important research to climate science ... so remember to support your basic military science. It often yields useful side-effects.
Anyhoo ... while skeptics keep dealing in youtubers, practical scientists now have to deal with the
Suess effect (Not to be confused with Dr Seuss). There's obviously way more arguments ... like 3000+ pages more ... but ...
Now, I used to think that debating Gish Gallopers was a [righteous] public service, but frankly, I think time is better spent trying to convince the general public to go read a damn book for the first time, even a simple one (see above, now several pages back, once again), and bring the level of public discourse up from 1901 to about 1960 and ideally 1985 which should be good enough. Just to get their bearings straight. But I don't know---probably not gonna happen anytime soon. Reading books. Pffft... Clearly, trying to get the average person to read even a basic book instead of googling and clicking on whatever confirms their beliefs on the first page to confirm their ideology is a long shot these days. As far as I know, there's no solution that will convince more than a fraction of people---that'd be those who are willing to read.