Why I don't believe in climate change (as someone who isn't a republican or conservative)

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 122
#91
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
It's fine. there's plenty of people that find Carlin's humor exposing climate fraudsters and prophets of doom. But don't forget to drop your offering into the collection plate on your way out. Al Gore needs a new solar panel for his mansion. The grand poobah of the religion of climate doom.
Called it! 

And again - completely dodged everything.

I’m not biting in the obviously dishonest troll bait attempt.

Ecosystems have been destroyed long before humans, and will continue to be destroyed. You don't get to choose. Natural selection chooses. And man is part of nature.
Obvious trolling again. Are you able to engage in good faith.

The argument is about whether we are destroying an ecosystem (we are), and whether we should care (we should), and why (because we will be harmed).

We do indeed get to chose whether we destroy an ecosystem - you said so yourself. 

And drawing you back to the first post - while you maybe anxious to dress up in bondage gear and drive across the desert, most rational human beings would prefer not to cause massive social, political and economic upheaval; regardless of whether the earth will be fine.




Carlin and his enlightened audience knew this, much to the consternation of the monkeys that would criticize him.
Not biting at your obvious attempt to derail the conversation. But hey, go ahead repeating it a million times.

#92
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,972
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Carlin and his enlightened audience knew this, much to the consternation of the monkeys that would criticize him.

Nobody in their right mind would destroy any of the top 25 plants and animals grown on the list I posted to save "coral reefs" or the "amazon forest" or whatever fad biome that looks fancy this year.

It's all virtue signaling until you stop consuming everything on that list. Then you can come back and say we don't need anything on the top 25 list and they are not vital, but the reefs are. Until then, the only ecosystems that matter are the ones that support the top 25 list of natural selection winners. Every other system is a loser. boo hoo.
#93
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
Carlin and his enlightened audience knew this, much to the consternation of the monkeys that would criticize him.
Irrelevant troll.

Please refer back to previously established arguments.

Is climate change happening (yes), are we destroying important ecosystems (yes), is that important (yes), should we care? (Yes - it has massive implications), did you interpret the maths wrong in Venus (yes), did you get your understanding of the properties of limestone wrong (yes), does it matter that major climate change has happened before (no), does it matter that ecosystems have been destroyed before (no), is destroying an ecosystem okay because humans protect themselves from the environment (no), is destroying an ecosystem okay because they’ve been destroyed before (no), is destroying an ecosystem okay because people are sometimes hypocrites about climate change (no).



Your current trolling is an obvious deflection from your total capitulation on all these points.






#94
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,972
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
are we destroying important ecosystems
According to natural selection, the answer is clearly no.

When are you going to stop consuming the top 25 of that list? Until then, it's all empty platitudes and bullshit.
#95
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
You forgot to make a stupid banal comment about George Carlin. Don’t worry - you still managed to avoid the argument


According to natural selection, the answer is clearly no.
Natural selection is a process by which alleles in a population change frequency due to survival benefit they confer to their possessor. It’s completely irrelevant as:

It is unrelated to whether an ecosystem is destroyed or not; only how organisms change during and after (note: they typically mostly die)

It is also unrelated to whether an ecosystem is important to us as humans (which is based on economics, culture, carrying capacity and logistics).

This is already covered under the above: Is climate change happening (yes), are we destroying important ecosystems (yes), is that important (yes), should we care? (Yes - it has massive implications)

When are you going to stop consuming the top 25 of that list? Until then, it's all empty platitudes and bullshit.
This is also irrelevant and covered above. Is destroying an ecosystem okay because people are sometimes hypocrites about climate change (no).

Do I want to lose weight: yes. Is fitness and decreasing my BMI important for my long term fitness: yes. Do I exercise enough: no. Do I eat too much pizza: yes.

The latter does not impact the former.

I could have a very large sociological discussion about how the configuration of society and capitalism effects it; but given that you have made no effort to argue with any good faith, and had to be dragged kicking and screaming to even get this far.




#96
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,972
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
It is also unrelated to whether an ecosystem is important to us as humans (which is based on economics, culture, carrying capacity and logistics).
lol wrong.

Do I want to lose weight: yes. Is fitness and decreasing my BMI important for my long term fitness: yes. Do I exercise enough: no. Do I eat too much pizza: yes.
People lie all the time about what they really want. It's how they resolve dissonance. The proof is in the pudding as they say.

#97
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10

The sky is blue
Lol wrong

There are 1000m in a kilometre 
lol wrong.

You will die if you fire yourself into the sun wearing just a Hawaiian shirt
Lol wrong.



Your ability to say something is wrong, does not make something wrong. Don’t let me stop you from spending four pages to avoid a debate whilst on a debate website, but no - it’s not wrong because:

Natural selection is a process by which alleles in a population change frequency due to survival benefit they confer to their possessor.
It has no relevance as to whether we as humans rely on something or not.


But hey, what division tactic are you going to try next. You went with changing the subject (failed), repeatedly throwing out george Carlin (failed), telling me I’m wrong (failed).

I can only hope that mayhaps you will actually enter a good faith reasoned discussion before you decide that literally flinging feces at passers by in order to avoid defending your position is all you have left.





#98
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,972
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
People lie all the time about what they really want and what is "vital." It's how they resolve dissonance. The proof is in the pudding as they say.
#99
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
And another capitulation on another point. Given up on the importance of the ecosystem to us, the irrelevance of natural selection 

And back to the troll repetition!

People lie all the time about what they really want and what is "vital." It's how they resolve dissonance. The proof is in the pudding as they say.
Even were this thunderous buffoonery correct - which it is not - it is also completely irrelevant to what is being said

Whether or not we are hypocrites about anything doesn’t impact whether various things are important or not.


You’re using this to try and change the subject away from all the points you’ve capitulated on.


#100
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,972
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Whether or not we are hypocrites about anything doesn’t impact whether various things are important or not.

Important things survive, that's the end of the discussion really. Your feelings don't matter.
#101
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
And another capitulation!

Important things survive, that's the end of the discussion really. Your feelings don't matter.
What a load of utter incoherent rambling nonsense. Sometimes I think you’re saying things that are this stupid on purpose just to utterly confound people who are here in good faith. 

“Importance” is a human concept that we attribute to things - so it’s based on our feelings (it has no meaning in nature - nature doesn’t care) as is your conclusion that we shouldn’t take any actions - so you’re using your feelings to argue our feelings don’t matter - which is odd, and it’s all completely separate and unrelated to whether something survives.

Some Things survive some things don’t - a fair amount of this thread  is about whether certain things surviving Impact us, and whether it would be beneficial for us to do something about it. 

This doesn’t seem to be a point as much as something you’re trying to hide behind, so you don’t actually have to defend your actual beliefs.




#102
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,972
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Ramshutu
“Importance” is a human concept that we attribute to things.
Has no bearing on natural selection. It either survives or it does not. Your feelings don't matter.

Case in point, lots of people felt eating whatever they felt like was important until Covid proved that feelings don't matter in the end. Especially on what you feel is important. All of our choices are constrained by chemical stimulation. It's a biology thing. Either we adapt or we die. 

The end result is more viruses in the future will consume people who can't control their appetite and take them out of the gene pool. It doesn't matter how you feel about it. It's not important.
#103
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Ramshutu


“Importance” is a human concept that we attribute to things - so it’s based on our feelings (it has no meaning in nature - nature doesn’t care) as is your conclusion that we shouldn’t take any actions - so you’re using your feelings to argue our feelings don’t matter - which is odd, and it’s all completely separate and unrelated to whether something survives.
As Greyparrot has blocked me, I don’t want to debate him. I’ll strengthen your positions instead. Value judgments have almost everything to do with natural selection when it comes to cognitively capable organisms. Humans are at the top of that order. 
#104
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
Has no bearing on natural selection. It either survives or it does not. Your feelings don't matter.

The first part is completely irrelevant. The middle part is meaningless tautology. The latter part is bullshit - because our collective feelings about what is important is critical to determining actions.



At this point, I’m not even sure why you’re here; we’ve clearly established the need to maintain and preserve ecosystems, and established your objections are largely irrelevant. Is there any purpose to continually changing the subject and avoiding defending anything you just said?

#105
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Reece101
As Greyparrot has blocked me, I don’t want to debate him. I’ll strengthen your positions instead. Value judgments have almost everything to do with natural selection when it comes to many species. 
GP appears to be a troll who uses a specific set of argument tactics to derail reasoned conversations, by using over the top and clearly ridiculous hyperbolae to make a point; then constantly change the subject and deflect so that he has to defend nothing - as he’s doing here by raising hyperbolic statements about survival, and then constantly weave and dodge all subsequent conversations about the topic, without returning to discuss any of the points he’s raised; hence the constant repetition interspersed with baiting attempts.

He seems to block anyone who notices this, and tries to drag him back to the conversation.

I am trying to bring him back to the conversation about ecology, and climate change, but he seems not to be interested.

I mention this primarily as an aid to how to deal with this particular style of argument. It’s a very difficult trolling style to combat.




#106
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,972
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
because our collective feelings about what is important is critical to determining actions.
Absolutely not. If you have defective brain chemistry and you have chemical impulses that lead to your extinction, what you feel isn't important at all.

#107
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
Greyparrot’s reply to Ramshutu:
because our collective feelings about what is important is critical to determining actions.
Absolutely not. If you have defective brain chemistry and you have chemical impulses that lead to your extinction, what you feel isn't important at all.
 Kinda like Tourettes. Good point good point.
#108
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
Well.

Corn isn't a British staple anyway.

And  with corn there are 15 on the list I do not require, and probably a few more that I could easily manage without.

But that's just me....There's 7.9 billion others to consider I suppose.


Nonetheless, the vitality of the rainforest within a life sustaining ecosystem is well understood.

Just as human overpopulation and greed, should be understood.

But of course we also have the GOD of wealth and power to appease before all else.


Though one always questions whether we are simply stupid, or are we just doing what we were programmed to do.
#109
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,972
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@zedvictor4
Nonetheless, the vitality of the rainforest within a life sustaining ecosystem is well understood.

Bullshit. If that was the case we would have cultivated 30 billion rainforest trees instead of 30 billion chickens.

Though one always questions whether we are simply stupid, or are we just doing what we were programmed to do.

According to Carlin, it's both. Our choices are mostly driven through chemical stimulation. Call it biological programming, instinct, feelings, whatever. Man was doomed the day he was born.
#110
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
Well.

It's not bullshit per se.....Plant processes are vital to a good life sustaining ecosystem.

Whereas high volume chicken processing isn't.....High volume chicken production and the marketing strategies thereof, is only vital to high volume chicken, producers.


The question isn't really about  a comparison between the two, is it?

The question is twofold:

1. About acquired human greed for chicken flesh, and the purpose thereof.

2. And similarly, the growing concern for a life sustaining ecosystem, and the purpose thereof.
#111
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,972
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@zedvictor4
.Plant processes are vital to a good life sustaining ecosystem.

There are plenty of plants in the top 25 vital list. None of them are rainforest trees.

People just don't care enough to cultivate them. If humans found them useful, they would have been exploited like corn rice and wheat are.

pine, cedar, oak, maple, orchard trees, all are more vital.

About acquired human greed for chicken flesh, and the purpose thereof.
When humans evolve a taste for rainforest trees, then maybe they will cultivate them. You want to save a species or ecosystem? You better sell it to the humans, cause it's a human dominated planet. No purpose means it aint vital. Most people don't buy it. Certainly not worth 10 dollars a month.


life sustaining ecosystem, and the purpose thereof.
Life will be on this planet long after we are gone. I am not worried about sustained life. Neither was George Carlin.
#112
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
True.

And amongst the life that will persist, will probably be plant life.

And the apex plant and appreciably dominant terrestrial species, will be trees.

Of course there are other major photosynthesizers, that we take for granted...Bryophytes and chlorophytes for example.


Though in any forest situation, it is the effect that is important, rather than the practical utility of an individual species.

Interestingly though, forests is where chicken came from.
#113
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
Absolutely not. If you have defective brain chemistry and you have chemical impulses that lead to your extinction, what you feel isn't important at all.
That’s only you’re feeling - so it’s clearly unimportant.

But as we established. We are destroying ecosystems. People rely on those ecosystems. It causes economic harm, and social upheaval, which is bad for humans, and why we should care.




Topic's author
#114
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Ramshutu
But - before we change the subject - it shouldn’t be, right. You just said that plants would be increasing their absorbtion by growing larger - co2 is rising and they’re clearly not - so what you said is incorrect.
Good point.  CO2 is rising, but not by a large enough amount.

At 415ppm cyanide - we’d all be dead.  The concentration is not relevant - it’s the impact of that concentration, and the total volume it represents that is important.
This is true, but I fail to see how an increase in CO2 concentration of .012% can lead to a 2 degree Celsius rise in temperature.  If you multiply both sides by 20, you would be arguing that a mere .24% increase in CO2 concentration would lead to a 40 degree Celsius increase in temperature.  There are probably cities with a concentration of CO2 exceeding .6% that aren't on fire due to the hot temperature.

If CO2 concentration caused a planet to be warm, then Mars would be a very hot planet because the atmosphere there is 990000 ppm of CO2.
#115
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,972
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
If CO2 concentration caused a planet to be warm, then Mars would be a very hot planet because the atmosphere there is 990000 ppm of CO2.
Mars doesn't get as much solar radiation. Plus the number one greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere is water, so it complicates the equation.

I already pointed out the insanity of the people looking at Venus saying we are going to look like that one day with a runaway effect while totally ignoring we don't have the solar radiation to achieve those chemical reactions. If we were going to have a runaway effect, we would have had it in the Permian age, and not be here right now to talk about it. The doomsaying bullshit needs to be called out and the people throwing money at those false prophets should be forever shamed.
#116
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
Good point.  CO2 is rising, but not by a large enough amount.
Why does that matter - your point was that if co2 rises, then plant absorption would balance it out. If co2 is rising - then that is clearly and indisputably not happening. Right?

How can plants be balancing out the rise in co2 if they are not balancing out the rise in co2?


This is true, but I fail to see how an increase in CO2 concentration of .012% can lead to a 2 degree Celsius rise in temperature.  If you multiply both sides by 20, you would be arguing that a mere .24% increase in CO2 concentration would lead to a 40 degree Celsius increase in temperature.  There are probably cities with a concentration of CO2 exceeding .6% that aren't on fire due to the hot temperature.
Because it’s not the concentration that matter - it’s what the effect of that concentration does.

That increase of 120ppm, corresponds to a trillion tonnes of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which isn’t a 0.24% increase, but around a 30% increase.

Carbon dioxide traps heat. Can’t you imagine that a trillion tonnes of extra carbon dioxide would trap a bit more heat in the atmosphere?



If CO2 concentration caused a planet to be warm, then Mars would be a very hot planet because the atmosphere there is 990000 ppm of CO2.

I think your issue is a lack of scientific understanding. Walk me through what factors you feel effect how substantial or weak a greenhouse effect is?


Let’s think of a glass cabinet test rig. You supply heat to it with a lamp. You have an atmosphere inside, you can pump in and pump out carbon dioxide.

Venus has a strong lamp, the atmosphere in the cabinet is very thick (it’s under lots of pressure), and is almost all carbon dioxide. It will heat up a lot

Earth has a medium strength lamp, it has a fairly thick atmosphere inside, you increase the amount of co2 in the cabinet by 30%, it will heat up a little.

Mars has a weaker lamp, it has almost no atmosphere (nearly a vaccine), though what it has has almost all carbon. It heats up a tiny amount - the low pressure simply doesn’t have the heat capacity to retain as much heat.



Topic's author
#117
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Ramshutu
That increase of 120ppm, corresponds to a trillion tonnes of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which isn’t a 0.24% increase, but around a 30% increase.
It's trillions of tons of CO2 out of quadrillions of tons of breathable air.  Proportions matter more than raw numbers.

Percentage wise, it's about a 30% increase (it would be a 100% increase if the CO2 concentration went from 1 ppm to 2 ppm).  It's a .012% increase if you subtract the following equation:

.040% CO2-.028% CO2.

Carbon dioxide traps heat. Can’t you imagine that a trillion tonnes of extra carbon dioxide would trap a bit more heat in the atmosphere?
CO2 traps heat, but not enough heat for a small concentration to be responsible for temperature increases of 4 degrees Celsius.

Walk me through what factors you feel effect how substantial or weak a greenhouse effect is?
If a planet has a lot of atmosphere (irrespective of what gas is in the atmosphere, but just that there is a gas in the atmosphere), then that planet will on average trap more heat than a planet with no atmosphere.  This is why Venus is warmer than Mercury despite being father away from the sun, it has 20000x more CO2 in it's atmosphere than Earth does.  It's also why Mars, despite having an atmosphere 990000 ppm of CO2 is fairly cold when if it had Venus's atmosphere thickness, it would be 282 degrees Celsius (The Summary Page (indiana.edu)).  This site claims that it's atmosphere thickness that matters with temperature of a planet irrespective of the type of gas that's in the atmosphere.

 Earth has a medium strength lamp, it has a fairly thick atmosphere inside, you increase the amount of co2 in the cabinet by 30%, it will heat up a little.
Earth's atmosphere is only about .4% CO2.  If the amount of CO2 doubled, our atmospheric pressure would go from 1013.2 mb mb to 1017.2 mb.  If the amount of CO2 increases by 30% (what has happened), then our atmospheric pressure goes from 1013.2 mb to 1014.2 mb.  If a 1 mb increase in pressure leads to a 2-degree Celsius increase in temperature, then 100 extra mb in pressure leads to a 200-degree Celsius increase in temperature.  Denver would be a frigid nightmare if this was the case; it's atmospheric pressure is 150 mb less than sea level (Does Denver Colorado have high air pressure? – SidmartinBio).

I don't understand how the scientific consensus is right on climate change based on the evidence they have presented.
#118
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
It's trillions of tons of CO2 out of quadrillions of tons of breathable air.  Proportions matter more than raw numbers.
Why do you think proportions matter?

The way co2 heats the earth is that a molecule of co2 allows visible light to pass through it, and absorbs and reflects infrared that hits it. The warning effect thus depends solely on how many molecules of co2 are in the atmosphere.


Percentage wise, it's about a 30% increase (it would be a 100% increase if the CO2 concentration went from 1 ppm to 2 ppm).  It's a .012% increase if you subtract the following equation:

.040% CO2-.028% CO2.
Yes:  280-450ppm is about a 30% increase. The weight of co2 in the atmosphere; the number of physical molecules of heating carbon dioxide has increased by 30%


CO2 traps heat, but not enough heat for a small concentration to be responsible for temperature increases of 4 degrees Celsius.
You’re fixated on concentration - the concentration doesn’t change the effect - only the total number of molecules.

I also would like to on what basis you feel that a trillion tons of co2 is “not enough”, it seems not to be based on any scientific or discernible argument.


If a planet has a lot of atmosphere (irrespective of what gas is in the atmosphere, but just that there is a gas in the atmosphere), then that planet will on average trap more heat than a planet with no atmosphere.  This is why Venus is warmer than Mercury despite being father away from the sun, it has 20000x more CO2 in it's atmosphere than Earth does.  It's also why Mars, despite having an atmosphere 990000 ppm of CO2 is fairly cold when if it had Venus's atmosphere thickness, it would be 282 degrees Celsius (The Summary Page (indiana.edu)).  This site claims that it's atmosphere thickness that matters with temperature of a planet irrespective of the type of gas that's in the atmosphere.
This is correct - your interpretation however misunderstands the word “irrespective” which in this context nears “not considering”, rather than “is not impacted by” carbon content and gas makeup has an impact on temperature - but not considering the makeup - thick atmospheres hold more heat than thin ones.


Earth's atmosphere is only about .4% CO2.  If the amount of CO2 doubled, our atmospheric pressure would go from 1013.2 mb mb to 1017.2 mb.  If the amount of CO2 increases by 30% (what has happened), then our atmospheric pressure goes from 1013.2 mb to 1014.2 mb.  If a 1 mb increase in pressure leads to a 2-degree Celsius increase in temperature, then 100 extra mb in pressure leads to a 200-degree Celsius increase in temperature.  Denver would be a frigid nightmare if this was the case; it's atmospheric pressure is 150 mb less than sea level (Does Denver Colorado have high air pressure? – SidmartinBio).
What on earth are you talking about? The increase in temperature is not due to increasing pressure - it’s due to co2 absorbing and reflecting infra red radiation.

I don't understand how the scientific consensus is right on climate change based on the evidence they have presented.
Given the above, the issue is with your understanding, not the evidence.













Topic's author
#119
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Mars doesn't get as much solar radiation.
The Summary Page (indiana.edu) states that if a planet is like mars in every way except that it has an atmosphere as thick as Venus is, it's temperature is going to be hundreds of degrees celsius.
Topic's author
#120
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Ramshutu
You bring up good points.  I'll think about it.