Why does it seem like many deniers have a wikipedia education? They seem to take bits and pieces from wikipedia, put them together and draw the completely wrong conclusion. James E was especially bad at this. His knowledge about pH was clearly derived from reading wikipedia. It was clear he did not even really understand the definition of pH. His reasoning
H2O + CO2 --> H2CO3--> HCO3- + H+
Since HCO3- in water raises the pH, then CO2 raises the pH of water.
A freshman chemistry course would have cleared this up. But since he read this bits and pieces on wikipedia, he thinks he is right.
Now I am answering questions by NW Jack (who also goes by Portland Joe). Almost as bad, but not nearly as obnoxious at James E ( not saying much there). He arguments are all over the place. He was trying to tell me that since clouds reflect visible light, they are responsible for less cooling at night. I asked how this is possible and he goes into an explanation absorption of IR. I have seen other ridiculous things from NW Jack like the atmosphere is a black body, since he read on wikipedia that all matter emits black body radiation.
Is wikipedia (and the internet) giving people the illusion that they understand something when they clearly do not. Does the internet help or hurt science for those who have no training in science?
beren
