Good News Sucks for Climate Cultists

[Saint Guinefort]

Their overall predictions are wrong. Their modeling is wrong, their causes are wrong. They have been doing crap science for decades and building on it. Their call that the end of the world is coming--repeatedly-- is the most egregious case of their pandering bullshit. I could go to a run of the mill psychic and get better predictions.

Just going to ignore the articles I posted that say the exact opposite of your opinion?

 

[serendipity]

What other area of science would allow politicians, activists and assorted gravy train scumbags to amend scientific reports?

.

 

[serendipity]

Here is a real climate scientist stating that global warming is not dangerous and only Working Group 1 of the IPCC has any semblance of validity and deals with actual science. How can anybody justify the obscene practice of allowing reports to be criticised and amended by politicians, activists and career civil servants? Yet that's exactly what happens with the Summary for Policy Makers. Here is the bullshit concocted by the IPCC to justify this practice.

The Summary for Policymakers (SPM) is a summary of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports intended to aid policymakers. The form is approved line by line by governments: "Negotiations occur over wording to ensure accuracy, balance, clarity of message, and relevance to understanding and policy."

.

 

[Into the Night]

It's unbelievable that anybody could be led to believe that an increased growth of trees somewhere offsets the carnage of thunderous extended deluges, mud slides, floods, massive hurricanes, etc., etc.somewhere else.
Bad news REALLY sux for Deniers.

Pivot fallacy. Special pleading fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Weather changes according to changes in climate. Today's devastating events are as a result of climate change, The current climate change is as a result of global warming.
You could assist in reducing global warming by reducing your farting frequency and keeping your fool mouth shut, Lame.


Haw, haw.............................haw/

So...according to you, climate controls weather, and weather controls climate. Paradox. Irrational.

Weather changes. Big deal. It always has.
Climate has no value associated with it. There is nothing that can change. A marine climate will always be a marine climate. A mountain climate will always be a mountain climate. A desert climate will always be a desert climate.

 

[Into the Night]

No- I let the mudslides and hurricanes do the talking. Perhaps you'd like to deny that they have increased in frequency and intensity Speech is free, even for Deniers. Currently.

The National Hurricane Center disagrees with you.

 

[Into the Night]

Only climate change. That's all that's needed as evidence of climate change, you poor gasping fish.


Haw, haw.............................haw.

Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).
Define 'climate change'. Buzzword fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Plenty of evidence here

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?98753-Global-fry-up

Not for you, of course. You'd need your fool ass struck by forked lightning.


Haw, haw.........................................haw.

No evidence exist at this location.

 

[Into the Night]

Again, plenty of evidence here, tatt boy;

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?98753-Global-fry-up


Mind you, there are a few more trees growing someplace



Haw, haw......................................haw.

No evidence presented. Repetition fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

I only ask that you prove provide scientific historical evidence that hurricanes and mud slides have increased since 1780 when CO2 became "catastrophic" according to Greta and Al. Can you do that for all of us? A link is unacceptable. Post the relevant quotes or charts here for all to see.

The National Hurricane Center historical data can be found here. It shows that moon is lying and making shit up again. Hurricanes are not becoming more frequent or more intense.

 

[Into the Night]

No- my layman's knowledge of global warming and climate change is drawn from the publications of the experts in the field whose conclusions are repeated in the media links I provide. So are yours , I dare say.

So you faithfully listen to your priests in the Church of Global Warming...meh.
Define 'climate change'. Climate cannot change. There is no value associated with climate that can change.

Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). 'Expert' worship. Void authority fallacy.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
It is not possible to measure the number of storms on the Earth (but it IS possible to measure the frequency and intensity of hurricanes, and that data disagrees with you!).
It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric concentration of CO2. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in Earth's atmosphere.
It is not possible to create energy out of nothing. CO2 has no magick power to do so. See the 1st law of thermodynamics, which you are denying.
It is not possible for a colder gas to heat a warmer surface. CO2 has no magick power to do so. See the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which you are denying.
You cannot trap light.
You cannot trap heat.
You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
You cannot create energy out of nothing.
There is NO DATA for the temperature of the Earth.
There is NO DATA for the global atmospheric concentration of CO2.
There is NO DATA for global sea level. It is not possible to measure it.
There is NO DATA for total snow and ice on Earth. It is not possible to measure it.
There is NO DATA for the pH of the oceans. It is not possible to measure it.
There is NO DATA for the emissivity of Earth. You have to accurately know the temperature of the Earth to measure it.

Your religious chanting is all you have. That is all that exists in your 'Global Fry-up' thread.

You have NO DATA. You refuse to present any. You continue to ignore the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You continue to ignore and deny mathematics, particularly statistical mathematics, probability mathematics, and random number mathematics. You've even denied algebra.

All for your fundamentalist style religion.

 

[Into the Night]

I looked at all the scientific evidence first, then came to a conclusion.

Of course you nave no scientific historical data on mudslides since 1780. You and your sources are just making shit up.

Science isn't evidence. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Yes, he is making shit up. He has NO DATA.

 

[Into the Night]

No- the respected media don't invent the science. The media report it.

Science isn't media or a 'report'.

 

[Into the Night]

I'm bored with being polite to you, you ignorant poseur. You actually appear to know fuck all about anything expect how to be seriously stupid .

Ah. Abuse. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

 

[Into the Night]

I ask you a couple questions about mud slide and hurricane data ... and you explode in an emotional outburst. You claim you are just "repeating" the "science". Well Parrot, post the data here for all to see.

Or are you just making shit up?

It's all he has. He has no data and keeps denying and discarding theories of science.

 

[Mason Michaels]

Yeah they bitch about California having too little water now they are bitching about California having too much water. You can't make libratards happy.

I suppose you miss the irony that your life is all about
Bitching about liberals

 

[Into the Night]

Here is a real climate scientist stating that global warming is not dangerous and only Working Group 1 of the IPCC has any semblance of validity and deals with actual science. How can anybody justify the obscene practice of allowing reports to be criticised and amended by politicians, activists and career civil servants? Yet that's exactly what happens with the Summary for Policy Makers. Here is the bullshit concocted by the IPCC to justify this practice.

The Summary for Policymakers (SPM) is a summary of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports intended to aid policymakers. The form is approved line by line by governments: "Negotiations occur over wording to ensure accuracy, balance, clarity of message, and relevance to understanding and policy."

There is no such thing as a 'climate scientist'. Climate is not a branch of science. So-called 'climate scientists' are nothing but priests in the Church of Global Warming. They routinely deny and discard the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Yes..in this video as well.

 

[Into the Night]

You have no reason to think they are wrong. None.



Of course it's an appeal to authority. Neither you nor I have the requisite skill or ability.

It's like you and I sitting and talking about how badly wrong all the earth's particle physicists are about the Standard Model.

The only difference is that I am appealing to the majority of authorities while you are appealing to a tiny minority of them.

Yes, he does have reason (and so do I) to think they are wrong. I have three:
The 1st law of thermodynamics.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law.

 

[serendipity]

There is no such thing as a 'climate scientist'. Climate is not a branch of science. So-called 'climate scientists' are nothing but priests in the Church of Global Warming. They routinely deny and discard the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Yes..in this video as well.

Richard Lindzen wrote the textbook on Atmospheric Physics yet doesn't understand simple thermodynamics, yer 'aving a larf!!

In Dynamics in Atmospheric Physics, Dr. Richard Lindzen describes the nature of motion in the atmosphere, develops fluid dynamics relevant to the atmosphere, and explores the role of motion in determining the climate and atmospheric composition.

https://www.amazon.com/Dynamics-Atm...ysics,the climate and atmospheric composition.

 

[Into the Night]

Let me correct that:

Here comes the back pedaling:

overall their predictions in the gross sense have NOT been wrong. They've actually been quite correct.

They have been wrong in all 'senses'.

What is usually wrong are the pop-science, over-the-top predictions of imminent disaster. Those things will come, just not at the speed of getting viewers for your news program.

In ten years, right? Just like you idiots said in 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, 2020, and again today?

The scientists have been more measured. And their predictions are coming true with astounding accuracy. Again and again.

No science here. Science is not a government agency. Random numbers generated by a computer program are meaningless. You have no data.

The actual science is very troubling.

No science here. Religion is not science.

NOT because it reads like a Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson action epic disaster flick, but because they foretell a much more harrowing future that is still a bit distant.

Don't expect to get the subtle story from news organizations on either side. Just read the science. It's troubling enough.

Okay...let's read the science:

1st law of thermodynamics:
E(t+1) = E(t) - U where 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work (or force over time). You cannot create energy out of nothing. No gas or vapor has the magick capability to falsify this law.

2nd law of thermodynamics:
e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy (or available energy to do work), and 't' is time. This also defines the concept of 'heat' and it's direction. It is not possible to warm a warmer surface using a colder gas in the atmosphere. No gas or vapor has the magick capability to falsify this law.

Stefan-Boltzmann law:
R = C * e * t^4 where 'R' is electromagnetic energy radiated per square surface area, 'C' is a natural constant, 'e' is emissivity (a measured constant), and 't' is temperature in deg K. This law describes the conversion of thermal energy to electromagnetic energy. The hotter a substance is, the more light produced per radiating area. This is true for ALL substances. No gas or vapor has the magick capability to falsify this law.

You cannot trap light.
You cannot trap heat.
You cannot trap thermal energy.
You cannot create energy out of nothing.

That's what the science says. Your religion denies and discards these three laws.