Why Should Anyone Believe in Global Warming?

[ZenMode]

You say this as though you have made some sort of cogent point by asking your stupid question. In review, you are scientifically illiterate and mathematically incompetent. You apparently don't even know the difference between science and mathematics. Previously, you pretended that you somehow spoke for all the scientists in the world and insisted that all scientists somehow believe in your weird cycle of physics violations. That was a simple matter to debunk, although your scientific illiteracy renders you unable to fully understand the explanation. One has to wonder, however, why you ever believed that you somehow speak for "scientists" in the first place. Now, in your inability to distinguish science from math, you are claiming that all scientists believe in a math error. This too is a simple matter to debunk, but owing to your mathematical incompetence, you are not able to understand this explanation either.


There is no work being done on "global temperatures." One has to wonder why you believe that there is. Are you claiming to speak for this set of imaginary people doing this imaginary work?


There are no "results." There are no countries doing any such work. Are you claiming to speak for these unspecified "countries"?


ZenMode Error: You mentioned "peer reviewed." This leftist buzzword gets your argument summarily dismissed. "Peer Reviewed" has nothing to do with science; it's a publishing term, and you know this.

On top of this, there isn't any "The Data," nor is there any scientifically valid research, and as mentioned above, there are no "results." This entire topic is one of statistical mathematics. The fact that you believe it is a matter of science is your problem. In all of this, you are describing hopeless attempts to calculate the earth's average global equilibrium temperature to within a usable accuracy (statistical mathematics) because such is not possible given humanity's current means (technology + resources). This is why nobody is doing any of the work you preposterously claim is being done.

Just out of curiosity, and for a few laughs, ... who do you imagine is somehow "auditing" anything ... and are they "auditing" the imaginary work being performed by the unspecified "countries" or the imaginary "results" from the imaginary "research." What form does this "auditing" take? Is it a guy in a lab coat and a clipboard who says "Nope, do it over!"


This is all you have, i.e. the pretense that math is somehow science, and that you somehow speak for the world's thmart perthonth.

Considering just how important this topic is to you, have you ever considered how much of your own confusion you could eliminate by taking a few courses of statistical mathematics at a local community college? Of course it will completely obliterate your Global Warming faith, but you will be FREE from your mental enslavement! Your religion is a shitty one and you really should ditch it the first opportunity that presents itself, and some statistical math courses would go a long way in that effort.


No offense is intended, but I understand that you are particularly uneducated. You lack academic acumen and are desperate to be a thmart perthon. You do everything humanly possible to role play a thuper-thmart thientitht because you believe that is the only way anyone will give you any respect. I also understand your chagrin when you encounter educated people who recognize that you haven't the vaguest clue about what you speak and that you adopted a religion that promised to transform you into a thuper-thmart thientitht just by BELIEVING what you were told to believe without question.

As such, the answer to your question is that no, you never "considered" spatial bias, temporal bias or any other error-inducing factor because you don't have any grasp of statistical mathematics. You were warned of the dangers of pretending to speak with authority on topics of mathematics when you are incompetent across the board. You, nonetheless felt that preserving your faith was of a higher priority and that perhaps you could circumvent all the mathematics by pretending that math is science.

Would you like to know how you fared in that regard?


I am aware that you don't understand the laws of thermodynamics, and you only speak for yourself.


... and are providing you all the correct answers for free. An occasional thank you would be nice.

I'm not speaking for one scientist/researcher much less all of them. I asked a very simple question. In lieu of answering that question, you focus on me. You can think whatever you want about me. I couldn't care less. But what you think about me and my knowledge of math, statistics and thermodynamics is irrelevant to my question.

There are several countries studying temperature to determine if they are rising and, if so, by how much. The US begins tracking temperatures starting in 1880. Australia is 1910. Those years aren't selected by chance. Each country accounts for things like urbanization with their own algorithms, but it's accounted for nonetheless.... something that I suspect would surprise you for some reason.

So, again, do you think that you and Into the Night have uncovered something that scientists/researchers in other countries have missed? I believe you mentioned that it's necessary to service the temperature stations. Do you think that ALL the scientists/researchers just dropped the ball on that and the other things that have been mentioned? Do you think nobody involved in the research is aware of the laws of thermodynamics, mathematics and statistics?

Note: nothing in my question involves me in any way, shape or form.

 

[IBDaMann]

I'm not speaking for one scientist/researcher much less all of them. I asked a very simple question.

Your question presumes you speak for all the world's thmart perthonth. That is an omniscience fallacy. Your question presumes that the people for whom you speak all believe in physics violation, math errors and don't know the difference between math and science, ... all errors that you commit. Next time, ask a valid question, i.e. one that does not have any inherent fallacies.

In lieu of answering that question, you focus on me.

Correct. You are the one making the errors. Next time, ask a valid question, i.e. one that does not have any inherent fallacies.

I couldn't care less.

You care very much what I believe. It bothers you that I do not believe in your physics violations and math errors as you do. Your claim of "not caring what I think" is utterly rejected.

But what you think about me and my knowledge of math, statistics and thermodynamics is irrelevant to my question.

It's totally relevant to your religious beliefs, which is exactly what we have been discussing all this time.

There are several countries studying temperature to determine if they are rising and, if so, by how much.

Nope. There are no countries wasting money on what they know is impossible to accomplish.

The US begins tracking temperatures starting in 1880. Australia is 1910.

ZenMode Error: Failure to specify local temperatures instead of "global temperatures."

No country is attempting to calculate earth's average global equilibrium temperature. In the future, I will summarily dismiss your use of the lone word "temperatures" as an obvious attempt to obscure and confuse. Don't just write the word "temperature(s)." Specify either absolute or relative, for reasons I have explained several times, and then specify either average global equilibrium or local. Also, make sure to include target and actual margins of error. If you are going to complain about having to type some extra words, then I will complain about having to read your ambiguous crap ... and I thus won't read it.

So, again, do you think that you and Into the Night have uncovered something that scientists/researchers in other countries have missed?

ZenMode Error: There are no countries looking to establish the earth's average global equilibrium temperature to within any usable accuracy. Yes, many countries track local temperatures at very specific points. So what?

I believe you mentioned that it's necessary to service the temperature stations.

Are you telling me that you have never heard of "maintenance"? What about "calibration"?

Do you think that ALL the scientists/researchers just dropped the ball

There are no scientists/researchers looking to establish the earth's average global equilibrium temperature to within any usable accuracy. The next time you ask this sort of question, have an enumerated list of ALL the scientists and researchers in question.

Do you think nobody involved in the research is aware of the laws of thermodynamics, mathematics and statistics?

There are no people involved in this fictitious "research" in which you have placed your faith.

Note: nothing in my question involves me in any way, shape or form.

Sure it does. You are dishonestly trying to get me to accept your fictitious multi-national project with unspecified thmart perthonth ... as somehow being factual.

Nope.

Now, it's my turn. You did not answer my question, although I previously answered all of yours thoroughly. Why do you believe that this impossible project is somehow being undertaken by unspecified countries? Do you believe because you read it on the internet? Why do you believe?

 

[ZenMode]

Your question presumes you speak for all the world's thmart perthonth. That is an omniscience fallacy. Your question presumes that the people for whom you speak all believe in physics violation, math errors and don't know the difference between math and science, ... all errors that you commit. Next time, ask a valid question, i.e. one that does not have any inherent fallacies.


Correct. You are the one making the errors. Next time, ask a valid question, i.e. one that does not have any inherent fallacies.


You care very much what I believe. It bothers you that I do not believe in your physics violations and math errors as you do. Your claim of "not caring what I think" is utterly rejected.


It's totally relevant to your religious beliefs, which is exactly what we have been discussing all this time.


Nope. There are no countries wasting money on what they know is impossible to accomplish.


ZenMode Error: Failure to specify local temperatures instead of "global temperatures."

No country is attempting to calculate earth's average global equilibrium temperature. In the future, I will summarily dismiss your use of the lone word "temperatures" as an obvious attempt to obscure and confuse. Don't just write the word "temperature(s)." Specify either absolute or relative, for reasons I have explained several times, and then specify either average global equilibrium or local. Also, make sure to include target and actual margins of error. If you are going to complain about having to type some extra words, then I will complain about having to read your ambiguous crap ... and I thus won't read it.


ZenMode Error: There are no countries looking to establish the earth's average global equilibrium temperature to within any usable accuracy. Yes, many countries track local temperatures at very specific points. So what?


Are you telling me that you have never heard of "maintenance"? What about "calibration"?


There are no scientists/researchers looking to establish the earth's average global equilibrium temperature to within any usable accuracy. The next time you ask this sort of question, have an enumerated list of ALL the scientists and researchers in question.


There are no people involved in this fictitious "research" in which you have placed your faith.


Sure it does. You are dishonestly trying to get me to accept your fictitious multi-national project with unspecified thmart perthonth ... as somehow being factual.

Nope.

Now, it's my turn. You did not answer my question, although I previously answered all of yours thoroughly. Why do you believe that this impossible project is somehow being undertaken by unspecified countries? Do you believe because you read it on the internet? Why do you believe?

Yep.....you continue to avoid the question, for obvious reasons.

"Nope. There are no countries wasting money on what they know is impossible to accomplish."

And, you apparently live in some alternate universe/reality where things that are known to be happening aren't actually happening.

Sell crazy someplace else. We're all stocked up here.

 

[IBDaMann]

Sell crazy someplace else. We're all stocked up here.

So, we're done?

 

[ZenMode]

So, we're done?

You were done when you couldn't answer a simple question....for , what, 4 posts in a row?

 

[Into the Night]

I'm not speaking for one scientist/researcher much less all of them.

Blatant lie. Indeed, you do it AGAIN in this very post of yours. I will point out that moment.

I asked a very simple question.
In lieu of answering that question, you focus on me. You can think whatever you want about me. I couldn't care less. But what you think about me and my knowledge of math, statistics and thermodynamics is irrelevant to my question.

You are not asking a relevant question. Loaded questions are a fallacy.

There are several countries studying temperature to determine if they are rising and, if so, by how much.

None. There is no country studying global temperature. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

The US begins tracking temperatures starting in 1880.

Blatant lie. The US government never measured global temperature.

Australia is 1910.

Blatant lie. Australia never measured global temperature.

Those years aren't selected by chance.

Correct. Those years were selected as a random number by you. Argument from randU fallacy.

Each country accounts for things like urbanization with their own algorithms, but it's accounted for nonetheless.... something that I suspect would surprise you for some reason.

NASA cannot measure global temperature either. There is no magick 'algorithm'. You cannot use cooked data in a statistical summary either. It is not data. It is manufacturing numbers. You MUST use unbiased RAW data only. That data must also be published.

So, again, do you think that you and Into the Night have uncovered something that scientists/researchers in other countries have missed?

You keep making up imaginary 'scientists' and 'researchers' in imaginary 'countries', and that something is somehow 'hidden'. Here again you attempt to speak for 'scientists' and 'researchers'.

I believe you mentioned that it's necessary to service the temperature stations.

I did, and it is. It is why thermometers are not uniformly spaced, as required. Location grouping is a significant factor. It MUST be eliminated when collecting data.

Do you think that ALL the scientists/researchers just dropped the ball on that and the other things that have been mentioned?

No, YOU did. You are trying to take things out of context again. That's a fallacy, dude.

Do you think nobody involved in the research

Your imaginary 'researchers' don't exist.

is aware of the laws of thermodynamics, mathematics and statistics?

I have shown you the laws of thermodynamics. You are aware of them. You choose to simply ignore them.
I and others have shown you the mathematics you ignore. You simply choose to ignore it.

You cannot use imaginary 'scientists', imaginary 'researchers' and imaginary 'countries' to get around your illiteracy. It is YOUR problem.

Note: nothing in my question involves me in any way, shape or form.

Not a valid question. Loaded questions are a fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Yep.....you continue to avoid the question, for obvious reasons.

"Nope. There are no countries wasting money on what they know is impossible to accomplish."

And, you apparently live in some alternate universe/reality where things that are known to be happening aren't actually happening.

Sell crazy someplace else. We're all stocked up here.

So now you imagine that 'things are known to be happening' and you don't even bother to specify it. Void argument fallacy.
You don't even know what 'reality' means. Stop using this buzzword until you learn it.
There is no 'alternate universe'. If there were, neither 'universe' wouldn't be a universe. They are not universal.

The crazy is you. It is YOU that is trying to push your religion over theories of science and over mathematics. It is YOU denying philosophy. It is YOU denying logic. Only a fundamentalist is so crazy.

 

[Into the Night]

You were done when you couldn't answer a simple question....for , what, 4 posts in a row?

You didn't ask a question. Loaded questions are a fallacy and act as a hidden statement, not a question. You are trying to speak for all scientists and researches in that statement.
Omniscience fallacy.

 

[ZenMode]

Blatant lie. Indeed, you do it AGAIN in this very post of yours. I will point out that moment.

You are not asking a relevant question. Loaded questions are a fallacy.

None. There is no country studying global temperature. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

Dishonest or delusional statement #1

Blatant lie. The US government never measured global temperature.

Dishonest or delusional statement #2

Blatant lie. Australia never measured global temperature.

Dishonest or delusional statement #3

Correct. Those years were selected as a random number by you. Argument from randU fallacy.

Dishonest or delusional statement #4

NASA cannot measure global temperature either.

Dishonest or delusional statement #5

There is no magick 'algorithm'.

Dishonest or delusional statement #6

You cannot use cooked data in a statistical summary either.

Dishonest or delusional statement #7

It is not data.

Dishonest or delusional statement #8

It is manufacturing numbers.

Dishonest or delusional statement #9

You MUST use unbiased RAW data only. That data must also be published.

You keep making up imaginary 'scientists' and 'researchers' in imaginary 'countries',

Dishonest or delusional statement #10 and actually a little concerning IF you are so delusional that you believe Australia and the country you live in are imaginary. You should seek help.

and that something is somehow 'hidden'. Here again you attempt to speak for 'scientists' and 'researchers'.

Dishonest or delusional statement #11

I did, and it is. It is why thermometers are not uniformly spaced, as required.

Dishonest or delusional statement #12.

Location grouping is a significant factor. It MUST be eliminated when collecting data.

Something you apparently believe all of the scientists and researchers missed. You should let them know!

No, YOU did. You are trying to take things out of context again. That's a fallacy, dude.

I just asked a question. Why don't you want to state that you DO apparently believe that all of the scientists missed all of the things you claim to be true? Oh... because you'd sound like a lunatic.

Your imaginary 'researchers' don't exist.

Dishonest or delusional statement #13.. and a little concerning.

I have shown you the laws of thermodynamics. You are aware of them. You choose to simply ignore them.

this might be the only honest thing you've said in this post. Yes, you have shown them to me over and over and over and over.... I don't know why you believe showing me something over and over and over is relevant unless you believe that all of the scientists and researchers around the world, who are studying global temperatures, aren't aware of those laws. Is that what you believe? Come on! Just say it! Say that's what you believe!

I and others have shown you the mathematics you ignore. You simply choose to ignore it.

See response above, but swap in "math" for "laws of thermodynamics. Do you believe that all of the scientists and researchers are unaware of mathematics?

You cannot use imaginary 'scientists', imaginary 'researchers' and imaginary 'countries' to get around your illiteracy.

Dishonest or delusional statement #14

It is YOUR problem.

My only problem is that I continue to try to rationalize with a crazy person.

Not a valid question. Loaded questions are a fallacy.

Dishonest or delusional statement #15

Clearly you're done. You bring nothing to the table except repeating the same unsupported claims over and over and over and over and over and over. You are either a liar of monumental proportions or are displaying a level of mental delusion and confirmation bias that would make Alex Jones jealous. Either way, as I said above...you bring nothing to the discussion.

 

[ZenMode]

You didn't ask a question. Loaded questions are a fallacy and act as a hidden statement, not a question. You are trying to speak for all scientists and researches in that statement.
Omniscience fallacy.

Nope. If you believe everything that you're saying, then you must also believe that the rest of the world, that is conducting research on and studying the topic, have ALL missed those items. Is that what you believe?

 

[IBDaMann]

Now, it's my turn. You did not answer my question, although I previously answered all of yours thoroughly. Why do you believe that this impossible project is somehow being undertaken by unspecified countries? Do you believe because you read it on the internet? Why do you believe?

You were done when you couldn't answer a simple question....[EVASION of my question omitted]

Can I get an answer?

 

[Into the Night]

Dishonest or delusional statement #1Dishonest or delusional statement #2Dishonest or delusional statement #3Dishonest or delusional statement #4Dishonest or delusional statement #5Dishonest or delusional statement #6Dishonest or delusional statement #7Dishonest or delusional statement #8Dishonest or delusional statement #9Dishonest or delusional statement #10 and actually a little concerning IF you are so delusional that you believe Australia and the country you live in are imaginary. You should seek help.Dishonest or delusional statement #11Dishonest or delusional statement #12. Something you apparently believe all of the scientists and researchers missed. You should let them know! I just asked a question. Why don't you want to state that you DO apparently believe that all of the scientists missed all of the things you claim to be true? Oh... because you'd sound like a lunatic.Dishonest or delusional statement #13.. and a little concerning.this might be the only honest thing you've said in this post. Yes, you have shown them to me over and over and over and over.... I don't know why you believe showing me something over and over and over is relevant unless you believe that all of the scientists and researchers around the world, who are studying global temperatures, aren't aware of those laws. Is that what you believe? Come on! Just say it! Say that's what you believe! See response above, but swap in "math" for "laws of thermodynamics. Do you believe that all of the scientists and researchers are unaware of mathematics?Dishonest or delusional statement #14My only problem is that I continue to try to rationalize with a crazy person. Dishonest or delusional statement #15

Clearly you're done.

You bring nothing to the table
except repeating the same unsupported claims over and over and over and over and over and over.

You are either a liar of monumental proportions or are displaying a level of mental delusion and confirmation bias that would make Alex Jones jealous. Either way, as I said above...you bring nothing to the discussion.

RQAA.

 

[Into the Night]

Nope. If you believe everything that you're saying, then you must also believe that the rest of the world, that is conducting research on and studying the topic, have ALL missed those items. Is that what you believe?

You don't get to speak for the whole world. You only get to speak for you. Omniscience fallacy. Goalpost fallacy. Now you shift your position to 'the topic'.

 

[ZenMode]

Can I get an answer?

You're asking how I know that various countries are studying climate change? Early on, when I was a climate change skeptic (denier), there were certain countries who's researchers were more prominent than others. I saw interviews with, and read some of the writings from, some of the prominent players. I know some of the names/countries of origin of those in the IPCC reports. I've heard interviews with well-known US researchers who talk about the countries that have, in his opinion, quality climate change research programs. Yes, I am familiar with some of their websites.

 

[ZenMode]

You don't get to speak for the whole world. You only get to speak for you. Omniscience fallacy. Goalpost fallacy. Now you shift your position to 'the topic'.

Nope. This is a question about your claims. I'm not speaking for anyone. How could you believe that scientists & researchers haven't missed all the things you pointed out? You state, as a fact, that climate cannot change. That would seem to be an important thing for researchers/scientists to know. What is your basis for that claim and what do you believe researchers/scientists missed?

Same question regarding your claims about temperature stations.

 

[Into the Night]

You're asking how I know that various countries are studying climate change?

He never did. You are trying to pivot. Goalpost fallacy. Climate cannot change. You cannot study a meaningless buzzword.

Early on, when I was a climate change skeptic (denier),

Now you are science and mathematics denier.

there were certain countries who's researchers were more prominent than others.

None. It is not possible to research a buzzword.

I saw interviews with, and read some of the writings from, some of the prominent players. I know some of the names/countries of origin of those in the IPCC reports. I've heard interviews with well-known US researchers who talk about the countries that have, in his opinion, quality climate change research programs. Yes, I am familiar with some of their websites.

You cannot research a meaningless buzzword.

 

[Into the Night]

Nope. This is a question about your claims. I'm not speaking for anyone. How could you believe that scientists & researchers haven't missed all the things you pointed out?

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot claim to not speak for everyone and then try to speak for everyone, dope!

You state, as a fact, that climate cannot change.

That is correct.

That would seem to be an important thing for researchers/scientists to know.

You cannot research a meaningless buzzword. There is no branch of science called 'climate change'.

What is your basis for that claim and what do you believe researchers/scientists missed?

You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy. As far as the meaning of the word 'climate', I have already shown you the meaning of this word. RQAA.

Same question regarding your claims about temperature stations.

RQAA.

Asking the same question over and over mindlessly, even though it's already been answered, gets you nowhere.
Your refusal to learn English is YOUR problem.

 

[Into the Night]

Nope. If you believe everything that you're saying, then you must also believe that the rest of the world, that is conducting research on and studying the topic, have ALL missed those items. Is that what you believe?

The rest of the world is not researching a meaningless buzzword. You cannot research a meaningless buzzword. Omniscience fallacy. Buzzword fallacy.
Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science.

The theories of science you ignore work everywhere in the world, and everywhere in the known universe. There has never yet been an exception found to them.

 

[IBDaMann]

You're asking how I know that various countries are studying climate change?

Nope. I'm asking why you believe there are countries wasting time, money and other resources on an impossible project, i.e. trying to compute the earth's average global equilibrium temperature to a useful margin of error.

Yes, I am familiar with some of their websites.

Why haven't you called booooolsch't?

 

[ZenMode]

Nope. I'm asking why you believe there are countries wasting time, money and other resources on an impossible project, i.e. trying to compute the earth's average global equilibrium temperature to a useful margin of error.


Why haven't you called booooolsch't?

The question that you've managed to avoid answering is why I haven't called bullshit. I do not believe that you and Into the Night have unraveled a multitude to issues that have escaped every voice in the science and research communities around the world

As I said very early on, an understanding of the impact of CO2 (and water vapor) on the Earth's temperature has been understood, or believed to be understood to a meaningful degree, since the late 1800's. There have been a number of things that were believed to be true that have been proven wrong , by science, over time. This, so far, is not one of them.