Why Should Anyone Believe in Global Warming?

[IBDaMann]

Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns.

You only regurgitate this because you are mathematically incompetent. There is no such thing as a "weather pattern" any more than there is a pattern to flipping heads-&-tails. You should give it up while you are miles behind. I specifically requested a definition that does not violate science, math or logic. Yours violates math.

... also you are including "long term" without defining it. Your definition is great for religious doctrine, but is summarily discarded from any consideration in science.

... human activities have been the main driver of climate change,

You have not defined "human activities", nor have you defined "Climate Change" beyond being a WACKY religion based on HATRED, manipulation and intolerance.

... primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels

You have not explained what fuels fossils use, and I am certain that they do not use either coal or hydrocarbons.

... which produces heat-trapping gases.

Heat cannot be trapped ... by anything. Learn physics.

Your definition is nothing but gibber-babble and is discarded. Your claims are dismissed.

Straight from the United Nations

I don't care if it comes from the IPCC, the Vatican or from Mecca, religious dogma has no place in science. No engineers will be using any of your dogma to develop any technology. I reject the faith you are pushing.

 

[IBDaMann]

You are either a wannabe Into the Night or you are Into the Night. Either way, your game is essentially the same, ...

You're just butt-hurt because science is not subjective and doesn't change from person. Of course the correct answer according to science will be the same whether it comes from me or from Into the Night or anybody else. Anyone spouting something other than the correct answer will be incorrect.

You also have nothing but unsupported claims and lots of copy/paste.

I haven't made any affirmative claims and I haven't copy-pasted anything. You are talking about yourself.

 

[IBDaMann]

I absolutely agree that I have no chance of getting you to see there there are reasons to believe global warming could be real.

... because you won't post any. All you will post are physics violations, bad math and logic errors. You are nothing but a troll who has no intention of engaging in any discussions on this topic, but only to preach your stupid religion.

If I had to bet, I'd say you are probably a believer in the stolen election...

The election was stolen as I watched. I can't unobserve what I observed.

You, on the other hand, simply won't admit that to the best of your understanding, you are unaware of any rational basis for belief in Global Warming. You have no science, yet you continue to insist that you do. On this topic, you are eternally dishonest.

 

[Port Tack]

You only regurgitate this because you are mathematically incompetent. There is no such thing as a "weather pattern" any more than there is a pattern to flipping heads-&-tails. You should give it up while you are miles behind. I specifically requested a definition that does not violate science, math or logic. Yours violates math.

... also you are including "long term" without defining it. Your definition is great for religious doctrine, but is summarily discarded from any consideration in science.


You have not defined "human activities", nor have you defined "Climate Change" beyond being a WACKY religion based on HATRED, manipulation and intolerance.


You have not explained what fuels fossils use, and I am certain that they do not use either coal or hydrocarbons.


Heat cannot be trapped ... by anything. Learn physics.

Your definition is nothing but gibber-babble and is discarded. Your claims are dismissed.


I don't care if it comes from the IPCC, the Vatican or from Mecca, religious dogma has no place in science. No engineers will be using any of your dogma to develop any technology. I reject the faith you are pushing.

We know that just like flat eartists there are those who don't agree with established fact. go fuck yourself.

 

[IBDaMann]

We know that just like flat eartists

The term is "flat earthers", but a better analogy for you would be "moon landing denier" or "gullible tool."

there are those who don't agree with established fact.

You should learn what a "fact" is. You don't have the magical superpower to "establish" your religious beliefs as truth.

go fuck yourself.

Deep-throat yourself, but come in from the ass. Your religion is stupid. I, for my part, refuse to be a gullible moron and will call booooolsch't when people tell me to believe in physics violations as thettled thienth.

It's a great feeling being able to think independently and to apply critical reasoning. Too bad you will never experience it. I will never allow anyone else to do my thinking for me. I feel sorry for you. Yes, humans did land on the moon and no, there is no Santa Claus.

 

[ZenMode]

... because you won't post any. All you will post are physics violations, bad math and logic errors. You are nothing but a troll who has no intention of engaging in any discussions on this topic, but only to preach your stupid religion.

Yes... the trolling/conspiracytheory/confirmation bias train rolls on.

I pointed it out many pages back, probably more in regard to Into the Night because he seems to be the trolling, etc ring leader, but it is clearly your game also. Game meaning you just keep repeating statments regardless of evidence provided to the contrary. One of the first being your claim about the first law of thermodynamics. Anyone with a decent understanding of how climate change is believed to work, would also know that no energy is being magically created. There is X amount of energy from the sun and at no point is energy created or destroyed. Some is reflected by the Earth's atmosphere. Some gets the the Earth's surface and is radiated as heat by the Earth's surface, etc. But, if you just keep blindly repeating "It violates the First Law..." what can anyone say in response to that to move the conversation forward? There is nothing.

If you believed we didn't land on the moon becaus it's not possible to generate enough force to propel a craft to the moon and and I say "Here's video of the craft leaving the Earth from (insert country's name) and here's video of people standing on the moon and here's an interview where the person who landed on the moon talks about landing/being on the moon", but you just keep saying 'It's not possible to generate enough force to propel a craft to the moon", what is the next step from there? There isn't one because you're a troll, conspiracy theorist of participating in confirmation bias.

The election was stolen as I watched. I can't unobserve what I observed.

Thanks for helping to make my point.

You, on the other hand, simply won't admit that to the best of your understanding, you are unaware of any rational basis for belief in Global Warming. You have no science, yet you continue to insist that you do. On this topic, you are eternally dishonest.

.... and the train rolls on.....

 

[tigerred59]

There are many religions in our world and they are all different. Each one has a unique dogma that affords comfort to the believer and helps him cope with a chaotic and confusing world ... each one except for Global Warming that is. This religion seems only to instill fear and panic. Most religions are portrayed as a form of "good news" to be celebrated whereas everything about Global Warming is hyped as "bad news" that might already be "too late" and "past the tipping point."

Further, most religions are honest matters of faith whereas the Church of Global Warming specifically targets for recruitment the gullible and the scientifically illiterate because its dogma mandates the belief that egregious violations of physics are "Settled Science."

Question: why would any rational adult adopt the Global Warming faith?

I'll tell you why, I saw a soccer game yesterday played with kids in shorts and tshirts in the mid of February

 

[IBDaMann]

I'll tell you why, I saw a soccer game yesterday played with kids in shorts and tshirts in the mid of February

For starters, I notice that you omitted where, exactly, this occurred.
Next, if you are saying that I should believe your WACKY religion because there was some momentary warm weather somewhere, I would have to recommend you reevaluate your belief criterea.

 

[IBDaMann]

Game meaning you just keep repeating statments regardless of evidence provided to the contrary.

This is the crux of your problem. You never present any rational basis for your WACKY, physics-defying beliefs. You simply regurgitate the same fallacies, physics violations and bad math, ad nauseum, without ever taking notice of how science destroys all of your affirmative arguments. Meanwhile, you expect science to somehow change by the mere act of you repeating your crap a sufficient number of times.

All of your arguments depend on your agile shifting between logical fallacies and going around in circles. Science won't change just because you so desperately want it to.

One of the first being your claim about the first law of thermodynamics.

The 1st LoT is not my claim and I do not own it. It also will not change to accomodate your physics-defying religious beliefs.

Anyone with a decent understanding of how climate change is believed to work, would also know that no energy is being magically created.

Anyone with a basic understanding of the 1st LoT can see that your model creates energy out of nothing despite your insistence that you're not. You claim an increase in temperature, which is necessarily an increase in thermal energy. You refuse to account for the appearance of this additional energy except to leave it as a magical creation out of nothing. To this day, you have not accounted for the additional energy that increases the temperature that you insist is occurring. You also never provide any valid reason for even believing that the earth's temperature is increasing; all you provide is gibberish surrounding mathematical incompetence.

There is X amount of energy from the sun and at no point is energy created or destroyed.

There is a flow of energy from the sun to the earth which has established earth's equilibrium temperature. You are claiming an increase in earth's average global equilibrium temperature without explaining from where the additional energy flow is coming. You insist on leaving it as a magical creation out of nothing. So be it.

Some is reflected by the Earth [ ]

The earth's atmosphere is part of the earth. You have yet to learn this. For some reason, you just can't seem to grasp this little bit of truth.

Some gets the the Earth [] and is radiated

The earth's lithosphere is part of the earth. You have yet to learn this. For some reason, you just can't seem to grasp this little bit of truth.

.. as heat

"It" is not heat. What are you claiming it is heating? I know, you still haven't learned what "heat" is. Well, there you go; you now know what the root of your problem is. Wait a minute. I have personally explained this to you over a dozen times. How is it you still don't know what "heat" is?

But, if you just keep blindly repeating "It violates the First Law..."

When you keep violating the 1st LoT, all anyone can say in response to that is "It violates the 1st LoT."

If you believe we didn't land on the moon becaus it's not possible to generate enough force to propel a craft to the moon and and I say "Here's video of the craft leaving the Earth from (insert country's name) and here's video of people standing on the moon and here's an interview where the person who landed on the moon talks about landing/being on the moon", but you just keep saying 'It's not possible to generate enough force to propel a craft to the moon", what is the next step from there? There isn't one because you're a troll, conspiracy theorist of participating in confirmation bias.

Thanks for helping to make my point.

 

[ZenMode]

This is the crux of your problem. You never present any rational basis for your WACKY, physics-defying beliefs. You simply regurgitate the same fallacies, physics violations and bad math, ad nauseum, without ever taking notice of how science destroys all of your affirmative arguments. Meanwhile, you expect science to somehow change by the mere act of you repeating your crap a sufficient number of times.

All of your arguments depend on your agile shifting between logical fallacies and going around in circles. Science won't change just because you so desperately want it to.


The 1st LoT is not my claim and I do not own it. It also will not change to accomodate your physics-defying religious beliefs.


Anyone with a basic understanding of the 1st LoT can see that your model creates energy out of nothing despite your insistence that you're not. You claim an increase in temperature, which is necessarily an increase in thermal energy. You refuse to account for the appearance of this additional energy except to leave it as a magical creation out of nothing. To this day, you have not accounted for the additional energy that increases the temperature that you insist is occurring. You also never provide any valid reason for even believing that the earth's temperature is increasing; all you provide is gibberish surrounding mathematical incompetence.


There is a flow of energy from the sun to the earth which has established earth's equilibrium temperature. You are claiming an increase in earth's average global equilibrium temperature without explaining from where the additional energy flow is coming. You insist on leaving it as a magical creation out of nothing. So be it.


The earth's atmosphere is part of the earth. You have yet to learn this. For some reason, you just can't seem to grasp this little bit of truth.


The earth's lithosphere is part of the earth. You have yet to learn this. For some reason, you just can't seem to grasp this little bit of truth.


"It" is not heat. What are you claiming it is heating? I know, you still haven't learned what "heat" is. Well, there you go; you now know what the root of your problem is. Wait a minute. I have personally explained this to you over a dozen times. How is it you still don't know what "heat" is?


When you keep violating the 1st LoT, all anyone can say in response to that is "It violates the 1st LoT."

If you believe we didn't land on the moon becaus it's not possible to generate enough force to propel a craft to the moon and and I say "Here's video of the craft leaving the Earth from (insert country's name) and here's video of people standing on the moon and here's an interview where the person who landed on the moon talks about landing/being on the moon", but you just keep saying 'It's not possible to generate enough force to propel a craft to the moon", what is the next step from there? There isn't one because you're a troll, conspiracy theorist of participating in confirmation bias.

Thanks for helping to make my point.

As has been the case for this entire discussion, you make statements that show you haven't done the work to educate yourself on the topic of climate change (beyond confirmation bias) or are just a troll. Either way, you effectively have your hands over your ears, eyes are closed and are yelling "La La la la".

Again, sell crazy somewhere else. We're all stocked up here.

 

[IBDaMann]

As has been the case for this entire discussion, ...

... you simply dismiss every single rebuttal to your affirmative argument, as your post illustrates. This is why your affirmative claims are never convincing. You effectively have your hands over your ears, eyes are closed and are yelling "La La la la" while trying to blame me for your extreme gullibility.

 

[ZenMode]

... you simply dismiss every single rebuttal to your affirmative argument, as your post illustrates. This is why your affirmative claims are never convincing. You effectively have your hands over your ears, eyes are closed and are yelling "La La la la" while trying to blame me for your extreme gullibility.

The trolling is real!

 

[IBDaMann]

The trolling is real!

You effectively have your hands over your ears, eyes are closed and are yelling "La La la la" while trying to blame me for your extreme gullibility.

 

[ZenMode]

You effectively have your hands over your ears, eyes are closed and are yelling "La La la la" while trying to blame me for your extreme gullibility.

I have to admit.... the effort you are willing to put into trolling is fairly impressive. Parroting what I said to you ("That'll push his buttons!"). Upping the ante with a little photoshopping to add my screenname and avatar to a picture, also referencing what I had said previously . You are dedicated to your trade.

 

[IBDaMann]

I have to admit.... the effort you are willing to put into trolling is fairly impressive.

Someday you'll learn what "trolling" means. No, wait, I take that back. I don't see you learning anything that you are not permitted to learn by your slave masters.

Parroting what I said to you

I like to work smarter, not harder. You project in most of your posts. I had your verbiage already there ready for me to use, so I just gave you a silent "thank you" and incorporated your projection into my post, saving me time.

Upping the ante with a little photoshopping to add my screenname and avatar to a picture,

Normally, a picture is worth a thousand words. I like to make my pictures worth at least five thousand. I have standards.

Also, I use GIMP, not Photoshop.

You are dedicated to your trade.

I have practiced independent thinking diligently my entire life. I can't do what you do and just let others do my thinking for me. I have become an habitual applicator of critical reasoning; it's my vice.

 

[ZenMode]

Someday you'll learn what "trolling" means. No, wait, I take that back. I don't see you learning anything that you are not permitted to learn by your slave masters.


I like to work smarter, not harder. You project in most of your posts. I had your verbiage already there ready for me to use, so I just gave you a silent "thank you" and incorporated your projection into my post, saving me time.


Normally, a picture is worth a thousand words. I like to make my pictures worth at least five thousand. I have standards.

Also, I use GIMP, not Photoshop.


I have practiced independent thinking diligently my entire life. I can't do what you do and just let others do my thinking for me. I have become an habitual applicator of critical reasoning; it's my vice.

"I have practiced independent thinking diligently my entire life. "

 

[IBDaMann]

Explain to me why corporations always pay for studies that use GW as a known fact

They don't. Explain why you believe they do.

Because your “base facts” are not facts

Learn what facts are.

Why should any rational adult believe in your Global Warming religion? You haven't been able to answer that question.

 

[gfm7175]

All evince has to offer is "Russia Russia Russia" "Putin Putin Putin".

Booooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooring...............................

 

[AProudLefty]

All evince has to offer is "Russia Russia Russia" "Putin Putin Putin".

Booooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooring...............................

Same with "Trump Trump Trump".

And this thread is boring.

 

[AProudLefty]

You only regurgitate this because you are mathematically incompetent. There is no such thing as a "weather pattern" any more than there is a pattern to flipping heads-&-tails. You should give it up while you are miles behind. I specifically requested a definition that does not violate science, math or logic. Yours violates math.

... also you are including "long term" without defining it. Your definition is great for religious doctrine, but is summarily discarded from any consideration in science.


You have not defined "human activities", nor have you defined "Climate Change" beyond being a WACKY religion based on HATRED, manipulation and intolerance.


You have not explained what fuels fossils use, and I am certain that they do not use either coal or hydrocarbons.


Heat cannot be trapped ... by anything. Learn physics.

Your definition is nothing but gibber-babble and is discarded. Your claims are dismissed.


I don't care if it comes from the IPCC, the Vatican or from Mecca, religious dogma has no place in science. No engineers will be using any of your dogma to develop any technology. I reject the faith you are pushing.

Fossil fuels are fuels that once we're alive.