Why Should Anyone Believe in Global Warming?

[IBDaMann]

Nice try. The question was why we should believe in global warming.

Close. The question is why any rational adult should believe in Global Warming. I'm willing to stipulate that gullible scientific illiterates will obediently believe whatever they are instructed to believe. But rational adults require a rational basis for belief. You, as well as all other warmizombies and climate lemmings, insist that Global Warming is somehow not a WACKY religion and that it is thettled thienth. This places the burden of rational support squarely on your shoulders.

Please commence with your explanation of said rational basis.

The explanation of how certain gasses could contribute to climate change has been explained repeatedly.

The correct spelling is "gases." The word "gasses" is a verb and is what Hitler had done to the Jews.

You used the word "could." That's a foul and gets your argument tossed. There is no could'a/would'a/should'a in science and is not a part of any rational basis. I have mentioned this before.

You have never unambiguously defined "Climate Change" in any way that doesn't violate science or the rules of either math, logic or English grammar. There is currently no rational basis for any rational adult to believe the bizarre, mystical and often hysterically hilarious religious dogma of Climate Change.

Youtube videos demonstrating how CO2 interacts with energy,

... and never explaining the increase in average global equilibrium temperature that serves as the fundamental assumption of your religion, to which you refer as "thettled thienth."

You still have yet to explain your dogmatically mandated doctrine of increasing average global equilibrium temperature without any additional energy, without violating physics. Presently, you are stuck in a persistent semantics-shifting fallacy in which you violate the 1st LoT, then shift to violating Stefan-Boltzmann (while simultaneously announcing that you aren't violating the 1st LoT ... anymore), and when it is pointed out that you are violating Stefan-Boltzmann, you shift to violating the 2nd LoT (while simultaneously announcing that you aren't violating Stefan-Boltzmann ... anymore), and then you shift back to violating one of the other two, then you shift again, and again and again ... ad infinitum. Eventually you will achieve the dishonesty trifecta ... otherwise known as the "warmizombie tri-state" ... whereby you are violating all three at the same time while simultaneously claiming that you aren't violating any of them. I'm already selling tickets to the event.

Your game is that you believe you can just say "That's not true. That's a lie. That's a parlor trick. That doesn't happen. That doesn't exist." etc

Nope. Your game is to continue flailing in your scientific illiteracy and to continue claiming that physics is somehow my mere opinion. This is why you never even get out of the starting gate. You have relegated yourself to simply regurgitating what others tell you to believe.

I could very easily use your approach,

Nope. The moment you declare science to be false without having falsified it, you tip your king.

... and we could go round and round for years.

You are already doing that with your constant semantic-shifting and pivoting.

You say "Climate change violates the first rule of thermodynamics".

Nope. You need to pay attention. I point out that your claim of a temperature increase without additional energy violates thermodynamics.

That's a game I'm not willing to play because your mind is closed by confirmation bias and politics....

Now you are projecting. You won't abandon your religion. I'm not the one telling anyone what to believe. I'm the one asking you and other warmizombies for a rational basis for your WACKY beliefs. All any warmizombie has provided are physics violations, bad math, faulty logic and grammatical errors.

 

[ZenMode]

Close. The question is why any rational adult should believe in Global Warming. I'm willing to stipulate that gullible scientific illiterates will obediently believe whatever they are instructed to believe. But rational adults require a rational basis for belief. You, as well as all other warmizombies and climate lemmings, insist that Global Warming is somehow not a WACKY religion and that it is thettled thienth. This places the burden of rational support squarely on your shoulders.

Please commence with your explanation of said rational basis.


The correct spelling is "gases." The word "gasses" is a verb and is what Hitler had done to the Jews.

You used the word "could." That's a foul and gets your argument tossed. There is no could'a/would'a/should'a in science and is not a part of any rational basis. I have mentioned this before.

You have never unambiguously defined "Climate Change" in any way that doesn't violate science or the rules of either math, logic or English grammar. There is currently no rational basis for any rational adult to believe the bizarre, mystical and often hysterically hilarious religious dogma of Climate Change.


... and never explaining the increase in average global equilibrium temperature that serves as the fundamental assumption of your religion, to which you refer as "thettled thienth."

You still have yet to explain your dogmatically mandated doctrine of increasing average global equilibrium temperature without any additional energy, without violating physics. Presently, you are stuck in a persistent semantics-shifting fallacy in which you violate the 1st LoT, then shift to violating Stefan-Boltzmann (while simultaneously announcing that you aren't violating the 1st LoT ... anymore), and when it is pointed out that you are violating Stefan-Boltzmann, you shift to violating the 2nd LoT (while simultaneously announcing that you aren't violating Stefan-Boltzmann ... anymore), and then you shift back to violating one of the other two, then you shift again, and again and again ... ad infinitum. Eventually you will achieve the dishonesty trifecta ... otherwise known as the "warmizombie tri-state" ... whereby you are violating all three at the same time while simultaneously claiming that you aren't violating any of them. I'm already selling tickets to the event.


Nope. Your game is to continue flailing in your scientific illiteracy and to continue claiming that physics is somehow my mere opinion. This is why you never even get out of the starting gate. You have relegated yourself to simply regurgitating what others tell you to believe.


Nope. The moment you declare science to be false without having falsified it, you tip your king.


You are already doing that with your constant semantic-shifting and pivoting.


Nope. You need to pay attention. I point out that your claim of a temperature increase without additional energy violates thermodynamics.


Now you are projecting. You won't abandon your religion. I'm not the one telling anyone what to believe. I'm the one asking you and other warmizombies for a rational basis for your WACKY beliefs. All any warmizombie has provided are physics violations, bad math, faulty logic and grammatical errors.

Nothing you posted refutes what I said. Neither does parsing my words. Trolling.... gaslighting..... confirmation bias. Different roads to the same destination - you have no ability/desire to have a useful conversation and are wasting my time.

 

[IBDaMann]

Nothing you posted refutes what I said.

Everything you have said has been refuted multiple times each by multiple people.

Neither does parsing my words.

Stupid comment. Parsing words is really the only way to refute words on an internet forum.

You have no ability/desire to have a useful conversation and are wasting bandwidth.

 

[ZenMode]

.

You have no ability/desire to have a useful conversation and are wasting bandwidth.

No I'm not.

 

[IBDaMann]

No I'm not.

Then start engaging in rational conversation.

If you claim an increase in temperature, you are claiming an increase in thermal energy because only thermal energy can provide temperature to matter. You have yet to account for any additional energy. You always imply that said temperature increase just simply happens spontaneously, without any further explanation. Ergo, energy is magically appearing somehow, and you attribute this to CO2.

Your argument is therefore that CO2 creates energy out of nothing, in violation of the 1st LoT, and that this magically created energy is what is responsible for the increase in earth's average global equilibrium temperature.

Of course, every time this is laid out for you, you bitch and moan that you never said this. Yes you did. You claim a temperature increase. You won't ever account for the additional energy needed to cause that temperature increase. You lose.

If you wish to start accounting for that additional energy, the floor is yours. Take it away.

 

[ZenMode]

Then start engaging in rational conversation.

If you claim an increase in temperature, you are claiming an increase in thermal energy because only thermal energy can provide temperature to matter. You have yet to account for any additional energy. You always imply that said temperature increase just simply happens spontaneously, without any further explanation. Ergo, energy is magically appearing somehow, and you attribute this to CO2.

Your argument is therefore that CO2 creates energy out of nothing, in violation of the 1st LoT, and that this magically created energy is what is responsible for the increase in earth's average global equilibrium temperature.

Of course, every time this is laid out for you, you bitch and moan that you never said this. Yes you did. You claim a temperature increase. You won't ever account for the additional energy needed to cause that temperature increase. You lose.

If you wish to start accounting for that additional energy, the floor is yours. Take it away.

"Your argument is therefore that CO2 creates energy out of nothing, in violation of the 1st LoT"

Once again confirming that you have no non-confimation bias understanding of how CO2 and other "greenhouse gases" are believed to cause warming of the earth.

More likely than you not understanding, you're just trolling. It would be baffling, given how many times this has been discussed, that you can still believe it to be true, if with all the inclination toward confirmation bias the world can provide.

 

[IBDaMann]

Once again confirming that you have no non-confimation bias understanding ...

You just finished explaining how you wanted rational conversation, and it turns out you were lying. You're a fucking troll.

I told you what you need to address. Let me know when something changes.

 

[ZenMode]

You just finished explaining how you wanted rational conversation, and it turns out you were lying. You're a fucking troll.

I told you what you need to address. Let me know when something changes.

I don't need to address anything. How CO2 is involved in warming/climate change doesn't violate 1st LoT. If you had taken any time to try to understand the non-confimation bias side of this topic, you would already know that.

You claim to be educated on this topic, yet nearly everything you post says the opposite. Seems to me you are the liar.

 

[IBDaMann]

I don't need to address anything.

Of course not. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you write will be used against you on JPP. You have the right to virtue-signal. If you cannot afford to virtue-signal, guno will be appointed to do so for you. Do you understand these rights as I have told them to you?

How CO2 is involved in warming/climate change doesn't violate 1st LoT.

Once again, you have not unambiguously defined your terms, indicating the religious nature of your beliefs, which nullifies your assertion that any of your dogma has any relevance to science.

If you had taken any time to try to understand

You haven't offered any explanation that doesn't violate science, math, logic, or English grammar.

You claim to be educated on this topic,

Where/when did I make this claim? You certainly can't claim that my questions asking you to clairfy your affirmative claims somehow amount to me claiming to be an expert on your explanations that you have not offered. I am still waiting for you to explain a rational basis for your apparently WACKY, religious beliefs.

 

[ZenMode]

Of course not. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you write will be used against you on JPP. You have the right to virtue-signal. If you cannot afford to virtue-signal, guno will be appointed to do so for you. Do you understand these rights as I have told them to you?


Once again, you have not unambiguously defined your terms, indicating the religious nature of your beliefs, which nullifies your assertion that any of your dogma has any relevance to science.


You haven't offered any explanation that doesn't violate science, math, logic, or English grammar.


Where/when did I make this claim? You certainly can't claim that my questions asking you to clairfy your affirmative claims somehow amount to me claiming to be an expert on your explanations that you have not offered. I am still waiting for you to explain a rational basis for your apparently WACKY, religious beliefs.

Originally Posted by ZenMode View Post
You claim to be educated on this topic,

(You) Where/when did I make this claim?

 

[IBDaMann]

[still nothing to say, not having fully recovered from the blow of learning that his political party totally used him and fed him lies]

Let me know when you find some Global Warming science. Feel free to consult with people who actually knows some science.

 

[ZenMode]

Let me know when you find some Global Warming science. Feel free to consult with people who actually knows some science.

You continue to prove that your "independent thinking" is actually just confirmation bias. In order to be an independent thinker, you have to fully educate yourself on a topic and make a decision based on facts, not just blindly follow the opinion of the political party you like. IF you were truly educated on climate change then you wouldn't be saying most of what you're saying. The same is true about the so-called stolen election. If you only watch Fox News, listen to far right conspiracy theorists and read Gateway Pundit, you're probably going to think all kinds of ridiculous things about the election, also.

 

[IBDaMann]

You continue to prove that your "independent thinking" is actually just confirmation bias.

That's what you are doing. Please direct your attention to your complete lack of any scientific contribution.

In order to be an independent thinker, you have to fully educate yourself on a topic ...

Done. So then what?

IF you were truly educated on climate change then you wouldn't be saying most of what you're saying.

I admit that were I truly indoctrinated into your religion, I wouldn't be saying what I'm saying; instead, I'd be saying what you're saying.

The same is true about the so-called stolen election.

Correct. If I were truly indoctrinated into leftist knee-jerk regurgitation, I'd be screaming whatever crap I was told to believe, as you do.

If you only watch Fox News ..

What if I don't watch Fox News?

... listen to far right conspiracy theorists

You have to admit that you refer to anybody who disagrees with you politically as a "far right conspiracy theorist." I'm probably also a RACIST!, right? Am I also a "homophobe"? ... a misogynist? ... a member of Qanon? Do I eat my young?

 

[ZenMode]

That's what you are doing. Please direct your attention to your complete lack of any scientific contribution.


Done. So then what?


I admit that were I truly indoctrinated into your religion, I wouldn't be saying what I'm saying; instead, I'd be saying what you're saying.


Correct. If I were truly indoctrinated into leftist knee-jerk regurgitation, I'd be screaming whatever crap I was told to believe, as you do.


What if I don't watch Fox News?


You have to admit that you refer to anybody who disagrees with you politically as a "far right conspiracy theorist." I'm probably also a RACIST!, right? Am I also a "homophobe"? ... a misogynist? ... a member of Qanon? Do I eat my young?

Sorry, no hyperbole or gaslighting. Far right are the the science deniers and stolen election believers.

All of the -ist words are just misused political fodder.

Sorry, but you can't claim to be an independent thinker and then claim there's no science behind climate change and believe the election was stolen.

 

[IBDaMann]

Sorry, no hyperbole or gaslighting.

Great! Let's have none of that today.

So, contribute your Global Warming science.

Leftists are the the science deniers and election stealers.

 

[ZenMode]

Great! Let's have none of that today.

So, contribute your Global Warming science.

Leftists are the the science deniers and election stealers.

The science behind climate change has been explained and discussed repeatedly. Those discussions are how I know that you don't have an unbiased understanding of the topic, but are fueled only by confirmation bias.

 

[IBDaMann]

The science behind climate change has been explained and discussed repeatedly.

Nope. You have explained your claims, which have been discussed repeatedly ... because you won't correct a single one of the errors.

I have read every single one of your posts in this thread. Further, I have read every post in this thread. There is no science in this thread supporting Global Warming. This is why you can't ever post a link to any science in this thread.

 

[ZenMode]

Nope. You have explained your claims, which have been discussed repeatedly ... because you won't correct a single one of the errors.

I have read every single one of your posts in this thread. Further, I have read every post in this thread. There is no science in this thread supporting Global Warming. This is why you can't ever post a link to any science in this thread.

Continuing to prove my point...... You claim to be an independent thinker, yet don't already have knowledge of the science behind climate change (which has been explained by multiple posters), yet you are 100% up to speed on the science-denying, far-right views.

Maybe Mike Lindell can explain it to you.

 

[IBDaMann]

... yet don't already have knowledge of the science behind Climate Change

There is no science supporting your religion, as this thread makes abundantly clear.

[/QUOTE]

yet you are 100% up to speed on the science-denying, far-right views.

I have not offered any views. I have made no affirmative arguments. I have simply allowed the scientific method destroy your affirmative religious claims.

[/QUOTE]

Maybe Mike Lindell can explain it to you.

Who is Mike Lindell and why should I care?

 

[ZenMode]

There is no science supporting your religion, as this thread makes abundantly clear.

I have not offered any views. I have made no affirmative arguments. I have simply allowed the scientific method destroy your affirmative religious claims.

[/QUOTE]


Who is Mike Lindell and why should I care?

[/QUOTE]

"There is no science supporting your religion..."

Great, maybe you can explain how a theory that involves energy from the Sun and how it's interacts with the Earth and certain gases and the atmosphere doesn't involve science.

You have offered views. In fact, your signature includes a small portion of the views you have expressed. It's just that you are only knowledgeable on the far right, science denying views so that's all you have to offer.