Why Should Anyone Believe in Global Warming?

[IBDaMann]

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.

Too easy. The theory you mention is devoid of science, just as the Nicene Creed is devoid of science. Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.

You have offered views. In fact, your signature includes a small portion of the views you have expressed.

Explaining a violation of physics is not a "view" any more than explaining the Pythagorean theorem is somehow an opinion. I have not made any affirmative claims.

 

[ZenMode]

Too easy. The theory you mention is devoid of science, just as the Nicene Creed is devoid of science. Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.

Despite your repeated attempts, which I've called out multiple times, you can't make things true just by saying them over and over and over and over....

Explaining a violation of physics is not a "view" any more than explaining the Pythagorean theorem is somehow an opinion. I have not made any affirmative claims.

The problem is that you don't understand the science so you don't actually explain anything. You just keep making unsupported statements over and over and over. I did a list of some of them if you'd like me to dig it up to refresh your memory.

 

[IBDaMann]

... you can't make things true just by saying them over and over and over and over....

Great news! Nobody needs to make science true. Nobody can make science true. Rational people go with science until it is shown to be false, whether it is cited only once or is cited over and over and over.

The problem is that you don't understand the science

Your use of the definite article "the" gives you and your religion away. I understand science. You, on the other hand, worship The Science, which is just your name for your religious dogma.

You are scientifically illiterate and scientifically incompetent. You are not qualified to judge anyone else's acumen in either science or math, yet you judge one's proficiency in physics by the extent to which one agrees with you politically and to which one believes as you worship.

This thread remains devoid of any science supporting Global Warming or Climate Change. All science in this thread runs counter to your religious dogma.

You just keep making unsupported statements over and over and over.

How many times have you repeated this for your own benefit, i.e. to help you self-delude? I have made no affirmative claims; I have only requested Global Warming and Climate Change science. You, on the other hand, affirmatively claim Global Warming and Climate Change, and you can't support any of it whatsoever. In fits of rage, you try unsuccessfully to blame me for your confusion and scientific illiteracy.

I did a list of some of them if you'd like me to dig it up to refresh your memory.

Do whatever you feel you need to do to defend your religion. I would greatly prefer you post science that we can discuss.

 

[ZenMode]

Do whatever you feel you need to do to defend your religion. I would greatly prefer you post science that we can discuss.

You don't. If you had any interest in actually being an independent thinker, you would have already made an effort to understand both sides of the discussion. It is clear you have not. You refer to a belief that climate change could be true as a religious belief. The derogatory intention is clear. You had no actual understanding of how climate change is believed to work, which is why it had to be explained to you repeatedly. In stead, you regurgitate far-right talking points on the topic of climate change and the "stolen" election.... that wasn't stolen.

 

[IBDaMann]

If you had any interest in actually being an independent thinker, you would have already made an effort to understand both sides of the discussion.

As I have mentioned many times, your problem is your belief that science is a subjective, religious matter with many "sides." Science is purely objective and has only one side. This other "side" you mention does not exist except in your WACKY religion.

You refer to a belief that climate change could be true as a religious belief.

Nope, the opposite. I have thoroughly explained why your religious belief is false and cannot be true. Science kills your belief dead.

The derogatory intention is clear.

Gotcha! You clearly view science as being subjective, specifically "derogatory." This is your great hurdle to overcoming your confusion.

You had no actual understanding of how climate change is believed to work

You are scientifically illiterate and mathematically incompetent. You have no idea how your religious beliefs violate physics, even when it is explained to you in detail.

In stead, you regurgitate far-right talking points on the topic of climate change

Science doesn't have any political talking points. You think science is a subjective, religio-political matter.

 

[ZenMode]

As I have mentioned many times, your problem is your belief that science is a subjective, religious matter with many "sides." Science is purely objective and has only one side. This other "side" you mention does not exist except in your WACKY religion.


Nope, the opposite. I have thoroughly explained why your religious belief is false and cannot be true. Science kills your belief dead.


Gotcha! You clearly view science as being subjective, specifically "derogatory." This is your great hurdle to overcoming your confusion.


You are scientifically illiterate and mathematically incompetent. You have no idea how your religious beliefs violate physics, even when it is explained to you in detail.


Science doesn't have any political talking points. You think science is a subjective, religio-political matter.

Science isn't generally subjective. You repeatedly pounded on the 1st LoT, which already proved my belief that you are not educated on the science of climate change. Anyone that was educated on the science would already know how the energy from the Sun is accounted for.

You continue to not only embarrass yourself, but prove me right over and over.

 

[IBDaMann]

Science isn't generally subjective.

Are you claiming that science is sometimes subjective?

You repeatedly pounded on the 1st LoT,

Nope. I repeatedly cited the 1st LoT. Nobody gets to pound on it. Each and every time you violate the 1st LoT, you should expect someone to cite it and to point out that you are violating it.

... which already proved my belief that you are not educated on the science of climate change.

... which already proved that you are a scientifically illiterate adult who doesn't know what science even is.

Anyone that was educated on the science

There is no science supporting your religious faith, i.e. there is no The Science. All anyone has to do to spot the fakery is to notice the word "the" preceding the word "science."

... would already know how the energy from the Sun is accounted for.

The leaves you still needing to account for the additional energy that causes the temperature increase when there is specifically no additional energy being created. You have never explained this or accounted for the coming into existence of this additional energy in the form of a spontaneous temperature increase.

You continue to not only embarrass yourself, but prove me right over and over.

If my embarrassing you is embarrassing myself, I'm happy to embarrass myself all day, all week.

 

[ZenMode]

Are you claiming that science is sometimes subjective?

The interpretation of the data/information can be subjective, yes.

Nope. I repeatedly cited the 1st LoT. Nobody gets to pound on it. Each and every time you violate the 1st LoT, you should expect someone to cite it and to point out that you are violating it.

Right. You repeatedly cite it incorrectly. This is what I have said multiple times - you think you can say something and make it true. If you say "Climate Change violates the 1st LoT" enough time, somehow it changes reality. There is no energy being created and, again, if you actually understood the science of CC, you wouldn't be repeating a false claim over and over and over.

... which already proved that you are a scientifically illiterate adult who doesn't know what science even is.

I've got some bad news for you....

There is no science supporting your religious faith, i.e. there is no The Science. All anyone has to do to spot the fakery is to notice the word "the" preceding the word "science."

Right, so to clarify again, because I've also called this out at least once in the most recent conversation, you believe that explaining how the the energy radiating from the earth's surface interacts with specific gases in the atmosphere is NOT in the purview of science.

The leaves you still needing to account for the additional energy that causes the temperature increase when there is specifically no additional energy being created. You have never explained this or accounted for the coming into existence of this additional energy in the form of a spontaneous temperature increase.

Once again proving that you have no understanding of the topic beyond confirmation bias. This has been covered repeatedly. If you want to understand it, you can put in the time to educate yourself.

If my embarrassing you is embarrassing myself, I'm happy to embarrass myself all day, all week.

 

[Into the Night]

Despite your repeated attempts, which I've called out multiple times, you can't make things true just by saying them over and over and over and over....

You are describing yourself again.

The problem is that you don't understand the science so you don't actually explain anything.

You are describing yourself again.

You just keep making unsupported statements over and over and over.

You are describing yourself again.

I did a list of some of them if you'd like me to dig it up to refresh your memory.

You listed your own problems. You cannot project YOUR problems on IBDaMann or anybody else, Sock.

 

[Into the Night]

The interpretation of the data/information can be subjective, yes. Right.

There is no data. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. Neither any theory of science nor any data is subjective.

You repeatedly cite it incorrectly.

You are describing yourself.

This is what I have said multiple times

You cannot falsify any theory of science by repeating yourself.

- you think you can say something and make it true.

You are describing yourself again.

If you say "Climate Change violates the 1st LoT" enough time, somehow it changes reality.

Climate cannot change. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are attempting to ignore the 1st law of thermodynamics again.

There is no energy being created

Then there is no temperature increase. It's gotta be one or the other, Sock.

and, again, if you actually understood the science of CC,

There isn't any.

you wouldn't be repeating a false claim over and over and over.

You are describing yourself again.

I've got some bad news for you.... Right, so to clarify again, because I've also called this out at least once in the most recent conversation, you believe that explaining how the the energy radiating from the earth's surface interacts with specific gases in the atmosphere is NOT in the purview of science.

You cannot trap light. You are now ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Once again proving that you have no understanding of the topic beyond confirmation bias.

Theories of science are not 'confirmation bias'. You are describing yourself again. Fundamentalism, such as in the Church of Global Warming, is nothing BUT confirmation bias.

This has been covered repeatedly.

You cannot make anything true by repeating yourself.

If you want to understand it, you can put in the time to educate yourself.

He understands the 1st law of thermodynamics, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and the Stefan-Boltzmann law far better than you do. You deny all of these theories of science.

* It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, the global atmospheric content of CO2, the global sea level, the total snow and ice on Earth, the temperature of the oceans, the pH of the oceans, etc.
* It is not possible to create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics: E(t+1) = E(t) - U where 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work.
* It is not possible to heat the surface of Earth using a colder gas. It is not possible to trap heat. It is not possible to decrease entropy...ever. e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy and 't' is time. You keep ignoring this.
* It is not possible to trap light. You are still ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law: r = C*e*t^4 where 'r' is radiance, 'C' is a natural constant, 'e' is a measured constant, and 't' is temperature. If temperature increases for ANY reason, radiance goes UP, not down!

No gas or vapor has the capability to magickally create energy out of nothing, reduce entropy, or trap energy in any way.

 

[ZenMode]

You are describing yourself again.

You are describing yourself again.

You are describing yourself again.

You listed your own problems. You cannot project YOUR problems on IBDaMann or anybody else, Sock.

The king of "I think I can make things true just by saying them" is back in full force with four big swings and misses

 

[ZenMode]

There is no data. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. Neither any theory of science nor any data is subjective.

You are describing yourself.

You cannot falsify any theory of science by repeating yourself.

You are describing yourself again.

Climate cannot change. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are attempting to ignore the 1st law of thermodynamics again.

Then there is no temperature increase. It's gotta be one or the other, Sock.

There isn't any.

You are describing yourself again.

You cannot trap light. You are now ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Theories of science are not 'confirmation bias'. You are describing yourself again. Fundamentalism, such as in the Church of Global Warming, is nothing BUT confirmation bias.

You cannot make anything true by repeating yourself.

He understands the 1st law of thermodynamics, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and the Stefan-Boltzmann law far better than you do. You deny all of these theories of science.

* It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, the global atmospheric content of CO2, the global sea level, the total snow and ice on Earth, the temperature of the oceans, the pH of the oceans, etc.
* It is not possible to create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics: E(t+1) = E(t) - U where 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work.
* It is not possible to heat the surface of Earth using a colder gas. It is not possible to trap heat. It is not possible to decrease entropy...ever. e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy and 't' is time. You keep ignoring this.
* It is not possible to trap light. You are still ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law: r = C*e*t^4 where 'r' is radiance, 'C' is a natural constant, 'e' is a measured constant, and 't' is temperature. If temperature increases for ANY reason, radiance goes UP, not down!

No gas or vapor has the capability to magickally create energy out of nothing, reduce entropy, or trap energy in any way.

 

[Into the Night]

The king of "I think I can make things true just by saying them" is back in full force with four big swings and misses

You are describing yourself again, Sock. You cannot project YOUR problems on me or anybody else.

 

[Into the Night]

You are describing yourself again, Sock. You cannot project YOUR problems on anybody else.

 

[IBDaMann]

The interpretation of the data/information can be subjective, yes.

There is no data in science. We've been over this. There is no data in science, therefore there is no data interpretation in science.

Where do you imagine is the data in "E = m * c^2 "?

Right. You repeatedly cite it incorrectly.

What are you claiming is the 1st LoT if not the law of conservation of energy? Are you saying that you don't understand the concept of "concervation of energy"?

If you say "Climate Change violates the 1st LoT" enough time, somehow it changes reality.

You are lying again, surprise, surprise. Every time I point out that you violate the 1st LoT, I provide a specific explanation. You are intentionally mischaracterizing my analyses to appear as though I somehow never provide any explanation. Anyone can read my signature and see that I am clear and explicit.

You are a liar.

There is no energy being created and, again, if you actually understood [the doctrine of] The Science

You are a liar and you are lying right here. Your claim is a magical creation of energy out of nothing, which you describe as a spontaneous increase in earth's average global equilibrium temperature. If you weren't completely scientifically illiterate, you'd be aware that claiming an increase in temperature is claiming an increase in energy ... and you still have not accounted for this additional energy. As far as you have explained (over and over and over and over ...) is that the additional energy appears magically out of nowhere.

You lose ... and you are still a liar.

you believe that explaining how the the energy radiating from the earth's surface interacts with specific gases

ZenMode Error: Earth is surrounded by a vacuum. Energy radiating from earth cannot interact with any gases. If you weren't so scientifically illiterate, you'd know what a vacuum is.

 

[ZenMode]

There is no data in science. We've been over this. There is no data in science, therefore there is no data interpretation in science.

So, let's look at neuroscience, aka neural science. When a neuroscientist is studying brain activity using FMRI and they're measuring/tracking/collecting brain activity across multiple subjects, that's not actually data?

When multiple neuroscientists look at that data or the FMRI info to try to understand what it means, and they're trying to separate brain signals from "noise" and different neuroscientists interpret that ifo differently, there's no subjectivity in that?

 

[IBDaMann]

So, let's look at neuroscience, aka neural science.

ZenMode Error: You can't make something science by declaring it so. Once again, you need to learn what science is. Here you are pretending that you are about to discuss science, and you are instead about to discuss "interpreting data." At no point will you even mention any science. How can you? You don't even know what science is. Let's examine more closely.

When a [person, singular] is studying [data] and [persons, plural] are [making observations] across multiple subjects, that's not actually data?

It's not science.

When multiple [people] look at that [data/information] to try to [interpret the data/information] and different [people] interpret that [data/information] differently, there's no subjectivity in that?

There is subjectivity. It's not science.

You haven't mentioned any science. You don't know what science is. You are doomed to a lifetime of people raking you over the coals for sport. It is quite entertaining. Imagine how much of a downer it would be for me and others if you were to actually cease to be scientifically illiterate and mathematically incompetent. Until then, it's party, party party.

 

[ZenMode]

ZenMode Error: You can't make something science by declaring it so.

You have that backwards. YOU can't make science not science by declaring it not to be. The same is true with alllllll of the other declarations you and Into the Night try to make as it relates to climate change. Neither of you can alter reality by typing words on this forum.... and no it doesn't matter how many times you repeat your declaration, it doesn't change reality.

However, none of this is surprising. The far right is the party of science denial.

Here are some of the other declarations that do not change reality. I say some because there are many more:

- climate can't change
- CO2 can't trap light
- Temperature can't be measured from a distance (except when it can)
- the Earth's temperature can't be measured
- CO2 levels in the atmosphere can't be measured
- the temperature of Venus is unknown
- there aren't enough temperature stations
- temperature stations aren't spaced correctly
- temperature stations aren't read at the right intervals
- temperature stations aren't read by the right people
- all of the experiments showing how CO2 interacts with infrared energy are parlor tricks

 

[Into the Night]

So, let's look at neuroscience, aka neural science. When a neuroscientist is studying brain activity using FMRI and they're measuring/tracking/collecting brain activity across multiple subjects, that's not actually data?

Not science. Science is not data.

When multiple neuroscientists look at that data or the FMRI info to try to understand what it means, and they're trying to separate brain signals from "noise" and different neuroscientists interpret that ifo differently, there's no subjectivity in that?

Then there is no data. If you have to extract 'data' out of 'noise', there is no data.
Science is not data. Science is not observations or data collection. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all.

 

[Into the Night]

You have that backwards. YOU can't make science not science by declaring it not to be.

LIF. Grow up. You cannot blame YOUR problems on anybody else, Sock.

The same is true with alllllll of the other declarations you and Into the Night try to make as it relates to climate change.

Climate cannot change.

Neither of you can alter reality by typing words on this forum....

You don't know what 'reality' is or how it's defined. Buzzword fallacy.

and no it doesn't matter how many times you repeat your declaration, it doesn't change reality.

You are describing yourself again, Sock.

However, none of this is surprising. The far right is the party of science denial.

You are describing yourself again, Sock. You cannot blame the 'far right' for YOUR problems.

Here are some of the other declarations that do not change reality. I say some because there are many more:

Thanks for the list.

- climate can't change

Correct. It can't change. Climate has no values associated with that can 'change'. It has no temperature, no wind speed, no rain gauge, NOTHING.

- CO2 can't trap light

It can't. While it absorbs infrared light (like most any substance), it also EMITS infrared light. It cannot trap light.

- Temperature can't be measured from a distance (except when it can)

It can't.

- the Earth's temperature can't be measured

It can't.

- CO2 levels in the atmosphere can't be measured

It can't.

- the temperature of Venus is unknown

Correct.

- there aren't enough temperature stations

Correct.

- temperature stations aren't spaced correctly

Correct.

- temperature stations aren't read at the right intervals

Correct.

- temperature stations aren't read by the right people

Incorrect. Temperature stations are not read at the same time by the same authority.

- all of the experiments showing how CO2 interacts with infrared energy are parlor tricks

They are not experiments. They are parlor tricks.

You cannot create energy out of nothing, Sock. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.
You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas, Sock. You are still ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
You cannot trap light, Sock. You are still ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
You cannot measure the temperature of the Earth, Sock. There are nowhere near enough thermometers, they are not equally spaced (required to eliminate bias), and they are not read at the same time by the same authority (required to eliminate bias). You are denying statistical mathematics again.