Why Should Anyone Believe in Global Warming?

[Darkwind]

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?

Well, anyone who does not believe that the planet warms up and cools down over time isn't really rational. This planet has been warming and cooling for billions of years.

The real question you want to ask, is how much has mankind influenced this.

That answer is pretty complex, but the bottom line is, "Not Much".

 

[anonymoose]

Go home, child. You're not ready for the big leagues yet.

This is the big leagues with the likes of TDAK, McSlobber, guano and katshit here???

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

This is the big leagues with the. Likes ok TDAK, McSlobber, guano and match it here???

Does this have meaning to anyone but you?

 

[anonymoose]

Does this have meaning to anyone but you?

kindle fire does a lot of self correcting. See edit.

 

[anonymoose]

Covfefe. (Damn kindle fire!). Must be what Trump uses.

 

[Eagle_Eye]

The real question is: Why should anyone read an idiot who asks "Why Should Anyone Believe in Global Warming?" like it's a religion and not an actual current event.

I believe we have global warming, I'm just not certain how much is really caused by man. We know the earth goes through heating and cooling cycles. I am sure man is having an effect but how much is the real issue.

 

[IBDaMann]

The evidence that we'll burn the world before blowing it up is, as everyone knows, overwhelming.

... and therein lies the grand problem of "evidence." Every individual subjectively determines what he or she accepts as evidence, and then subjectively determines what that evidence supposedly means. The bad news for you is that in the completely objective context of science, Occam's Razor got your evidence thrown out of court.

The Lord, doubtless, has given you some Revelation that goes against all climate science,

You need to capitalize proper nouns, i.e. Climate Science. It's the name of a religious dogma, like Scientology, the Word of God, Q'ran, etc ...

There is no branch of science "Climatology." There is no "Climate" in science and the concept of a global climate is a contradiction in terms. You can verify this by noting that no one has ever unambiguously defined any global climate in any way that doesn't violate physics. There is no science of anything that is undefined.

You're taking BREXIT pretty hard I see.

 

[IBDaMann]

I believe we have global warming, I'm just not certain how much is really caused by man.

The real question you want to ask, is how much has mankind influenced this.

Nope. That is not the question I want to ask. I want to know why any rational adult should believe in Global Warming, a religion based on violations of physics (i.e. miracles) that offers worshipers only anxiety, not hope. Frankly I do not care about assigning human activity percentages to physics violations. I want to know why I should believe in the physics violations in the first place.

And to you specifically, why should any rational adult believe that the earth's average global temperature has changed at all outside of what solar output and earth's proximity (to the sun) would account?

There is no such thing as a Greenhouse Effect in science*. There is no atmospheric composition component to Stefan-Boltzmann. I see no reason to believe in Global Warming.

So I am asking here. Why should any rational adult believe?

*- Greenhouse Effect as a term does not exist in science. Greenhouses do exist in reality and operate on the principle of reducing convection, preventing greenhouses from cooling, causing greenhouse temperatures to increase. This happens in closed cars on hot days. It cannot work on a body surrounded by a vacuum that has no convection to reduce.

 

[Darkwind]

Nope. That is not the question I want to ask. I want to know why any rational adult should believe in Global Warming, a religion based on violations of physics (i.e. miracles) that offers worshipers only anxiety, not hope. Frankly I do not care about assigning human activity percentages to physics violations. I want to know why I should believe in the physics violations in the first place.

And to you specifically, why should any rational adult believe that the earth's average global temperature has changed at all outside of what solar output and earth's proximity (to the sun) would account?

There is no such thing as a Greenhouse Effect in science*. There is no atmospheric composition component to Stefan-Boltzmann. I see no reason to believe in Global Warming.

So I am asking here. Why should any rational adult believe?

*- Greenhouse Effect as a term does not exist in science. Greenhouses do exist in reality and operate on the principle of reducing convection, preventing greenhouses from cooling, causing greenhouse temperatures to increase. This happens in closed cars on hot days. It cannot work on a body surrounded by a vacuum that has no convection to reduce.

Simple. Look at the geological history of the planet.

Specifically, look up the term "Snowball Earth".

It occurred early in the geological evolution of Earth.

You may also want to look into the aftereffects of the global climate when the isthmus of Central America formed and blocked the exchange of water between what is now the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.

 

[IBDaMann]

[nothing value-added]

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

I believe we have global warming, I'm just not certain how much is really caused by man. We know the earth goes through heating and cooling cycles. I am sure man is having an effect but how much is the real issue.

It's really not an issue any more. Most intelligent ppl agree that the data show climate change is real, it's occurring now, and it's having damaging effects on the planet, particularly Arctic regions. Does it matter at this point how much humans have contributed to it?

Not really. What matters is what are we going to do about it. Are we going to keep building in coastal areas? Are we going to plan ahead for future droughts and the draw-down of aquifers that affect our food supply? Are we ready for the migration of humans, other species, and diseases to more hospitable regions? Have we prepared to mitigate the damage caused by increasingly severe weather? Who's gonna pay for that?

Or will we all act like (R)s and pretend it's a hoax like the coronavirus?

 

[Eagle_Eye]

It's really not an issue any more. Most intelligent ppl agree that the data show climate change is real, it's occurring now, and it's having damaging effects on the planet, particularly Arctic regions. Does it matter at this point how much humans have contributed to it?

Not really. What matters is what are we going to do about it. Are we going to keep building in coastal areas? Are we going to plan ahead for future droughts and the draw-down of aquifers that affect our food supply? Are we ready for the migration of humans, other species, and diseases to more hospitable regions? Have we prepared to mitigate the damage caused by increasingly severe weather? Who's gonna pay for that?

Or will we all act like (R)s and pretend it's a hoax like the coronavirus?

The earth will heal it's self just as man will adapt to a new environment if need be. Yes we need to cut green house gases and find cleaner energy sources, but technology takes time and I fear we won't see it in our life times.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

The earth will heal it's self just as man will adapt to a new environment if need be. Yes we need to cut green house gases and find cleaner energy sources, but technology takes time and I fear we won't see it in our life times.

Probably not, that's true. But it doesn't mean that we can't begin doing what needs to be done so that our kids and g-kids don't have to go it alone.

 

[IBDaMann]

Simple. Look at the geological history of the planet.

I don't mean this in any derrogatory manner ... you aren't a scientist. There is no such thing as "geological history" at which anyone can look. Science does not speculate about the past, but humans do. Your speculation about the past clearly differs from mine, and we simply don't have time machines to travel into the past to directly verify anyone's speculation as is required by the scientific method.

What is likely is that you are referring to proxy measures which are summarily discarded in science. Humans, however, tend to not adhere to science requirements, preferring instead to dwell on whatever proxy measures they can argue support their personal speculations ... and then pretend that their speculations are "settled science."

Specifically, look up the term "Snowball Earth".

Specifically look up the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

It occurred early in the geological evolution of Earth.

Let me know when you get a time machine and I'll zip back in time with you to let you show me just how right you are.

You may also want to look into the aftereffects of the global climate ...

You might want to note that "global climate" is a contradiction in terms. A "climate" is a subjective characterization of local conditions. You can't have global-local conditions. You know this because there is no such thing as any weather that is global and there has never been any weather that has occurred globally.

... when the isthmus of Central America formed and blocked the exchange of water between what is now the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.

What you describe is an excellent case study for Darwin's theory of Evolution (as opposed to other theories of Evolution) because there were lobsters living in that region of the ocean at that time, i.e. a population of spiny lobsters that became geographically partitioned into two separate populations that evolved separately. Today these now separate species of lobsters (the caribbean panulirus argus of Bocas del Toro and the Pacific panulirus gracilis of the Bay of Chiriquí found on either side of Panamá near Costa Rica) can be analyzed for their differences.

None of this, however, creates some sort of a global-local weather climate thing.

 

[IBDaMann]

Most intelligent ppl agree that the data show climate change is real,

Scientifically illiterate warmizombies (I know, it's redundant) identify themselves by expressing their mistaken belief that there is somehow a valid dataset supporting the conclusion that some completely undefined religious dogma is somehow real. In so doing, they also express their sheer mathematical incompetence and denial of statistical mathematics ... normally in conjunction with claiming to be a college-educated genius.

Too funny.

... it's occurring now,

... whatever "it" is. ThatOwlCoward clearly isn't smart enough to recognize a WACKY cult religion when staring directly at it. Way too funny.

... and it's having damaging effects on the planet, particularly Arctic regions.

I'll give you three guesses as to who has never been to the Arctic.

Does it matter at this point how much humans have contributed to it?

Does it matter that your religion is defunct? All it's previous funding and resources have been transferred to ANTIFA and more recently, to Black Lives Matter as the darling children of the left. Your Global Warming has been left out in the cold (pun intended). Nobody cares about your fear-mongering over a non-existent religious deity. You'll have to have you anxiety attacks on your own.

What matters is what are we going to do about it.

"We"? How about we do nothing and watch how nothing continues to happen? Just for grits-and-shins, what does your delusional snowflake mind believe is happening? Oh, that's right, you're too much of a coward to reveal that little embarrassing handicap of yours. Don't worry, I won't tell anyone.

Are we going to keep building in coastal areas?

Did you just ask if we were going to continue developing prime real estate? What does your super-genius college education tell you?

Have we prepared to mitigate the damage caused by increasingly severe weather?

Buy insurance, perhaps? ... like everyone else? Did you have something else in mind? Oh wait! Yes you do. Of course! We can mitigate the damage caused by increasingly severe weather by dismantling capitalsim worldwide and by imposing insufferable taxes on all of humanity! Why didn't that occur to me I see that right away?

Who's gonna pay for that?

I naturally presumed that you were offering to pay for it. Isn't that why you raised the point of order?

Or will we all act like (R)s and pretend it's a hoax like the coronavirus?

Or will we act like (R)s and pretend that Bigfoot is a hoax like the Loch Ness monster?

You are as bright as Krubera Cave.

Just out of curiosity, how much did you pay for your college degree?


.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Like your other socks, unread and uncared. lol

This message is hidden because IBDaMann is on your ignore list.

 

[Mason Melchizedek]

The earth will heal it's self just as man will adapt to a new environment if need be. Yes we need to cut green house gases and find cleaner energy sources, but technology takes time and I fear we won't see it in our life times.

FYI,how would I have adapted to living in Toledo during the ice age?The ice was two miles thick.

 

[Mason Melchizedek]

Probably not, that's true. But it doesn't mean that we can't begin doing what needs to be done so that our kids and g-kids don't have to go it alone.

They're SOL!

 

[IBDaMann]

This message is hidden because IBDaMann is your secret obsession.

 

[Iolo/Penderyn]

... and therein lies the grand problem of "evidence." Every individual subjectively determines what he or she accepts as evidence, and then subjectively determines what that evidence supposedly means. The bad news for you is that in the completely objective context of science, Occam's Razor got your evidence thrown out of court.


You need to capitalize proper nouns, i.e. Climate Science. It's the name of a religious dogma, like Scientology, the Word of God, Q'ran, etc ...

There is no branch of science "Climatology." There is no "Climate" in science and the concept of a global climate is a contradiction in terms. You can verify this by noting that no one has ever unambiguously defined any global climate in any way that doesn't violate physics. There is no science of anything that is undefined.

You're taking BREXIT pretty hard I see.

I tend to listen to climatologists, kid, and note the evidence of my senses.. What the buggery the last lot is about is lost in American Nazi psychology, its meaning beyond normal guesswork.