Into the Night
Verified User
RQAA.
Why Should Anyone Believe in Global Warming?
- Thread starter IBDaMann
- Start date
RQAA.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
You've already been told countless times. Read the prior posts within this thread. Being told yet another time isn't going to do anyone any good.
Into the Night
Verified User
You are not defining any words. You are playing word games.
Into the Night
Verified User
RQAA.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Idk... you tell me.
Actually, I do know. The answer is never. Your physics-denying faith is much more important to you than science is.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
You would think that someone who ardently professes these beliefs would have no problem answering these questions directly, clearly and succinctly. They are, after all, simple "yes/no" questions about what he is claiming.
One has to wonder why he is being EVASIVE on what he believes. Actually, it isn't any wonder. He fully realizes that logic destroys his dogma, so he can no longer afford to state it. Imagine if he were to refer to an increase in temperature as the increase in thermal energy that it is. Imagine him stating that greenhouse gas causes an increase in thermal energy, but it's not causing any energy to be created out of nothing. Hmmmm.
You are doing the right thing by continuing to ask him to answer those questions. Each and every time he EVADES, he reminds the board that he is totally lying, and he knows it. The one thing that he is not permitted to do is to admit his error because then he would be stabbing all the other warmizombies in the back by stating that all of them are in error as well, and he would likely suffer reprisals.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
I am free to answer any questions I wish, and to ignore any questions I wish. Feel free to start answering my questions.
Start with these:
Do you insist that the earth's average global temperature is increasing?
Do you insist that greenhouse gas causes this increase in temperature?
ZenMode
Well-known member
In your world, using the correct words to describe what you're trying to say is playing word games. Interesting.
ZenMode
Well-known member
It's not about burden of proof or absolute certainty. It's about if there is reason to believe. Thus far, nobody has come remotely close to showing that climate change violates the 1st or 2nd law of thermodynamics. Well, so far nobody has even tried to discuss the 2nd Law.... or the (mis)understanding of the 2nd law which, if it operated as people here believe, would mean that blankets and jackets wouldn't work.
BTW, we all know jackets and blankets work, so.......
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Remember that you are scientifically illiterate, mathematically incompetent and logically inept, and that you have no idea what the correct words are. You phrase all questions and statements per the erroneous dogma of your WACKY, thermodynamics-defying religion. You probably think the ocean is "acidifying." You deny the daytime side of the moon. You have been pulling the rug out from under your own arguments since you started defending your faith. Other members of your congregation probably wish you would just shut up. You make a mockery of the religion.
Into the Night
Verified User
More word games. Won't work, dude.
Into the Night
Verified User
Yes it is. He correctly called this fallacy.
Random phrase ignored.
Why should anyone believe your religion?
Climate cannot change.
2nd law of thermodynamics: e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy and 't' is time. Blankets and jackets work by reducing heat. RQAA
Not the way YOU describe. It is not possible to trap heat. You still don't know what heat is.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
You just described religion. Thank you.
Correct. Thus far, only Global Warming and greenhouse effect have been shown to violate thermodynamics and Stefan-Boltzmann.
* It will be an easy matter to explain how Climate Change violates the 1st law of thermodynamics when we get to the topic of "forcings."
* It will be an easy matter to explain how Climate Change violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics when we get to the topic of "feedbacks."
* It will be an easy matter to explain how Climate Change violates the every aspect of chemistry when we get to the topic of "ocean acidification."
* It will be an easy matter to explain how Climate Change violates statistical math and the scientific method when we get to the topics of "average global temperature," "sea level rise," "average ocean pH level" and "average atmospheric CO2 level."
Let me know when you are ready.
Incorrect. Many have tried to teach you, but you have your fingers in your ears screaming "I can't hear you! I can't hear you! I can't hear you! ..." so that you don't have to answer any difficult questions that expose you for the gullible, scientifically illiterate moron that you are for having fallen to a Marxist scam that aimed at bending you over furniture.
You are the scientifically illiterate one who has no clue what any of the laws of thermodynamics means, as you have amply demonstrated for all to read.
It has been clearly explained to you multiple times. You either pretend to not read those posts or you really are too stupid to learn. Either way, you are the one who hasn't learned the material, despite the best efforts of others to teach you.
ZenMode
Well-known member
lol.... correctly using the English language is also word games? "Interesting".
ZenMode
Well-known member
"Incorrect. Many have tried to teach you,"
Yes, you've tried to teach me the completely flawed understanding of the 2nd Law. I'm not sure why I'd be open to being taught something that is wrong.
"It has been clearly explained to you multiple times. You either pretend to not read those posts or you really are too stupid to learn."
No, it hasn't. Any "clear" and accurate explanation would be included with the realization that specific posters here are wrong.
According to the (flawed) understanding of the 2nd Law, blankets wouldn't make people feel warm in a cold room. We all know that is incorrect and, as such, the understanding of the 2nd Law is simply wrong.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Yes it is. You attempted to shift your burden of proof onto me. You've also made it about burden of proof because you keep trying to jam your physics-denying religion down my throat, pretending that it is "science" when it is anything BUT science.
If you wish to convince me to accept your religion as True, then the burden of proof is absolutely YOURS. Additionally, I WILL have numerous questions about it as claims are made, and in order to convince me, those questions MUST be answered. These questions are good ones to start out with:
Do you insist that the earth's average global temperature is increasing?
Do you insist that greenhouse gas causes this increase in temperature?
Great. You've now admitted that your views are religious in nature.
Why should any rational adult believe that earth's average global temperature is increasing?
Why should any rational adult believe that 'greenhouse gas' exists and is causing said increase in temperature?
This is ZenMode right now ---->
You don't sound any different than the (s)election deniers who keep falsely insisting that there is "NO EVIDENCE" of election fraud...
Doing this:
does not make thermodynamics go away... or stefan boltzmann... or planck... or mathematics... or logic... or all the other things that rational people accept and crazed fundamentalist lunatics deny...Continued
and ...Continued RQAA ...
Last edited:
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Nope. You are officially a science denier.
It's not wrong. You are simply declaring it to be wrong because you have opted to become a science denier rather than lose your religious faith that violates thermodynamics. I totally get it. There's something about physics violations that gives warmizombies a combined adrenaline/dopamine/serotonin rush to which they have become severely addicted. This is why your religion is practically nothing but physics violations. Those aspects that do not violate physics instead violate math and logic.
Yes it has, many times. You have become so accustomed to simply declaring how you wish reality were that you forgot that all of the posts are still available for all to read.
Not according to any explanation that you have offered or to any question that you have answered. You have contributed nothing to the conversation but physics violations, bad math and poor logic.
You are the one who doesn't understand that blankets and coats reduce heat. You are the one who is engaging in this distraction because you can't face the egregious problems with your extremely stupid religious dogma.
ZenMode
Well-known member
Absolute certainty isn't a random phrase any more than 'ambient cold' is a random phrase. Both have meaning and i'm using both intentionally.
Climate can change. If the Earth's atmosphere vanished tonight, the Earth's climate would change dramatically.
The reason jackets work is because they, to varying degrees depending on the construction of the jacket, slow the transfer of the body's energy to the cooler atmospheric air. The transfer of the body's energy/heat away from the body toward the atmosphere IS the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics at work.
This is exactly what the atmosphere does with energy from the earth's surface. It acts like a blanket or jacket. It not only slows how quickly infrared light from the earth is carried away by the cooler atmosphere but so-called greenhouse gases actually redirect some of the energy back toward the earth. As greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increase, that redirecting becomes more prevalent and less net energy escapes.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is constantly at work. Energy flows from the Sun, to the Earth and back continually. There is no violation of either the first or second law of thermodynamics in the explanation of climate change.
Last edited:
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
There's that word again..........
Mathematical equations (e.g. laws of thermodynamics, stefan boltzmann law, etc.) don't give a fuck about your feelings.
IBDaMann already got into this a bit with you, but I'll give you another example of my own. A number of years ago at work, my coworker and I were doing our accounting work and a female coworker walked into our area of the office and said "ughhhh, it's soooo hot". We both felt just fine. Not five minutes later, another female coworker walked into our area of the office and said "brrrrr, it's sooooo cold".
It was effectively the same temperature in that location of the room over those five minutes... the body temperature of each person was still being regulated... yet one woman felt "cold", one woman felt "hot", and us two men felt "juuuuust right".
"Feeling" is not thermal energy. Blankets work by reducing the flow of thermal energy. They especially work great whenever a warm blooded living breathing human is underneath them. But try putting a blanket over a rock and see what happens.......
Do you insist that the earth's average global temperature is increasing?
Do you insist that greenhouse gas causes this increase in temperature?
Last edited:
ZenMode
Well-known member
"Blankets work by reducing the flow of thermal energy."
Bingo. Now read my post above regarding the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.