Why Should Anyone Believe in Global Warming?

SYBIL'S LIMP PUD said:
I'M SYCHO SYBIL
ALWAYS TYPING ONE-HANDED
WITH A LIMP LIL' PUD​
​
Click to expand...
Called it!

4d9j9j.gif
4d9j9j.gif
4d9j9j.gif
 
anonymoose said:
Weather does but climate definition is modified by prevailing weather.
Prevailing weather has not changed in any region on the planet since 1884 to my knowledge.
Click to expand...

You might want to look into this more closely. The median predictions from the 90's, not the nonsense you hear in the media, has been basically spot on. There has been a measured increase in global temperatures, an increase in major precipitation events, erc.

Even predictions made in the late 1800s, by Swedish scientists name I can't spell from memory, related to a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere were surprisingly accurate and he had nothing close to the scientific tools/knowledge we have now.
 
ZenMode said:
There has been a measured increase in global temperatures,
Click to expand...
There has never been an accurate measuring of earth's average global temperature to any usable accuracy. Never. Humanity does not have the means. Your religious clergy aren't omniscient like they claim.

Let's jump to the chase. You were told to believe that earth's average global temperature is measured all the time, to within fractions of a degree ... and of course you OBEY and believe as ordered. You never demand to see the valid, undoctored, unmodified raw dataset from which this calculation was supposedly made. You just presumed that all rational adults will regurgitate what you tell them, just as you regurgitated what you were told. You have no idea what to do when you are asked to provide the valid, undoctored, unmodified raw dataset along with the original target margin of error used in the data collection plan. You never bothered to check to verify that the data was valid and that the margin of error fell within the target margin of error. Well, here I am asking that you produce that dataset so I can scrutinize it myself.

So what are you going to do? I'll tell you. You will become totally dishonest and play time-wasting games as a delay tactic. You will scour the internet for any link to any data, and you will post that link hoping to buy time. You will claim that you "provided the data." I will tell you that you need to provide the data for the earth's average global temperature calculation that you claimed and that you are presumably supporting. You will insist that you did. I will tell you that I checked the link and the data you specified was not there. You will pretend to be sarcastic and claim that "of course you're going to have to look for it" and that you aren't going to do my work for me. I will tell you to copy-paste the data into a post in the thread, and that the data should be clearly labelled. You will make one lame excuse after another, amounting to how you aren't capable of copy-pasting. By then it will be completely obvious to everyone that you have no such data, that you never had any such data, that you have never seen any such data, and that you have absolutely no reason for believing that the earth's average global temperature has ever been measured beyond simply OBEYING your thought-masters.

THEN ... you will provide some data. At that point I will have a field day shredding your inability to perform any sort of statistical analysis or to apply any sort of sanity check on the things you have been told to believe. It will be more fun than a barrel of monkeys ... for me, of course.

ZenMode said:
an increase in major precipitation events, erc.
Click to expand...
Nope. There is only a decrease in data as you go back in time. Warmizombies, however, aren't capable of applying any critical reasoning. Your logic will lead to the conclusion that there simply was no weather in prehistoric times.

ZenMode said:
Even predictions made in the late 1800s, by Swedish scientists name I can't spell from memory,
Click to expand...
All of Svante Arrhenius' work has long since been discarded from the body of science. His hypotheses did not stand up to experimental testing.

ZenMode said:
related to a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere were surprisingly accurate
Click to expand...
Nope. They were completely wrong and that's why they are simply not taught in any science class.

Warmizombies never perform their due diligence. You could have performed some independent research to validate what you were being told to believe ... but then again, if you ever were to check the veracity of your religious dogma, you would surely suffer severe repercussions the following time you were bent over furniture.
 
AProudLefty said:
Then you know.
Click to expand...
Once again, you are demonstrating that you are far too cowardly to be specific about anything. You choose to remain totally cryptic so that you can lead with your favorite words, i.e. "I never said ..."

You won't ever make a clear point because it would be very bad for you if you tried. You don't know anything and thus you would be wrong. So go ahead and keep it at the level of "Air is good."
 
IBDaMann said:
Once again, you are demonstrating that you are far too cowardly to be specific about anything. You choose to remain totally cryptic so that you can lead with your favorite words, i.e. "I never said ..."

You won't ever make a clear point because it would be very bad for you if you tried. You don't know anything and thus you would be wrong. So go ahead and keep it at the level of "Air is good."
Click to expand...
Thanks. I was too bewildered by his post to respond with anything.
Maybe…

:cruisewhat:
 
IBDaMann said:
Once again, you are demonstrating that you are far too cowardly to be specific about anything. You choose to remain totally cryptic so that you can lead with your favorite words, i.e. "I never said ..."

You won't ever make a clear point because it would be very bad for you if you tried. You don't know anything and thus you would be wrong. So go ahead and keep it at the level of "Air is good."
Click to expand...

You keep claiming I said things I never did.
 
ZenMode said:
Correct. A blanket is also not a jacket, and if you were even slightly honest, you wouldn't be pretending to not know what the comparison is referencing.
Click to expand...
Still playing word games are you? The atmosphere is not a blanket, jacket, or any other thermal insulator. You are still denying convective, conductive, and radiant heat. You are ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law still.
ZenMode said:
When you've gotta lie, deflect and troll, there's a reason.
Click to expand...
Hilarious. You call theories of science 'lies', 'deflections', and 'trolling'.
ZenMode said:
The reason is that you know you can't backup your claim about the 2nd law.
Click to expand...
I don't have to back up the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It stands quite well on it's own.
ZenMode said:
The reason you can't back it up is because you read/heard some shit from some far right idiot and didn't bother to actually educate yourself. Like I said....
Click to expand...
Science has no politics.
 
anonymoose said:
Weather does but climate definition is modified by prevailing weather.
Prevailing weather has not changed in any region on the planet since 1884 to my knowledge.
Click to expand...

Climate is not weather. A desert climate is always a desert climate even when there are no deserts. A marine climate is always a marine climate even when there are no oceans.
Climate cannot change. There is no value associated with climate that can change. It is purely a subjective description, that's all.
 
anonymoose said:
There are differing definitions of climate depending on the context.
Click to expand...
What context?
anonymoose said:
For example if I say Antarctica has a cold climate do you really think I’m referring to the work force or political climate there?
Click to expand...
It could mean either. In either case, there is no value associated with any climate. Climate has no temperature, no humidity, no barometric pressure, no precipitation measurement, nothing. It is a subjective description only.
anonymoose said:
No, I’m referring to the prevailing weather conditions relative to most of the rest of the planet or to all other continents.
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as a global climate. Climate does not describe a difference of any kind. It is simply a subjective description.
 
ZenMode said:
You might want to look into this more closely. The median predictions from the 90's, not the nonsense you hear in the media, has been basically spot on. There has been a measured increase in global temperatures, an increase in major precipitation events, erc.
Click to expand...
It is not possible to measure the temperature of Earth.
ZenMode said:
Even predictions made in the late 1800s, by Swedish scientists name I can't spell from memory, related to a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere were surprisingly accurate and he had nothing close to the scientific tools/knowledge we have now.
Click to expand...
It is not possible to measure the global atmosphere content of CO2.
 
Into the Night said:
Still playing word games are you? The atmosphere is not a blanket, jacket, or any other thermal insulator. You are still denying convective, conductive, and radiant heat. You are ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law still.

Hilarious. You call theories of science 'lies', 'deflections', and 'trolling'.

I don't have to back up the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It stands quite well on it's own.

Science has no politics.
Click to expand...

giphy.gif


:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top