Why Should Anyone Believe in Global Warming?

Into the Night said:
Science is not scientists. Science is not a paper, book, pamphlet, or website. Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science. Science has no politics and no religion.
There is no 'information' related to so-called 'greenhouse gases'. Climate cannot change. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.
You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. You are still ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
You cannot trap light. You are still ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Click to expand...

Sciece is not a forum. Science is not JustPlainPolitics forum. Your JPP Holy Posts is dismissed as pseudoscience.
 
ZenMode said:
Exxon disputed climate findings for years. Its scientists knew better.
Projections created internally by ExxonMobil starting in the late 1970s on the impact of fossil fuels on climate change were very accurate,
Click to expand...
Let's presume for the moment that I am a rational adult who is not gullible, who does not like to be bent over furniture and reamed up the azz, and who prefers to employ the scientific method whenever possible.

I think back to the 1970s and ... Climate Change simply was not a thing. ExxonMobil was not discussing Climate Change because the religion had not been founded yet. In fact, there was no ExxonMobil until November 1999. Hmmmm. So when I read your incredible headline that was absolutely absurd on its face, I decided to apply the scientific method while reading the article. I looked for included images of internal ExxonMobil documents from the 1970s discussing Climate Change, in an effort to test the null hypothesis and to build credibility for the post. Unfortunately, the article did not include any internal ExxonMobil documents whatsoever.

I have to call boooooolsch't on your entire post.

Dismissed.
 
IBDaMann said:
Let's presume for the moment that I am a rational adult who is not gullible, who does not like to be bent over furniture and reamed up the azz, and who prefers to employ the scientific method whenever possible.

I think back to the 1970s and ... Climate Change simply was not a thing. ExxonMobil was not discussing Climate Change because the religion had not been founded yet. In fact, there was no ExxonMobil until November 1999. Hmmmm. So when I read your incredible headline that was absolutely absurd on its face, I decided to apply the scientific method while reading the article. I looked for included images of internal ExxonMobil documents from the 1970s discussing Climate Change, in an effort to test the null hypothesis and to build credibility for the post. Unfortunately, the article did not include any internal ExxonMobil documents whatsoever.

I have to call boooooolsch't on your entire post.

Dismissed.
Click to expand...

In the same vein, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are boooooooolscht.
 
ZenMode said:
The question is why anyone would believe the claims of two scientists over the totality of information related to greenhouse gases and climate change.
Click to expand...
Wrong wording. Better wording: "The question is why anyone would believe science that falsifies an hypothesis over the sheer quantity of church material supporting the hypothesis?"
ZenMode said:
Lol. So, why do you believe the theory of these two guys rather than all evidence/theories of other scientists?
Click to expand...
Wrong wording. Better wording: So, why do you believe the experimental results of two scientists rather than all the church material offered by my religious clergy?
 
ZenMode said:
Lol. So, why do you believe the theory of these two guys rather than all evidence/theories of other scientists?
Click to expand...

I didn't create the theories that make up the laws of thermodynamics. They are what they are. It doesn't matter who tells them to you. You just choose to ignore them.
You don't get to speak for everyone. You can only speak for you. You are not a scientist, for you deny science.
 
Into the Night said:
I didn't create the theories that make up the laws of thermodynamics. They are what they are. It doesn't matter who tells them to you. You just choose to ignore them.
You don't get to speak for everyone. You can only speak for you. You are not a scientist, for you deny science.
Click to expand...

I don't choose to do anything, especially ignore information.. I did my research on both sides of the of the topic. Did you?
 
Into the Night said:
You seem to think that science is a proof of some kind, or that a theory can be proven True. That is fundamentalism. It is not possible to prove any theory True.
Click to expand...

You are confusing science and the scientific definition of theory with the commonly used laymen use of the term.
 
Flash said:
You are confusing science and the scientific definition of theory with the commonly used laymen use of the term.
Click to expand...
You are babbling. Into the Night is correct and you seem to not know what you are talking about.

By the way, science does not define English words. Who does your thinking for you?
 
IBDaMann said:
You are babbling. Into the Night is correct and you seem to not know what you are talking about.

By the way, science does not define English words. Who does your thinking for you?
Click to expand...

Nope. Science uses theory in a very precise manner. If it is not a proven fact it cannot be part of a theory.
 
Flash said:
You are confusing science and the scientific definition of theory with the commonly used laymen use of the term.
Click to expand...

Word games. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That is all.
A theory is an explanatory argument. That's all.

Don't try to redefine words with word games.
 
Flash said:
Nope. Science uses theory in a very precise manner. If it is not a proven fact it cannot be part of a theory.
Click to expand...

Word games.
Science has no proofs. It is an open functional system. Science is just a set of falsifiable theories. That's all.

Learn what 'fact' means.
 
Flash said:
Nope. Science uses theory in a very precise manner.
Click to expand...
I'm familiar with science, thank you.

Flash said:
If it is not a proven fact it cannot be part of a theory.
Click to expand...
I was correct, as I usually am, that you don't know what you are talking about. This statement has three egregious errors packed into only fourteen words. Let's review:
1. Science is an open functional system. New axioms are added regularly. Nothing is ever proven/confirmed/verified, i.e. tomorrow any model might be shown to be false.
2. You apparently never learned what a "fact" is. You believe it means "universal truth" as though a fact is somehow thettled thienth. It does not. It is simply an assumption accepted by all parties in a discussion.
3. There are no observations or data in any science model. Who does your thinking for you? Really. What "proven facts" are found in E=mc^2?
 
Into the Night said:
Blatant lie. You are ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Blatant lie. You only research your religion.
Click to expand...

Right. I know you are trolling, but I intend to expose that by not allowing you to squirm out of answering anymore questions.

The question is why anyone would believe the claims of two scientists over the totality of information related to greenhouse gases and climate change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top