Why Should Anyone Believe in Global Warming?

[Dutch Uncle]

I'm familiar with science, thank you.

Mantra 61 Bovine Excrement

Mantra 1a.

Mantra 4a.

One of the "miscellaneous" documents on that site is Into the Night's mantra list.

 

[gfm7175]

The claim of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics conflicting with the greenhouse gas theory of climate change was the claim of two scientists.
Two TOTAL scientists. Gerlich and Tscheuschner. They wrote a lengthy paper which, when peer reviewed, was basically debunked. That's how science works. A paper is published, other scientists review it and point out errors or omissions.

Science is not a paper. Science is not peer review.

The question is why anyone would believe the claims of two scientists over the totality of information related to greenhouse gases and climate change.

Wouldn't the "totality of information" (meaningless buzzwords are not information btw) INCLUDE the claims of the "two scientists"?

 

[gfm7175]

Lol. So, why do you believe the theory of these two guys rather than all evidence/theories of other scientists?

It's not about people.

It's about the theories themselves and their formalization into mathematics, which is called a "law". It's about those laws continuing to survive null hypothesis testing.

You have been presented with the relevant mathematical formulas themselves (the laws of thermodynamics, the stefan boltzmann law, etc)...

THAT'S what this is about (science)... not people (religious leaders). Stay focused.

 

[ZenMode]

It's not about people.

It's about the theories themselves and their formalization into mathematics, which is called a "law". It's about those laws continuing to survive null hypothesis testing.

You have been presented with the relevant mathematical formulas themselves (the laws of thermodynamics, the stefan boltzmann law, etc)...

THAT'S what this is about (science)... not people (religious leaders). Stay focused.

Right. i've been presented with the theory of two German scientists, who's research and claims were repeatedly debunked in the science community.

So, if it's not about confirmation bias, why do you believe the claims/theories of these two scientists and not the majority of the science community that disagrees with them?

 

[gfm7175]

I don't choose to do anything,

This I wholeheartedly believe. You bend over furniture and receive rectal punishment from your mind masters because they demand that you obey their every command. You are not allowed the ability to CHOOSE, only to OBEY.

especially ignore information..

You have ignored a whole plethora of questions about your claimed mechanisms for a "warming Earth" (because those questions, if answered honestly, conclude with your claimed mechanisms of a "warming Earth" being falsified, which opposes your religious belief that the Earth is warming).

You also ignore the relevant mathematical equations themselves (because those equations, if studied and correctly applied, conclude with your claimed mechanisms of a "warming Earth" being falsified, which opposes your religious belief that the Earth is warming).

I did my research on both sides of the of the topic. Did you?

What do you mean "both sides"?? I have researched the authoritative source on the matter, which is the laws of science themselves (aka the relevant mathematical equations), and I have come to the conclusion that your claims stand in direct opposition to those laws, thus I see no reason to believe your claims.

 

[gfm7175]

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.

Because those two scientists aren't ignoring or bastardizing the relevant laws of science that you hate because they directly falsify your mind masters' proposed mechanisms for "Earth's increasing temperature", thus exposing your religion for the wacky physics-denial that it is?

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Because those two scientists aren't ignoring or bastardizing the relevant laws of science that you hate because they directly falsify your mind masters' proposed mechanisms for "Earth's increasing temperature", thus exposing your religion for the wacky physics-denial that it is?

These "proposed mechanisms" of earth's increasing temperature are EXTREMELY WELL KNOWN and not controversial in the least. In fact it is BECAUSE OF THESE PROPOSED MECHANISM that the surface of the earth is habitable by humans. Without greenhouse gases "trapping heat" near the surface, the surface temperature of the earth would be about 30degC COLDER than it is on average.

This is from the Stefan-Boltzmann equation calculating the black body temperature of the solid earth.

The atmosphere is largely made up of non-Greenhouse gases like N2 and O2 which have very limited to no absorption of IR capability. So without CO2 and H2O and CH4 and a few odd others the surface of the earth would be much colder.

Why would we expect it to be different if we add MORE OF THESE COMPONENTS?

 

[ZenMode]

Because those two scientists aren't ignoring or bastardizing the relevant laws of science

Circular reasoning. You're claiming their science is right because you believe their science is right.

How do you know they're right if you haven't educated yourself on the opposing views?

 

[gfm7175]

Right. i've been presented with the theory of two German scientists, who's research and claims were repeatedly debunked in the science community.

So, if it's not about confirmation bias, why do you believe the claims/theories of these two scientists and not the majority of the science community that disagrees with them?

You didn't read nor comprehend my comment that you're responding to here. Ask me how I know.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

Inversion fallacy. RQAA.

 

[gfm7175]

These "proposed mechanisms" of earth's increasing temperature are EXTREMELY WELL KNOWN

Saint Guinefort thinks that "EXTREMELY WELL KNOWN" = "CORRECT"

and not controversial in the least.

Saint Guinefort thinks that the existence of a plethora of what he would call "climate deniers" = "not controversial in the least"

In fact it is BECAUSE OF THESE PROPOSED MECHANISM that the surface of the earth is habitable by humans.

Nope. The habitability of Earth has absolutely nothing to do with false paradigms.

Without greenhouse gases "trapping heat" near the surface,

There is no such thing as "greenhouse gases" or "trapping heat". Heat (the flow of thermal energy) cannot be trapped. There is no such thing as a perfect insulator.

the surface temperature of the earth would be about 30degC COLDER than it is on average.

Made up number. The surface temperature of the Earth cannot be measured to any usable accuracy (not enough thermometers, no feasible way to remove location/time bias, etc).

This is from the Stefan-Boltzmann equation calculating the black body temperature of the solid earth.

The SB Law does not calculate temperature.

The atmosphere is largely made up of non-Greenhouse gases like N2 and O2 which have very limited to no absorption of IR capability. So without CO2 and H2O and CH4 and a few odd others the surface of the earth would be much colder.

Why would we expect it to be different if we add MORE OF THESE COMPONENTS?

Hmmmm... then I wonder why the daytime side of the moon is so much HOTTER than the daytime side of the Earth........ According to you, it should be much colder...

 

[gfm7175]

Circular reasoning. You're claiming their science is right because you believe their science is right.

How do you know they're right if you haven't educated yourself on the opposing views?

It's not "their science"... it's THE science... it's the mathematical formulas themselves... Those formulas are what they are regardless of who makes reference to them.

 

[Into the Night]

Right. i've been presented with the theory of two German scientists, who's research and claims were repeatedly debunked in the science community.

So, if it's not about confirmation bias, why do you believe the claims/theories of these two scientists and not the majority of the science community that disagrees with them?

The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics have not been 'debunked' or falsified. They are still theories of science. Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science.
Science isn't a 'community'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. You simply refuse to accept these theories of science.

 

[Into the Night]

This I wholeheartedly believe. You bend over furniture and receive rectal punishment from your mind masters because they demand that you obey their every command. You are not allowed the ability to CHOOSE, only to OBEY.


You have ignored a whole plethora of questions about your claimed mechanisms for a "warming Earth" (because those questions, if answered honestly, conclude with your claimed mechanisms of a "warming Earth" being falsified, which opposes your religious belief that the Earth is warming).

You also ignore the relevant mathematical equations themselves (because those equations, if studied and correctly applied, conclude with your claimed mechanisms of a "warming Earth" being falsified, which opposes your religious belief that the Earth is warming).


What do you mean "both sides"?? I have researched the authoritative source on the matter, which is the laws of science themselves (aka the relevant mathematical equations), and I have come to the conclusion that your claims stand in direct opposition to those laws, thus I see no reason to believe your claims.

He certainly has been trying the loaded question tactic. It's also a fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Because those two scientists aren't ignoring or bastardizing the relevant laws of science that you hate because they directly falsify your mind masters' proposed mechanisms for "Earth's increasing temperature", thus exposing your religion for the wacky physics-denial that it is?

Notice that he never named anyone. Just 'two scientists'.

 

[Into the Night]

These "proposed mechanisms" of earth's increasing temperature are EXTREMELY WELL KNOWN and not controversial in the least.

Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). You don't get to speak for everyone. You only get to speak for you. Omniscience fallacy. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Your 'mechanism' ignores the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

In fact it is BECAUSE OF THESE PROPOSED MECHANISM that the surface of the earth is habitable by humans.

No.

Without greenhouse gases "trapping heat" near the surface, the surface temperature of the earth would be about 30degC COLDER than it is on average.

It is not possible to trap heat. Heat has no location. You still do not know what heat is. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. You cannot create energy out of nothing, not even by making up numbers.

This is from the Stefan-Boltzmann equation calculating the black body temperature of the solid earth.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not calculate temperature. You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law again.

The atmosphere is largely made up of non-Greenhouse gases like N2 and O2 which have very limited to no absorption of IR capability. So without CO2 and H2O and CH4 and a few odd others the surface of the earth would be much colder.

All gases absorb infrared light, just as everything on the surface does.

Why would we expect it to be different if we add MORE OF THESE COMPONENTS?

It can't.

You cannot trap heat.
You cannot trap light.
You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.
All materials (including all gases) absorb infrared light.
All materials emit light according to their temperature.

 

[gfm7175]

Notice that he never named anyone. Just 'two scientists'.

I thought I saw a couple names pop up earlier somewhere, but it doesn't matter to me either way, as the "two scientists" aren't the math equations themselves.

All I care about are the beautiful equations and the explanations of them that you posted some time earlier.

 

[Into the Night]

Circular reasoning. You're claiming their science is right because you believe their science is right.

How do you know they're right if you haven't educated yourself on the opposing views?

Inversion fallacy. The circular reasoning is YOURS. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Science isn't 'views' or politics. There is no voting bloc in science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

 

[IBDaMann]

Wouldn't the "totality of information" (meaningless buzzwords are not information btw) INCLUDE the claims of the "two scientists"?

Nope. The totality of the religious disinformation holds that the two scientists are engaging in disinformation.

 

[Into the Night]

Because those two scientists aren't ignoring or bastardizing the relevant laws of science that you hate because they directly falsify your mind masters' proposed mechanisms for "Earth's increasing temperature", thus exposing your religion for the wacky physics-denial that it is?

What 'two German scientists'? He never named anyone!