Why Should Anyone Believe in Global Warming?

gfm7175 said:
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.
Click to expand...

It is correct to discard the 'two scientists'. The theories stand on their own. They have not been falsified. The laws (the equations I gave) still stand, REGARDLESS OF WHERE THEY CAME FROM.
 
Into the Night said:
What 'two German scientists'? He never named anyone!
Click to expand...

Lies. Post 1453 I named them:

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...lieve-in-Global-Warming&p=5834939#post5834939

200w.gif
 
Last edited:
Into the Night said:
It is correct to discard the 'two scientists'. The theories stand on their own. They have not been falsified. The laws (the equations I gave) still stand, REGARDLESS OF WHERE THEY CAME FROM.
Click to expand...

Have the rebuttals by all of the opposing scientists been falsified?
 
gfm7175 said:
Have "all of the opposing scientists" (or even just ONE of them) ever falsified the Laws of Thermodynamics? What about the Stefan Boltzmann Law? What about Planck's Law?
Click to expand...

Again, HAD you actually put effort into understanding the situation, you'd know that they aren't disputing the laws of thermodynamics. The scientists who dispute the claims of the two scientist are disputing their application of the laws.
 
Into the Night said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nope. Nice try.

So, how much time have you spent educating yourself on the opposing views to what the German scientists are claiming? I mean, surely you didn't just blindly believe them because they tell you what you want to believe, right?
 
gfm7175 said:
:laugh::laugh::laugh:

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

:laugh::laugh::laugh:


:laugh::laugh::laugh:

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

:laugh::laugh::laugh:


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


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.


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).


The SB Law does not calculate temperature.


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...
Click to expand...

I was so stupid in thinking you were an honest debator in this topic. Sorry.
 
Into the Night said:
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.

No.

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.

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

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

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.
Click to expand...

You and your sock are just annoying at this point. If you don't understand science it's OK.
 
ZenMode said:
More avoidance. Why do you believe the theory of two scientists over all other scientists.... other than the fact that the two tell you what you want to believe, of course.
Click to expand...

What 'two scientists'?

You are just trying a deflection to ignore the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics again.
 
ZenMode said:
Have the rebuttals by all of the opposing scientists been falsified?
Click to expand...

No rebuttals. A rebuttal isn't a theory. Politics has no politics. It does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science. You are just making shit up to justify your continued denial of the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
 
ZenMode said:
Again, HAD you actually put effort into understanding the situation, you'd know that they aren't disputing the laws of thermodynamics. The scientists who dispute the claims of the two scientist are disputing their application of the laws.
Click to expand...

Science is not 'interpretation'. The only 'situation' is YOU trying to deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. There is no voting bloc in science. Science does not use consensus.
 
ZenMode said:
Nope. Nice try.

So, how much time have you spent educating yourself on the opposing views to what the German scientists are claiming? I mean, surely you didn't just blindly believe them because they tell you what you want to believe, right?
Click to expand...

Strawman fallacy. Repetition fallacy (chanting).
 
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...
I already explained how you need to reword your questions. You can't present your religion as though it is science, you can't present your religious clergy as "scientists," and you can't present your church material as "information."

Fix your questions if you want serious answers.
 
ZenMode said:
Nope. Nice try.

So, how much time have you spent educating yourself on the opposing views to what the German scientists are claiming? I mean, surely you didn't just blindly believe them because they tell you what you want to believe, right?
Click to expand...

Strawman fallacy. Repetition fallacy (chanting).
 
Into the Night said:
You put out two last names. Neither created any theory of thermodynamics. You are just trying to ignore the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
Click to expand...

Third try.... maybe fourth.... There are two scientists who claim that climate change, as it is believed to be happening, violates 2 laws of Thermodynamics. Many other scientists have disputed their claims because they believe the laws aren't being applied correctly.

Why do you believe the two scientists and not the many other scientists.

How much time have you spent trying to understand both sides.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top