Why Should Anyone Believe in Global Warming?

So currently, both ZenMode is stuck like a broken record mindlessly asking the same question over and over and over, even though it's already been answered numerous times and in numerous ways, but with ZenMode currently trying to destroy the Stefan-Boltzmann law (he's already tried to destroy the 2nd law of thermodynamics).

The Sock is doing his typical clueless and unrelated rantings, but trying to get on board with ZenMode at the moment.

Their false equivalency continues. Their misunderstanding of thermal energy and heat continues. Their denial of the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Bolzmann law continues.
And their word games continue.

The fundamentalism of the Church of Global Warming goes on.
 
Into the Night said:
Still trying to discard trigonometry, eh? Well, I tried. You insist on being illiterate in mathematics.
Click to expand...

If I'm ignorant, which isn't impossible - it's been decades since I took trigonometry, then explain how you apply Pythagorean Theorem to this circle... without adding anything.

Radius-Of-A-Circle-And-Chord-3.png
 
Into the Night said:
So currently, both ZenMode is stuck like a broken record mindlessly asking the same question over and over and over, even though it's already been answered numerous times and in numerous ways, but with ZenMode currently trying to destroy the Stefan-Boltzmann law (he's already tried to destroy the 2nd law of thermodynamics).

The Sock is doing his typical clueless and unrelated rantings, but trying to get on board with ZenMode at the moment.

Their false equivalency continues. Their misunderstanding of thermal energy and heat continues. Their denial of the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Bolzmann law continues.
And their word games continue.

The fundamentalism of the Church of Global Warming goes on.
Click to expand...

Good to see you finally abandoned the lie about the 1st Law.
 
ZenMode said:
If I'm ignorant, which isn't impossible - it's been decades since I took trigonometry, then explain how you apply Pythagorean Theorem to this circle... without adding anything.
Click to expand...
Still trying to ignore trigonometry. Still trying to show your illiteracy in mathematics.
 
ZenMode said:
Every day, around the world, the interior of hundreds of millions vehicles have a higher temperature than the exterior of those same vehicles. Do you agree that there is no additional energy required for this to happen and therefore, does not violate the 1st Law of Thermodynamics?
Click to expand...
We're still on your turn. You are still on tap to answer at least seven questions of mine that you have EVADED. So let's get back to my questions first. Let's delve into these for the moment:

1. Do you agree that there is never an average temperature increase wherever the existing thermal energy is merely redistributed?
2. Do you agree that wherever thermal energy is flowing, altering the redistribution of that thermal energy by altering and/or restricting that particular flow will cause the new end node of that flow to increase in temperature while lowering the temperature of the previous end node which is now no longer receiving that thermal energy?

Answer these clearly and completely and I'll answer your question clearly and completely. Coincidentally, they are related.
 
AProudLefty said:
You refuse to answer a simple question? Why is that?
Click to expand...
You're first in line to answer this question. You do nothing but EVADE questions. Sometimes you answer a question with a question, which you and I both know is showing that you are being EVASIVE.

So I would ask gfm7175 to not cut in line and let you answer first because you've waited in line much longer. Why do you refuse to answer even simple questions?
 
IBDaMann said:
You're first in line to answer this question. You do nothing but EVADE questions. Sometimes you answer a question with a question, which you and I both know is showing that you are being EVASIVE.

So I would ask gfm7175 to not cut in line and let you answer first because you've waited in line much longer. Why do you refuse to answer even simple questions?
Click to expand...

You dodged a question that I asked you a few weeks ago.
 
IBDaMann said:
We're still on your turn. You are still on tap to answer at least seven questions of mine that you have EVADED. So let's get back to my questions first. Let's delve into these for the moment:

1. Do you agree that there is never an average temperature increase wherever the existing thermal energy is merely redistributed?

- if you're saying that, for example, the temperature inside the car and outside the car would eventually equalize once no additional energy is being added, yes

2. Do you agree that wherever thermal energy is flowing, altering the redistribution of that thermal energy by altering and/or restricting that particular flow will cause the new end node of that flow to increase in temperature while lowering the temperature of the previous end node which is now no longer receiving that thermal energy?

Yes, and if there were no more energy being added, then #1 above is also true. However, there is always energy being added somewhere. If you were to park your car half in the shade and half in sunlight, the temperature would continue to increase on the inside. If you swapped the shaded/sunny parts, as happens between day and night on Earth, you're still adding energy, right?

Answer these clearly and completely and I'll answer your question clearly and completely. Coincidentally, they are related.
Click to expand...
...
 
Last edited:
AProudLefty said:
You think we would miss that part of your pivoting?
Click to expand...
What pivoting?? The exterior of a car is a different part than the interior is, right? The dashboard is a different part than the driver's seat is, right? Together, all parts of a car make up "the car" (in its entirety).

You can't falsely equate part of a car (e.g. "the interior") as if that were the entire car. You can't falsely equate Basket A as if that were both baskets of apples.

Once again, "one big lie of omission".
 
ZenMode said:
Why does the average temperature between inside and outside matter when it's significantly hotter inside the car?
Click to expand...
Ahhhhh, the ol' patented Hillary Clinton response... ("WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?!?!?!?!!?!??!?!!?!?")

The CORRECT question is this: Why does "significantly hotter inside the car" matter when the average temperature of the entire car remains unchanged?

Why is "The CORRECT" question the correct question? Because you can't omit part of the car yet simultaneously pretend that you are consistently talking about the entire car. You can't omit Basket B of apples yet simultaneously pretend that you are consistently talking about both baskets of apples.

ZenMode said:
Do you think average temps matter to the child or animal that died in a hot car?
Click to expand...
Completely unrelated question.

ZenMode said:
"The average temp is only 95 degrees! You aren't dead!"
Click to expand...
Completely unrelated exclamation.


The entire car's average temperature remains unchanged.
The entire table's average apples per basket remains unchanged.
The entire Earth's average temperature remains unchanged.

The entire religion of "global warming" remains incredibly stupid.

Notice how ZenMode RUNS! and EVADES! from any pertinent questions that shred his precious religion into pieces?? Notice how ZenMode pivots to asking emotionally charged questions that are completely unrelated to the discussion at hand in hopes that he can distract me away from my winning position?
 
Last edited:
Into the Night said:
CO2 does not cause additional energy to come from the Sun.
Click to expand...
Correct. Nobody, including anyone in the science community, has ever said it does.
You are still trying to create energy out of nothing.
Click to expand...

Nope. All needed energy, just like the scenario where a car is sitting in the sun with it's windows closed, already exists. There is no additional energy.
 
gfm7175 said:
What pivoting?? The exterior of a car is a different part than the interior is, right? The dashboard is a different part than the driver's seat is, right? Together, all parts of a car make up "the car" (in its entirety).

You can't falsely equate part of a car (e.g. "the interior") as if that were the entire car. You can't falsely equate Basket A as if that were both baskets of apples.

Once again, "one big lie of omission".
Click to expand...

Still refusing to answer the question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top