So, as I mentioned previously, this is the approach that you and Into the Night take to defend your beliefs.
Incorrect. I haven't stated any beliefs. If you are referring to the science that I am teaching you as being merely my subjective opinion then we can conclude that your religion has undoubtedly fucked up your mind. This would explain why you consider your religion to be science and why you consider science to be "erroneous 'beliefs'."
You're in a world of hurt.
In any event, the topic is your affirmative argument of
Global Warming, of which you bear the full burden to support, and I have made no assertions beyond science, particularly the science that runs counter to your faith. If you had simply declared your religion to be your religion, you would have been fine. Instead, you begged me to apply the scientific method to your "thettled thienth" and science falsifies it immediately, namely the 1st LoT, and secondarily the 2nd LoT, Stefan-Boltzmann, Planck's, Kerchhoff's, Wein's and the Ideal Gas law as you shift to violate them.
You have never accounted for the additional energy that somehow magically appears, as if it is being created out of nothing, and increases the temperature.
You state, as fact, things that are your opinion
Nope. I am stating the laws of science that you are violating, as you violate them. Anyone, including you, is free to independently verify everything I post. Fear, however, prevents you from facing the truth.
... and apparently think that the ENTIRETY of the science world is just sitting idly by and letting all of these claims go unchecked.
To funny. You are trying to debate existing science. If you wish to challenge any of it, you must show it to be false. We are beyond debate. All of the science I have mentioned has passed the scrutiny of the scientific method. Your burden in this regard is to show that the science is false. However, there's more bad news for you. Because of what I just mentioned, the ENTIRETY of the science world is doing absolutely nothing to challenge any of the science that I have mentioned. The scientific method has been applied to the complete satisfaction of the ENTIRETY of the science world. This means that nobody is debating any of it any longer, which means nobody is challenging any of it which, at this point, requires full falsification, and nobody believes he can do it.
Except for one. Over on Climate-Debate there is a guy James__ who is certain he can build a Bessler Wheel (a perpetual motion machine). If he succeeds, your
Global Warming religion is back on. We'll all keep our eyes peeled.
The best part? This isn't even all of "your" claims:
I made no claims. I appreciate you documenting the science that kills your religion. Let's get to it.
Correct. You have been asked repeatedly to cite an example of a climate that has changed within the last century. Of course, you cannot. You have no rational basis for believing that climate can change, yet you make this claim without offering any support, just as if you were a deeply religious individual speaking about his religious beliefs.
You were shown many examples of climates, none of which had any numerical values. You have never been able to articulate what about a climate could possibly change and how, given that a climate is simply a subjective human characterization. You are simply being irrational and absurd by nonetheless insisting that a climate can somehow change.
Photons are quanta of electromagnetic energy. You are being irrational and absurd by insisting that photons are somehow not destroyed upon being converted to an entirely different form of energy. Your suggestion that photons are trapped and put "at rest" is only supported by your religious dogma, and by nothing in science.
- Temperature can't be measured from a distance (except when it can)
You have to admit, you won't be honest on this topic, not even for a second. Sure, temperatures can be guessed at a distance. I can just look at an object live, on television, half-way around the world, and nothing can stop me from guessing what the average temperature of that object might be. Ergo,
Global Warming is true, right?
I stated that
absolute temperature cannot be measured
to within any usable margin of error from a
long distance. Do you see the semantic difference between my statement of statistical mathematics and the bogus position you claimed is mine?
- the Earth's temperature can't be measured
You cannot be honest. You can only assign bogus positions to others so you'll have something to attack.
The earth's average global equilibrium temperature cannot be measured to within any usable margin of error. You know this is true, which is why you
always EVADE requests for you to describe how you would go about measuring the earth's average global equilibrium temperature to within, say, one half of one degree Celsius, given a budget of $1 Billion and a staff of 10,000 people, each one of which holds a PhD in chemistry, physics, three different engineering disciplines and four fields of mathematics (with one of those fields being statistical math). To the best of your understanding, you are not aware of any way the earth's average global equilibrium temperature can be measured accurately, and yet you cry like a baby if I happen to point this out.
- CO2 levels in the atmosphere can't be measured
You exhibit the same dishonesty here as well. CO2 levels can certainly be guessed. Sure. They can't be measured to any usable accuracy. You know the drill. I ask you how you would go about measuring an invisible gas that is not uniformly distributed around the globe, and you EVADE as you run to the hills. You also EVADE when I ask why the
Global Warming congregation never demand any more than one single, solitary measurement ... at the base of a CO2-spewing volcano. Your dishonesty represents the desperate final nails in the coffin.
- the temperature of Venus is unknown
What is your rational basis for believing that the average planetary equilibrium temperature of Venus is somehow known, beyond claiming omniscience of course.
- there aren't enough temperature stations
Correct. This is a statistical mathematics statement. Once you provide a target margin of error, you cannot establish the ungodly number of temperature stations needed to execute any collection plan that would meet that target.
- temperature stations aren't spaced correctly
This is not a stand-alone statement. It accompanies the preceding statement. The existing weather stations are not evenly spaced. That means that not only are there too few, but their poor placement actually yields poor results (much greater error).
- temperature stations aren't read at the right intervals
This is not a stand-alone statement either. The temperature stations of the world are not synchronized, thus not only are there too few of them and not only do they have increased spatial bias, but there is substantial error introduced via temporal bias when the readings are not synchronized.
- temperature stations aren't read by the right people
When the people taking the readings fudge the numbers and provide predetermined values, they are not the right people to be reading anything.
- all of the experiments showing how CO2 interacts with infrared energy are parlor tricks
Always with the dishonesty. The trick is in getting the audience to draw the wrong conclusion. You drew the wrong conclusion. You object to the use of the term "parlor trick" instead of the word "demonstration" because correctly referring to it as a "trick" reveals just how stupid and gullible you were for falling for it, whereas the word "demonstration" makes you seem wise and educated for having allowed the parlor tricksters to manipulate you so easily.
You have no excuse. I pointed out the mechanics of the trick. You are totally aware that they never allow the sun to "represent" the sun. Nonetheless, you conclude
Global Warming just because the lamp or candle used in the trick was specifically selected to match the absorption signature of CO2 ... but you never figured it out. You were totally mesmerized by the trickster telling you that the candle/lamp "represents" the sun and so you therefore believed that the candle/lamp really was the sun, each and every time. You then went on to believe that oxygen and nitrogen never absorb any IR because their absorption signatures don't align with the IR of the candle/lamp.
- all of the experiments showing how areas with a high concentration of CO2 warm more are parlor tricks
Speak in English or provide a reference link. Who are you claiming said what?
- there is no temperature data, only random numbers
There is no "
The Data", i.e. a dataset of measurements of the earth's average global equilibrium temperature, because that can't be measured (see above). Therefore, when people make claims involving such measurements, they are making it all up. All numbers are fabricated. The complete absence of any margin of error gives them all away.
- climate change violates this law
It's
Global Warming that violates the 1st LoT and
greenhouse effect that violates the full litany, i.e. serving as a vehicle for warmizombies to rapidly bounce between physics violations.
- climate change violates that law
- climate change violates the other law
-
Would you mind clarifying here?
Deaf Boy
