Climate change is pure bullshit!!

[Into the Night]

Here's the sort of envirotard drivel the radical Left puts out:

Capitalism can’t overcome the laws of physics

You can’t have infinite growth on a finite planet. That should be a commonplace idea. And that inevitably means facing up to the necessity of putting an end to capitalism in favor of an economic sy…

systemicdisorder.wordpress.com

Dr. Rammelt advocates a “radically different pathway”: degrowth. He defines degrowth as “a socio-economic transformation aimed at reducing and redistributing material and energy flows, with the goal of respecting planetary boundaries and promoting social justice.” Although he does not give a name to a post-capitalist system other than one of “degrowth,” such a sustainable system would have to be one that not only stays within the planet’s physical limits but provides enough for everybody. The material basis for everybody to have enough to eat and a place to live comfortably already exists; such a distribution is impossible under capitalism, where, again, production is performed for a small number of people to accumulate massive amounts of money with little left for everybody else.

Right out of Marx.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Right out of Marx.

You can't go against your religious dogma don't ya know?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

r = c*e*t^4 where 'r' is radiance in watts per square area, 'C' is a natural constant (serving to convert the relation to our units of measurement), 'e' is a measured constant known as 'emissivity', which is a measure on how well a surface absorbs or emits light, and 't' is temperature in deg K.

That is the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It works. It still has not been falsified. It is a theory of science. You just want to ignore it.

And let's test your scientific knowledge. Does CO2 have the same emissivity as O2 or N2?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

And let's test your scientific knowledge. Does CO2 have the same emissivity as O2 or N2?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

WRONG. There is no 'materials' factor in the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You cannot add such a factor and still call it the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
ALL materials radiate and absorb light the same way. Emissivity has no 'material' factor.

Surface Emissivity Coefficients

The radiation heat transfer emissivity coefficients for some common materials like aluminum, brass, glass and many more.

www.engineeringtoolbox.com

The emissivity coefficient - ε - indicates the radiation of heat from a 'grey body' according the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, compared with the radiation of heat from a ideal 'black body' with the emissivity coefficient ε = 1.

The emissivity coefficient - ε - for some common materials can be found in the table below.

Thanks for showing us you know nothing about how the Stefan Boltzmann equation actually works.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Surface Emissivity Coefficients

The radiation heat transfer emissivity coefficients for some common materials like aluminum, brass, glass and many more.

www.engineeringtoolbox.com

The emissivity coefficient - ε - indicates the radiation of heat from a 'grey body' according the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, compared with the radiation of heat from a ideal 'black body' with the emissivity coefficient ε = 1.

The emissivity coefficient - ε - for some common materials can be found in the table below.

Thanks for showing us you know nothing about how the Stefan Boltzmann equation actually works.

Big hint guy: ITN isn't worth it, dude, run while you still can.

 

[IBDaMann]

The science can be settled

Nope, but I can appreciate a scientifically illiterate pretender, such as you, at least making an attempt to keep the "thienth geniuth" fantasy going before having to go cold turkey in a very cold world in which you have to think for yourself if you wish to succeed.

Follow the logic; I'm going to teach you something that is not permitted by your thought-masters:

1. Science is not based on opinion or consensus,
2. Per (1), if it isn't "settled", it isn't science.
3. If it is science, someone would be able to present the falsifiable null hypothesis with all terms unambiguously defined
4. Regarding Global Warming and Climate Change, nobody can present any such null hypothesis and nobody can present unambiguous definitions for all the key terms, i.e. a double whammy
5. (4) forms the contrapositive of (3), ergo neither Global Warming nor Climate Change are science
6. (5) forms the contrapositive of (2), ergo neither Global Warming nor Climate Change are settled

QED

If none of this matters to you then I congratulate you on the sheer might of your devotion to your religion.

We [devoted worshipers] are [committed to] seeing warming over the last 100 years. (No skeptic can deny this and be credible [with us worshipers].)

I totally get it. Your faith is strong. Your faith is profound. I know many Christians whose faith is just as solid and who also take great pride in showing that their faith is unbreakable. Same for Muslims and Sikhs. Jews are even willing to show the extreme extent to which they will vote against their own interests just to support whoever happense to owns Judaism at the moment, e.g. the DNC currently.

You can rest assured that your blind OBEDIENCE to your clergy is not in question, and that your faith in Climate is not in doubt. Again, the fatal flaw of your faith is its dogmatic assertion that it is somehow science, which invites the scrutiny of the scientific method, which more or less immediately renders your religion FALSE, and exposes your congregation for the gullible and scientifically illiterate morons that you are.

Both of those things exist and no one can refute them with any science or facts.

That's because no religion can be proven false ... except for yours which is instantly shown to be FALSE the moment one of your congregation makes one of the claims in my signature.

The only argument seems to be to simply say, "it isn't settled."

That it isn't settled is just one of countless statements that can be made about your religion.

The exact why of the warming of the earth isn't settled

Nope. The "warming," which is central to your faith, has never been established by any human. Believers and worshipers simply believe and worship as ordered.

there is little question that can be raised as to possible causes.

Of course not. There is no cause of no effect.

Burying your head in the sand by claiming, "It isn't settled." isn't science.

This brings us back to you not even knowing what science is. Your religion sort of prohibits your congregation from ever learning what science is, in order to keep the faithful ... well, faithful. If any were to ever learn what science actually is, they would have no choice but to discard the faith.

Your problem seems to be that when scientists disagree with the skeptics

You need to address when rational adults disagree with those of your religion, for example, you. Do you learn anything, or do you bury your head in the sand and express great pride in your ignorance thereafter when you virtue-signal to your congregation?

you think that is trying to silence questioning.

Yes. The most common method implemented by cowardly warmizombies and climate lemmings is to put me on ignore. Hey, they don't have any way to defend a religion that calls itself "science" and that is based on egregious physics violations, so they hide under the covers anytime I wander by.

How long until you put me on ignore?

 

[evince]

How much money do corporations spend on studies that have in their core premise that GW is not real?


That one question and it answer fucks you idiots hard

 

[evince]

Go find one study


You won’t find one

 

[evince]

The corporations dont waste one fucking dime on studies that pretend Global Warming is not a fact


Can your shit filled brains figure out why?

 

[Nomad]

Nope, but I can appreciate a scientifically illiterate pretender, such as you, at least making an attempt to keep the "thienth geniuth" fantasy going before having to go cold turkey in a very cold world in which you have to think for yourself if you wish to succeed.

Follow the logic; I'm going to teach you something that is not permitted by your thought-masters:

1. Science is not based on opinion or consensus,
2. Per (1), if it isn't "settled", it isn't science.
3. If it is science, someone would be able to present the falsifiable null hypothesis with all terms unambiguously defined
4. Regarding Global Warming and Climate Change, nobody can present any such null hypothesis and nobody can present unambiguous definitions for all the key terms, i.e. a double whammy
5. (4) forms the contrapositive of (3), ergo neither Global Warming nor Climate Change are science
6. (5) forms the contrapositive of (2), ergo neither Global Warming nor Climate Change are settled

QED

If none of this matters to you then I congratulate you on the sheer might of your devotion to your religion.


I totally get it. Your faith is strong. Your faith is profound. I know many Christians whose faith is just as solid and who also take great pride in showing that their faith is unbreakable. Same for Muslims and Sikhs. Jews are even willing to show the extreme extent to which they will vote against their own interests just to support whoever happense to owns Judaism at the moment, e.g. the DNC currently.

You can rest assured that your blind OBEDIENCE to your clergy is not in question, and that your faith in Climate is not in doubt. Again, the fatal flaw of your faith is its dogmatic assertion that it is somehow science, which invites the scrutiny of the scientific method, which more or less immediately renders your religion FALSE, and exposes your congregation for the gullible and scientifically illiterate morons that you are.


That's because no religion can be proven false ... except for yours which is instantly shown to be FALSE the moment one of your congregation makes one of the claims in my signature.


That it isn't settled is just one of countless statements that can be made about your religion.


Nope. The "warming," which is central to your faith, has never been established by any human. Believers and worshipers simply believe and worship as ordered.


Of course not. There is no cause of no effect.


This brings us back to you not even knowing what science is. Your religion sort of prohibits your congregation from ever learning what science is, in order to keep the faithful ... well, faithful. If any were to ever learn what science actually is, they would have no choice but to discard the faith.


You need to address when rational adults disagree with those of your religion, for example, you. Do you learn anything, or do you bury your head in the sand and express great pride in your ignorance thereafter when you virtue-signal to your congregation?


Yes. The most common method implemented by cowardly warmizombies and climate lemmings is to put me on ignore. Hey, they don't have any way to defend a religion that calls itself "science" and that is based on egregious physics violations, so they hide under the covers anytime I wander by.

How long until you put me on ignore?

WOW!!!! Look at all that so-fist-ee-kay-ted math and science IBDaMoron regurgitated!!!!

IBDaMoron said:

You don't even know what science is. You are a completely scientifically illiterate and mathematically incompetent bungler of even simple thought processes. The bottom line is that your religion has forced you into being a science denier who embarrasses himself every time he breaches this topic.

If I were to ask you to explain the fundamental precepts of your dogma, you would instantly flee in terror. You clearly aren't operating on the basis of having any answers. Let's put this point to rest. Refute my signature. Feel free to get all the help you want.

I regurgitate science and math. That's a huge problem for you. You and your religion are going to lose every time.

You need someone to teach you about NASA, and you definitely need someone to teach you some math and science.

As it stands, you gullibly embraced a WACKY religion that requires you to deny science ... and you OBEY because you don't understand any of the science (and math) that you are denying.


https://www.justplainpolitics.com/threads/climate-change-is-pure-bullshit.217929/post-6041770

Fucking idiot.

 

[serendipity]

First of all we have to accept the authors

How's the watch?

If you cannot question it, it’s not science? Only a person completely illiterate in science would make such an ignorant and stupid comment. Talk about a whopper of a strawman argument! LOL

 

[IBDaMann]

The emissivity coefficient - ε - indicates the radiation of heat from a 'grey body' according the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, compared with the radiation of heat from a ideal 'black body' with the emissivity coefficient ε = 1.

The problem with being scientifically illiterate is that you don't know if what you are copy-pasting from the internet is correct or full of errors. You have sadly become like the fundamentalist Christian who cannot field any question about his faith but who can only recite passages from the Bible that plausibly address the issue. In your case, you have relegated yourself to being one of those people who presumes that just because it is on the internet, it must be true. That's embarrassing. Nonetheless, you have no choice but to post whatever you find from any nonauthoritative source and just hope beyond hope that what you post is correct and helps your cause.

UNFORTUNATELY ... you copy-pasted the faulty information above, hoping that nobody, such as me, ever mentions any of the errors.

Oops! That's exactly what I'm going to do.

The emissivity coefficient does not indicate the radiation of heat. In fact, I can tell that you don't know what "heat" is, and therefore couldn't filter this webpage out based on its erroneous usage of the term. The emissivity coefficient is the efficiency of the body to radiate thermally.

There is no such thing as a "grey" body. This term is propagated amongst warmizombies, along with the term "albedo," as a courtesy of self-identifying as "really stupid mother f-ers who don't understand anything that is being babbled." So, thank you for at least being honest to that extent.

The emissivity coefficient - ε - for some common materials can be found in the table below.

Oops! Conflation error. The "emissivity" you used above is not the "emissivity" you are using here, and you have nary a clue what the problem could be. Let's just relish the moment, shall we? Yes, we shall.

The "emissivity" you mention at the opening of your post is a black body constant and covers all wavelengths. There is no "substance" parameter and no "wavelength" parameter. It is just a constant.

The "emissivity()" you are using here is a function of wavelength and chemical substance. It computes radiativity of a substance.

Even a high-schooler knows that these are completely different things, yet here you are ignoring the obvious in your desperate, flailing attempt to somehow link your stupid religion to science.

Thanks for showing us you know nothing about how the Stefan Boltzmann equation actually works.

It's not like you would somehow know. Stefan-Boltzmann doesn't "work." It's a relationship of black body science, and is not the absorptivity and radiativity of any particular substance (although it will still apply, just like all other physics). Before you make the same egregious rookie error, look up Kirchhoff’s Law ... because that's what you are talking about here. The use of the word "emissivity" instead of "radiativity" is unfortunate.

Do you know how Stefan-Boltzmann came about?

 

[IBDaMann]

WOW!!!! Look at all that so-fist-ee-kay-ted math and science IBDaMoron regurgitated!!!!

I posted no science or math. It's quite telling that you are inclined to call just about anything "science" and "math." Wow.

Fucking idiot.

That's as good as anyone can expect you to get. Let's relish this moment as well.

 

[Nomad]

I posted no science or math. It's quite telling that you are inclined to call just about anything "science" and "math." Wow.

IBDaMoron is so fucking stupid he doesn't even understand obvious sarcasm when he gets slapped across his drooling idiot face with it.

In your post I partially quoted, you bloviated about how you "regurgitate math and science".

Yet I have never seen you explain or expound on one scientific principle or calculate one equation to back up the bile you spew.

All you do is hurl insults.

You're a phony and a fake.

Everybody knows it.

You included.

 

[IBDaMann]

IBDaMoron is so fucking stupid he doesn't even understand obvious sarcasm when he gets slapped across his drooling idiot face with it.

Let me know who you fool with this.

Yet I have never seen you explain or expound on one scientific principle or calculate one equation to back up the bile you spew.

Standard warmizombie pivot. You are the one arguing that Global Warming and Climate Change are somehow science, ergo you need to begin presenting this science that you insist that you have. I'm not making any affirmative claims, ergo I have nothing to support.

However, I have no problem correcting any of your middle-school mistakes, and I'll teach you whatever you want to know ... if you ask nicely.

All you do is hurl insults.

That's all warmizombies do. I make observations. There's a difference.

 

[Mason 22]

Right out of Marx.

Groucho's daughter only saw Groucho cry once ,when Harpo died.

 

[Nomad]

Let me know who you fool with this.


Standard warmizombie pivot. You are the one arguing that Global Warming and Climate Change are somehow science, ergo you need to begin presenting this science that you insist that you have. I'm not making any affirmative claims, ergo I have nothing to support.

My exact words on the subject, post #58, page 3 of this thread:

"I don't claim to be a scientist myself, but I know who the real scientists are and those are the experts whose words I believe."

Upshot: I'm not claiming anything of the sort. The real, serious scientists each with decades of advanced education and experience are the ones arguing that Global Warming and Climate Change are science.

I just believe them based on their expertise.

You? You're just some middle aged loser with a big mouth and a computer and who's likely never been laid, taking out the frustration of your shitty life on random people online.

Yet you expect people to believe the garbage you spew.

However, I have no problem correcting any of your middle-school mistakes, and I'll teach you whatever you want to know ... if you ask nicely.


That's all warmizombies do. I make observations. There's a difference.

Oooooooohhhhh..... are you going to regurgitate some of that bigshot math and science you lie about understanding?

You need to worry about your own middle school mistakes, you horse's ass.

 

[IBDaMann]

My exact words on the subject, post #58, page 3 of this thread:

"I don't claim to be a scientist myself, but I know who the real scientists are and those are the experts whose words I believe."

Exactly. You are professing your faith in your religion and the blind trust you place in your clergy. You openly acknowledge that you aren't aware of any science that supports your admittedly contradictory dogma, but your clergy tells you exactly what to believe, and that's good enough for you. You don't demand to know the science behind what you are being told because this is religion, you presume that there isn't any scientific explanation for the miracles ... I mean "forcings" of your faith. No religious believer demands any science from his clergy. You don't question any of the terms you are told to regurgitate because ... that would imply that your faith is not strong. No religious believer demands that any of the religion's terms be unambiguously defined, as is required in science.

Yes, you are no scientist. In fact, you are scientifically illiterate, a prerequisite for accepting the absurd physics violations upon which your religion is based. How does it feel to be counted among the faithful of the religion tailored for the world's stupidest and most gullible?

Show me someone who believes in Global Warming, Climate Change or greenhouse effect and I'll show you a scientifically illiterate dullard at best, or a flat out science denier at worst.

Yes, the religion is for the world's stupidest and most gullible. You really don't need to tell anyone that you aren't a scientist.

Upshot: I'm not claiming anything of the sort.

1. Are you claiming that the earth's average global equilibrium temperature is increasing?
2. Are you claiming that this is a concern?
3. Are you claiming that this is caused by greenhouse effect which is caused by greenhouse gas?
4. Are you claiming that the global climate is changing?
5. Are you claiming that Earth's overall ice quantity is decreasing?
6. Are you claiming that the ocean is acidifying?

... or are you not claiming any of the above? ... or are you ashamed to say?

The real, serious scientists

You don't speak for anyone but yourself. You certainly don't speak for any scientists.

What do you say?

each with decades of advanced education and experience are the ones arguing that Global Warming and Climate Change are science.

Nope. There is no one who is supporting any claim that either Global Warming or Climate Change are science. Sure, there are gullible, scientifically illiterate people who pretend to speak for all the world's smart people and who assert, as you do, that they all worship Global Warming and Climate Change as you do.

All religions indulge in that "no true Scotsman" fallacy to some extent, i.e. they claim that all the smart people naturally come to the "correct" conclusion as they do, which is why they are smart. It's all part of believing that one's religion is true. You believe your religion is true and you like to think all the world's smart people believe as you do, or at least that's what you tell yourself.

The splash of cold water is that all the world's stupid and gullible people OBEDIENTLY believe as you do. NONE of you are scientists. NONE of you are good at math. ALL of you cling to the desperate hope that if you merely BELIEVE in your heart of hearts all of the dogma that you are handed, that you too will become a climate justice-dispensing science genius, a superhero of the Climate Justice League who will champion mother Earth against those evil, subhuman conservatives. Oh yeah, total science here.

I just believe them based on their expertise.

All religious believers "just believe" their clergy. Say no more, say no more.

You? You're just some middle aged loser with a big mouth and a computer

So tell me specifically, what do I not know? Be specific.

and who's likely never been laid, taking out the frustration of your shitty life on random people online.

You are logically inept as well. This is the point at which I ask you how you established this probability. Your answer?

@gfm7175 - is someone projecting here? I'd like to submit Nomad for the projection awards. I think he's got a real winner here.

Yet you expect people to believe the garbage you spew.

Are you saying that I somehow expect you to simply abandon your religion? Obviously I think that abandoning your religion would be the best thing you could do for yourself; one can't have anything but a shitty life if one is a slave whose very thoughts are forced onto him by others.

... but do I expect this? Nope. My expectation is that you will provide me months of entertainment while you never learn anything.

Oooooooohhhhh..... are you going to regurgitate some of that bigshot math and science you lie about understanding?

I understand it all, and I'm happy to teach you, but I think we both know that you will never allow that to happen.

I wish you luck in your faith.

 

[moon]

Continuing to show your illiteracy of geography and your use of buzzwords won't get you anywhere, Moonbat.

These are ' Into the Nightsoil's statements '

"Sweden is not to the east of the UK "

" There is no such science as paleoclimatology "

Treat him like the repetitive sicko that he is