Global fry-up.

Gondwankaland and maggot make for an amusing Denier Duet.


Haw, haw...............................haw.


Global warming is real, boys. Your potty-mouths simply contribute to the resulting climate changes.

You'll be here for the next climatic disaster report- and the next- and the next- until you're not. Where will you go- any plans ?
 
Further, you assholes that want to peddle your Denier Dross that this huge tornado is not a calamitous and unprecedented climatic event- why don't you fuck off while they're still searching for victims. Assholes.
 
Humanity is going to end?

Oh well.
Means little to me.

I will be long gone when it does.
And i did my part to help...so my conscious is clear.
 
Arctic heat record is like Mediterranean, says UN

_122087978_gettyimages-1234239498.jpg


The highest temperature ever recorded in the Arctic, 38C (100F), has been officially confirmed, sounding "alarm bells" over Earth's changing climate.

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) on Tuesday verified the record, reported in the Siberian town of Verkhoyansk on 20 June last year.

The temperature was 18C higher than the area's average daily maximum for June.

The WMO, a UN agency, said the extreme heat was "more befitting the Mediterranean than the Arctic".

It is the first time the agency has included the Arctic Circle in its archive of extreme weather reports.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-59649066


Get yer Denier Diaries out, boys.
 
Gondwankaland and maggot make for an amusing Denier Duet.


Haw, haw...............................haw.


Global warming is real, boys. Your potty-mouths simply contribute to the resulting climate changes.

You'll be here for the next climatic disaster report- and the next- and the next- until you're not. Where will you go- any plans ?

Are you vegan? No? Then I don't want to hear your bullshit, when I'm doing more in my own life wrt your climate change bullshit than you are.
 
Are you vegan? No? Then I don't want to hear your bullshit, when I'm doing more in my own life wrt your climate change bullshit than you are.

You should try digesting the truth . The world is warming. It will lead to catastrophic climatic events resulting in the deaths or displacement of hundreds of millions of people- perhaps billions.
They won't give a fuck what you do or don't eat, you narcissistic prick.
 
.
Beware ‘Scientific “CON-sensus” !
There isn't any such thing, of course. Science has no voting bloc.
.
The Theory of Relativity was denounced as preposterous by nearly ALL mathematicians and physicists until the experimental proofs started coming in and thus the theory was falsified.
The Theory of Relativity has not been falsified. It is not possible to prove any theory True. An experiment is not a proof.
.
Consensus is NEVER Science, only fools think otherwise.
Correct.
.
The “Scientific Method” is the ONLY path to truth.
Science is not a 'method' or a 'procedure'. There is no such thing as a 'scientific method'.

Science is just a set of falsifiable theories. No more. No less.
 
100mph gusts, fires, snow, entire communities razed, state of emergency declared.

It's become depressingly familiar- like Israeli atrocities- like 850,000 virus victims. People are scared/ashamed to talk about it.


https%3A%2F%2Fspecials-images.forbesimg.com%2Fimageserve%2F61d09ebe97b4fc76e8077733%2FAPTOPIX-Colorado-Wildfire%2F960x0.jpg%3Ffit%3Dscale


https://www.forbes.com/sites/teakve...sues-major-disaster-declaration-for-colorado/

Still confusing weather with climate, I see.

No, you can't blame tornodoes, any hurricane, or any other storm on 'global warming' or 'climate change'.
1) Neither 'global warming' nor 'climate change' has any meaning.
2) It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
3) It is not possible for any gas or vapor to raise the temperature of the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing. You are STILL ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.
4) It is not possible to trap heat.
5) It is not possible to trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
6) You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas or vapor. You are STILL ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
7) You cannot trap light. You are STILL ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

A tornado is not climate.
A hurricane is not climate.
A snowstorm is not climate.
A heat wave is not climate.
A torrential rain is not climate.

There is no such thing as a global climate.
 
There isn't any such thing, of course. Science has no voting bloc.

The Theory of Relativity has not been falsified. It is not possible to prove any theory True. An experiment is not a proof.

Correct.

Science is not a 'method' or a 'procedure'. There is no such thing as a 'scientific method'.

Science is just a set of falsifiable theories. No more. No less.

Put a sock in it ffs!!

The seven steps of the scientific method

Based on the type of question being asked, the type of science being applied and the laws that apply to that particular branch of science, you may need to modify the method and alter or remove one or several of the steps. Here are the seven steps of the scientific method illustrated by an example scientific hypothesis:

1. Ask a question
The first step in the scientific method is asking a question that you want to answer. This question will include one of the key starters, which are how, what when, why, where, who or which. The question you ask should also be measurable and answerable through experimentation. It is often something that can be measured with a numerical result, although behavioral results are part of the scientific method as well.

Example: Perhaps, you want to test an experiment about the causal relationship between music and certain domesticated animals.

A good question to begin with might be: ”Does music impact the behavior of certain species of domesticated animals, such as canines and felines?”

2. Perform research
With your question formulated, conduct preliminary background research to prepare yourself for the experiment. You can find information through online searches or in your local library, depending on the question you are asking and the nature of the background data. You may also find previous studies and experiments that can help with your process and conclusions.

In this case, you might start by reviewing previous scientific studies for animal experiments related to their reactions to music. Key to finding pertinent information might be looking at studies that study animal behavior in relation to art or domestic animals directly affected by music.

Related: How To Become a Research Scientist

3. Establish your hypothesis
A hypothesis is an educated guess that seeks to answer a question that can be systematically tested. Your hypothesis should also include your predictions that you can measure through experimentation and research.

Example: Based on your research, you start to fine-tune your thoughts about what will probably happen: “If I play classical music, my dog and cat will remain in the room with me. If I play rock-and-roll music, my dog and cat will leave the room.”

4. Test your hypothesis by conducting an experiment
Next, test your hypothesis by conducting an experiment. Your experiment is a way to quantifiably test your predictions and should be able to be repeated by another scientist.

Example: You decide to test it out: You bring the cat and dog into the same room where a sound system is available. You play classical music at a low volume. Both animals remain in the room. Then, you change scientist the music to rock-and-roll at the same volume. Both animals remain in the room.

5. Make an observation
Assess your scientific process and make sure that the conditions remain the same throughout all testing measures. If you change any factors in your experiment, keep all others the same to maintain fairness. After you complete the experiment, repeat it a few more times to make sure the results are accurate.

Example: In reviewing the cause and effect of your experiment, you observe that despite what you had thought would happen, did not. More specifically, the type of music being played did not impact the reaction of the animals.

Therefore, you adjust your hypothesis to state that the animals will react based on the volume of the music. You conduct another experiment, playing classical music at a low volume and then at a high volume. The animals remain in the room when the music is quiet and leave the room when the music is loud.

6. Analyze the results and draw a conclusion
You can now take your experiment findings and analyze them to determine if they support your hypothesis.

Drawing a conclusion means determining whether what you believed would happen actually happened. If it did not happen, you can create a new hypothesis and return to step four, and conduct a new experiment to prove your new theory. If what you hypothesized happened during the experimentation phase, the final step is putting together your findings and presenting them to others.

Example: You determine the behavior of animals is more affected by the volume of music being played rather than the type of music played.

7. Present the findings
The method for presenting your findings depends on your scientific position and level. If you are entering a project into the science fair, you will likely communicate your findings in a written report, on a display board or during a presentation at the event. If you are a scientist by profession, you may present your findings in a scientific publication or to your supervisors.

https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/scientific-method-steps
 
Put a sock in it ffs!!

The seven steps of the scientific method

Based on the type of question being asked, the type of science being applied and the laws that apply to that particular branch of science, you may need to modify the method and alter or remove one or several of the steps. Here are the seven steps of the scientific method illustrated by an example scientific hypothesis:

1. Ask a question
The first step in the scientific method is asking a question that you want to answer. This question will include one of the key starters, which are how, what when, why, where, who or which. The question you ask should also be measurable and answerable through experimentation. It is often something that can be measured with a numerical result, although behavioral results are part of the scientific method as well.

Example: Perhaps, you want to test an experiment about the causal relationship between music and certain domesticated animals.

A good question to begin with might be: ”Does music impact the behavior of certain species of domesticated animals, such as canines and felines?”

2. Perform research
With your question formulated, conduct preliminary background research to prepare yourself for the experiment. You can find information through online searches or in your local library, depending on the question you are asking and the nature of the background data. You may also find previous studies and experiments that can help with your process and conclusions.

In this case, you might start by reviewing previous scientific studies for animal experiments related to their reactions to music. Key to finding pertinent information might be looking at studies that study animal behavior in relation to art or domestic animals directly affected by music.

Related: How To Become a Research Scientist

3. Establish your hypothesis
A hypothesis is an educated guess that seeks to answer a question that can be systematically tested. Your hypothesis should also include your predictions that you can measure through experimentation and research.

Example: Based on your research, you start to fine-tune your thoughts about what will probably happen: “If I play classical music, my dog and cat will remain in the room with me. If I play rock-and-roll music, my dog and cat will leave the room.”

4. Test your hypothesis by conducting an experiment
Next, test your hypothesis by conducting an experiment. Your experiment is a way to quantifiably test your predictions and should be able to be repeated by another scientist.

Example: You decide to test it out: You bring the cat and dog into the same room where a sound system is available. You play classical music at a low volume. Both animals remain in the room. Then, you change scientist the music to rock-and-roll at the same volume. Both animals remain in the room.

5. Make an observation
Assess your scientific process and make sure that the conditions remain the same throughout all testing measures. If you change any factors in your experiment, keep all others the same to maintain fairness. After you complete the experiment, repeat it a few more times to make sure the results are accurate.

Example: In reviewing the cause and effect of your experiment, you observe that despite what you had thought would happen, did not. More specifically, the type of music being played did not impact the reaction of the animals.

Therefore, you adjust your hypothesis to state that the animals will react based on the volume of the music. You conduct another experiment, playing classical music at a low volume and then at a high volume. The animals remain in the room when the music is quiet and leave the room when the music is loud.

6. Analyze the results and draw a conclusion
You can now take your experiment findings and analyze them to determine if they support your hypothesis.

Drawing a conclusion means determining whether what you believed would happen actually happened. If it did not happen, you can create a new hypothesis and return to step four, and conduct a new experiment to prove your new theory. If what you hypothesized happened during the experimentation phase, the final step is putting together your findings and presenting them to others.

Example: You determine the behavior of animals is more affected by the volume of music being played rather than the type of music played.

7. Present the findings
The method for presenting your findings depends on your scientific position and level. If you are entering a project into the science fair, you will likely communicate your findings in a written report, on a display board or during a presentation at the event. If you are a scientist by profession, you may present your findings in a scientific publication or to your supervisors.
Nope. Won't work. You can use the EXACT same method to 'prove' a religion as True.

Indeed, this method was used once for exactly that same purpose.

Science has no 'method' or 'procedure'. There is no voting bloc. You do not need to present any paper, book, pamphlet, website, or study at all. Science is just a set of falsifiable theories. There is no such thing as a 'scientific' magazine, pamphlet, website, blog, book, paper, study, observation, or data.

It is not possible to prove a theory 'True'.

Observation is NOT part of science. All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. They are evidence only. They are not a proof.
A theory is not a hypothesis. A hypothesis is not a theory. You are conflating the two. A theory is an explanatory argument. A hypothesis is a 'use case' for a theory. It stems from a theory, not the other way around. Example: the null hypothesis of a theory.

Science is just a set of falsifiable theories. It is no more. It is no less. That's it. That's all.
 
Nope. Won't work. You can use the EXACT same method to 'prove' a religion as True.

Indeed, this method was used once for exactly that same purpose.

Science has no 'method' or 'procedure'. There is no voting bloc. You do not need to present any paper, book, pamphlet, website, or study at all. Science is just a set of falsifiable theories. There is no such thing as a 'scientific' magazine, pamphlet, website, blog, book, paper, study, observation, or data.

It is not possible to prove a theory 'True'.

Observation is NOT part of science. All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. They are evidence only. They are not a proof.
A theory is not a hypothesis. A hypothesis is not a theory. You are conflating the two. A theory is an explanatory argument. A hypothesis is a 'use case' for a theory. It stems from a theory, not the other way around. Example: the null hypothesis of a theory.

Science is just a set of falsifiable theories. It is no more. It is no less. That's it. That's all.

As I said put a sock in it!!
 
It is time yet again to point out what theories of science are being ignored by the Church of Global Warming.

The Church of Global Warming claims that CO2 or some other magick gas or vapor can somehow add energy to Earth, warming it.
The 1st law of thermodynamics states: E(t+1) = E(t) - U where 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work (force over distance). In other words, you CANNOT create energy out of any gas or vapors simply by it's presence.

The Church of Global Warming claims that CO2 or some other magick gas or vapor can somehow trap thermal energy (which they mistakenly call 'heat'), and use light emitted from CO2 or some other magick gas or vapor to heat the surface, which is already warmer than the magick gas or vapor.
This constitutes a reduction of entropy.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics states: e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy (the randomness of the system) and 't' is time. In other words entropy can only increase or stay the same in any given system. IT CAN NEVER DECREASE. You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas or vapor.

The Church of Global Warming claims that light passes through the atmosphere, but does not leave. In other words, they are attempting to trap light.
When a photon is absorbed, it is utterly destroyed. All the energy it contained is converted to some other form. Not all photons contain the same energy. The energy they contain is related to its frequency (Planck's law).

ALL mass that is above absolute zero emits photons in direct proportion to it's temperature (in deg K). This is the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Creating that photon from thermal energy is converting thermal energy to electromagnetic energy. This cools the emitting surface. Yes, this is true for gases as well. The entire volume of gas is the 'surface'. This is how radiant heating works. It is now the Sun can heat the Earth, and how the Earth radiates energy into space.

The Church of Global Warming typically attempts to insert a frequency component into the Stefan-Boltzmann law. There isn't any. ALL frequencies of light are considered for this law.

Each of these are theories of science. They cannot be discarded or set aside for even a moment. There is no sequence. There is no 'trigger'.

In other words, the Church of Global Warming blatantly denies science, despite what they say.
 
As I said put a sock in it!!

No. You cannot try to define 'religion' as 'science'. There is no 'method' or 'procedure' in science. It does not use consensus. It does not use peer review. There is no 'elite' voting bloc.

Only religions have this. Only religions try to prove a theory True. Only religions have a 'method' or 'procedure' that must be followed. Only religions and government use consensus. Only religions, and some books and magazines have 'peer review'. Only religions and certain forms of government have 'elite'.
 
Back
Top