ZenMode
Well-known member
According to who?
Is Climate Change Possible Redux
- Thread starter ZenMode
- Start date
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
ZenMode
Well-known member
no matter how you see it, there's eventually always a who. Someone has to make a determination on how things work to make that claim.
However, as I already know, several posters believe they can make things true by simply saying them... sometimes over and over.
So, based on what/who is are the ocean levels not rising?
Oh, let me guess... It's according to science, right? According to science, water levels can't rise?
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
There is no 'who'. There is only a 'what'.
Indeed. You're right up there with the best of them!
There is no 'who'. I'd suggest learning some mathematics (and some logic).
See above.
Into the Night
Verified User
That you are. This isn't the first time you keep mindlessly asking the same question over and over and over and over and over, even though it's already been answered.
Into the Night
Verified User
Into the Night
Verified User
Not who...what. Mathematics. You simply deny mathematics. This isn't the first time you've done this either.
It is not possible to measure the global sea level, the temperature of the Earth, the global snow and ice on Earth, the global atmospheric amount of carbon dioxide, the emissivity of the Earth, the pH of the oceans, etc. Your stupid religion claims to know these magick numbers. You deny statistical math, probability math, random number math, and algebra.
ZenMode
Well-known member
Remind me of the answer to the question of why ocean levels aren't rising or can't rise. I "forgot" what you said.
ZenMode
Well-known member
Last edited:
Into the Night
Verified User
RQAARemind me of the answer to the question of why ocean levels aren't rising or can't rise. I "forgot" what you said.
Into the Night
Verified User
RQAAWhich part mathematics says water can't rise and hasn't risen?
ZenMode
Well-known member
Link?
ZenMode
Well-known member
Into the Night
Verified User
Your problem. Go back and read it. RQAA.
Into the Night
Verified User
RQAA
Into the Night
Verified User
The phrase 'climate change' is just another synonym for the Church of Global Warming. Climate, of course, cannot change.
Other synonyms I've seen are 'climate crises', 'global cooling', etc.
It's all the same religion. It stems from the Church of Green. The Church of the EV stems from the Church of Global Warming (which stems from the Church of Green).
The 'solution' to the so-called 'problem' is always the same: implement drastic cuts in industry and bans on petrol products (including gasoline)...in other words, fascism. They somehow think that government's purpose is to manipulate (and even own) markets.
Democrats have no problem telling you what light bulb you can buy, what car you can buy, what toilet you can buy, what stove you can buy, etc. They want to control every aspect of your life. They are tyrants.
Other synonyms I've seen are 'climate crises', 'global cooling', etc.
It's all the same religion. It stems from the Church of Green. The Church of the EV stems from the Church of Global Warming (which stems from the Church of Green).
The 'solution' to the so-called 'problem' is always the same: implement drastic cuts in industry and bans on petrol products (including gasoline)...in other words, fascism. They somehow think that government's purpose is to manipulate (and even own) markets.
Democrats have no problem telling you what light bulb you can buy, what car you can buy, what toilet you can buy, what stove you can buy, etc. They want to control every aspect of your life. They are tyrants.
Daylight63
Verified User
So full of shit. It must be hard to breathe
Into the Night
Verified User
The Church of Global Warming ignores several theories of science:
1st law of thermodynamics: E(t+1) = E(t) - U; where 'E' is energy, and 'U' is work, and 't' is time.
The mere existence of a Holy Gas is not work, so 'U' is zero, yet the Church of Global Warming claims that the mere existence of a Holy Gas somehow adds energy.
2nd law of thermodynamics: e(t+1) >= e(t); where 'e' is entropy (or available energy for work) and 't' is time.
The Church of Global Warming argues that a Magick Holy Gas can somehow reduce entropy by 'trapping light'. Often, they go for the 'system' argument, trying to compare two different closed systems as if they were the same system.
Stefan-Boltzmann law: r = C * e * t^4; where 'r' is radiated energy (light) per square area, 'C' is a natural constant, 'e' is a measured constant indicating how well a surface emits or absorbs light, and 't' is temperature in deg K. A gas has a large surface area, and it is still mass, so it's still subject to the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
The Church of Global Warming likes to think there is some kind 'sequence' where you can suspend this law for some convenient measure of time; or tries to argue that the light emitted or absorbed is of a certain frequency (all frequencies combined are considered). In other words, they try to add a frequency component to the equation (it has none).
1st law of thermodynamics: E(t+1) = E(t) - U; where 'E' is energy, and 'U' is work, and 't' is time.
The mere existence of a Holy Gas is not work, so 'U' is zero, yet the Church of Global Warming claims that the mere existence of a Holy Gas somehow adds energy.
2nd law of thermodynamics: e(t+1) >= e(t); where 'e' is entropy (or available energy for work) and 't' is time.
The Church of Global Warming argues that a Magick Holy Gas can somehow reduce entropy by 'trapping light'. Often, they go for the 'system' argument, trying to compare two different closed systems as if they were the same system.
Stefan-Boltzmann law: r = C * e * t^4; where 'r' is radiated energy (light) per square area, 'C' is a natural constant, 'e' is a measured constant indicating how well a surface emits or absorbs light, and 't' is temperature in deg K. A gas has a large surface area, and it is still mass, so it's still subject to the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
The Church of Global Warming likes to think there is some kind 'sequence' where you can suspend this law for some convenient measure of time; or tries to argue that the light emitted or absorbed is of a certain frequency (all frequencies combined are considered). In other words, they try to add a frequency component to the equation (it has none).
Into the Night
Verified User
So I take it you deny Democrats telling people what toilet to buy, what stove to buy, what light bulb to buy, or what car to buy? Are you REALLY going to try to deny all your own posts???