Science from the other side of Climate Change

[Into the Night]

You realize that all of your "fallacy" stuff is just an avoidance tool, right? You want to be able to make declarations, based on your ignorance and beliefs, and then avoid conversation with deflection.

DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR FALLACIES ON ME OR ANYBODY ELSE! They are YOUR problem.

I didn't write the theories of science you desperately try to ignore. I didn't create the mathematics you desperately try to ignore.
Inversion fallacy.

 

[gfm7175]

POST #45, dear readers. A simple question using basic reality that our resident climate change deniers will twist into pretzels before answering it honestly.

Your post #45 has already been addressed, and it doesn't contain any questions.

It is based on the meaningless buzzwords: 'natural stabilizing', 'artificial deforestation', and industrial pollution'.

What "stabilizing"? What "deforestation"? What "pollution"?

 

[ZenMode]

Sure. All three sides of a right triangle are straight lines. I use it quite a lot. Apparently you aren't aware of the characteristics of a triangle.

That's not what I said.

To clarify, since you continue to play dumb, I'm talking about a single straight line. Explain how you'd apply Pythagorean Theorem to that.

 

[ZenMode]

DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR FALLACIES ON ME OR ANYBODY ELSE! They are YOUR problem.

I didn't write the theories of science you desperately try to ignore. I didn't create the mathematics you desperately try to ignore.
Inversion fallacy.

I didn't say you wrote theories of science or mathematics or laws of science.

Care to try again?

 

[Into the Night]

That's not what I said.

DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

To clarify, since you continue to play dumb, I'm talking about a single straight line. Explain how you'd apply Pythagorean Theorem to that.

Why? The Pythagorean Theorem describes right triangles. You must've missed that in math class.

 

[Into the Night]

I didn't say you wrote theories of science or mathematics or laws of science.

DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

 

[ZenMode]

DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

Why? The Pythagorean Theorem describes right triangles. You must've missed that in math class.

Exactly, so applying it to a straight line would be misusing it.

I'm so glad we were able to get past your "confusion".

 

[ZenMode]

DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

I'm not. If I'm wrong then you are welcome to show me where I said you wrote any of them.

I'll be waiting.....a looooooooong time.

 

[Into the Night]

Exactly, so applying it to a straight line would be misusing it.

Nope. Your word games won't work, Void. You can't misuse the Pythagorean Theorem.

I'm so glad we were able to get past your "confusion".

Your word games won't work, Void.

 

[Into the Night]

I'm not. If I'm wrong then you are welcome to show me where I said you wrote any of them.

I'll be waiting.....a looooooooong time.

DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

 

[Taichiliberal]

How is this for a pretzel? There is no question in this post:


Your skills in grammar match your scientific insight.

An error on my part. I stand corrected on saying a statement is a question.

Now that's out of the way, are you saying that the statement is in error? And if so, how?

 

[IBDaMann]

I'm sorry but climate sensitivity of the various greenhouse gases is of CRITICAL importance to the discussion.

Pure gibberish. Why can you not define unambiguously, without violating physics, math or logic, either "climate sensitivity" or "greenhouse gas"?

Well, I know why.

If you don't even really know anything about it how do you have any opinion on it?

Great question. If you have no rational basis for believing any of this crap, why do you believe any of this crap?

You still don't have any actual science to back your claim up.

You still have not provided any science to even establish that there is any science supporting anything that you are saying.

Again, you are so uneducated in the topic that you only THINK you have.

You've made this claim often. Of course, you aren't omnipotent and you cannot declare ignorance that has not been demonstrated based on mere disbelief of your own personal religious beliefs.

You have not yet done so. Find supporting references then we can talk.

Science, math and logic require no references. They are simply posted and stand on their own.

Well, we know you lack any real training in any of these topics.

An 8-year-old with no "training" and no credentials can nonetheless post "RADIANCE = EMISSIVITY * SB_Const * TEMP^4"

 

[AProudLefty]

See POST #47.
Climate cannot change.

Climate can change.

 

[IBDaMann]

Define religion since you only acknowledge definitions you make up in your hea

Into the Night will accept any definition you wish to apply to any term you wish to fabricate. However, if you are pretending to be discussing science or math, you have to use the definition specified by the relevant theory. Your error is that you try to fabricate and overlay your own definitions onto math and science, and then blame Into the Night for not allowing you to hijack math and science.

You continue to be the problem.

if you fully understood them, you wouldn't be misusing them.

You are scientifically illiterate and mathematically incompetent. You are completely unable to discern if science or math is somehow being "misused." You are only able to sense when your own religious beliefs are threatened, at which point you rush to your strawberry safe space in which science and math are perfectly maleable and can be altered to support your religion instead of running against it.

 

[IBDaMann]

Climate can change.

How?

 

[AProudLefty]

How?

See Ice Age.

 

[IBDaMann]

One must understand that what we are dealing with is theology, not a legitimate field of study.

Spot on. So few people realize this, believing instead that it must be "thettled theinth."

The moment someone asserts that a religion is science, that religion falls under the scrutiny of the scientific method, and of course immediately fails at the starting gate.

As a real scientist, I have utter contempt for climatology which utterly discards the scientific method in favor of apologetics for a preordained conclusion.

Well said.

Throughout the entire sphere of the half-century of Climatology we have seen a parade of hucksters, clowns, and grifters. What we have never seen, not once, is any substantiation of the models and whackjob claims of the hucksters, clowns, and grifters.

Here's where they get you. There aren't any "the models" to begin with.

Think back to all the arguments about the gloomy doom predicted by "the models" vs. "the models" never coming true ... without anyone ever chiming in to say "ummm, there are no the models or results in the first place." This is why you have never seen any such models, and why all the thuper thmart thientitht geniutheth who testify before congress only show charts, and never seize on such a grand opportunity to present their "model(s)."

No other branch of science is 100% wrong 100% of the time yet demanding.

FTFY. Climate Warming Greenhouse Change isn't science in the first place.

No branch of science is ever wrong/false. If a model is found to be in error then it is discarded and science is back to 100% correct (as far is known).

I won't argue with your cut and paste graphs and charts - no more than I would argue with a fanatic about the lineage of Anakin Skywalker. Both are the subject of fanatics embroiled in fantasy.

Now you've crossed the line and committed sacrilege, you dumb midi-chlorian denier.

 

[IBDaMann]

See Ice Age.

You can't think of a single climate that has changed in the last century?

 

[AProudLefty]

You can't think of a single climate that has changed in the last century?

All I need is one example.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

One century out of 4.5 billion years, give or take, isn't statistically relevant.