Science from the other side of Climate Change

[IBDaMann]

Well, without people around to create the characters in the equation and figure out the equation, no, the equation would not exist.

You did not answer the question that was asked; instead, you answered a question that was not asked. Let's try one more time.

Does it matter how E = m * c^2 came into existence?

Bonus question: Are you operating under the mistaken impression that science is somehow "interpreted" based on the manner which it came into existence?

 

[ZenMode]

You did not answer the question that was asked; instead, you answered a question that was not asked. Let's try one more time.

Does it matter how E = m * c^2 came into existence?

Bonus question: Are you operating under the mistaken impression that science is somehow "interpreted" based on the manner which it came into existence?

No, it does not matter how it came into existence. I never said it did. I'm saying that it could not come into existence without the people you allegedly don't point to.

 

[IBDaMann]

I mean, you can keep referring to it as a religion but it's not.

I mean, you have the 1st Amendment right to continue referring to your WACKY religion as "thettled thienth" but it's not. No number of paragraphs will change that. It's all part of your ongoing mental gymnastics to keep yourself deluded into believing that your WACKY religion is thettled thienth so that you can OBEY your political slave-masters.

If your WACKY religion had actually been science, you would have presented that science and we would have been done. You wouldn't have felt obligated to stammer that I don't understand your religious dogma and how it is believed to work.

If gfm7175 or Into the Night were to say "IBDaMann, you have no clue how Salvation is believed to work!" ... knowing that we are discussing religion, I would simply defer to them on ... well, how Salvation is believed to work. While they will also assure me that what they are saying is absolutely true, they won't refer to it as science.

Now you, on the other hand, have said many times that I don't have a clue as to how Global Warming is believed to work. But instead of explaining any rational basis (for which you've had well over a year to provide) you EVADE all science, math and logic while insisting that your WACKY beliefs are settled science.

You are clearly working double-time to delude yourself.

 

[ZenMode]

I mean, you have the 1st Amendment right to continue referring to your WACKY religion as "thettled thienth" but it's not. No number of paragraphs will change that. It's all part of your ongoing mental gymnastics to keep yourself deluded into believing that your WACKY religion is thettled thienth so that you can OBEY your political slave-masters.

If your WACKY religion had actually been science, you would have presented that science and we would have been done. You wouldn't have felt obligated to stammer that I don't understand your religious dogma and how it is believed to work.

If gfm7175 or Into the Night were to say "IBDaMann, you have no clue how Salvation is believed to work!" ... knowing that we are discussing religion, I would simply defer to them on ... well, how Salvation is believed to work. While they will also assure me that what they are saying is absolutely true, they won't refer to it as science.

Now you, on the other hand, have said many times that I don't have a clue as to how Global Warming is believed to work. But instead of explaining any rational basis (for which you've had well over a year to provide) you EVADE all science, math and logic while insisting that your WACKY beliefs are settled science.

You are clearly working double-time to delude yourself.

I've never said it was settled, but I've taken the time to educate myself on the science behind it. You haven't because you, again, need to keep science inline with your politics. That's how think work in far-right Looneyville where you've apparently declared yourself the arbiter of science.

 

[IBDaMann]

No, it does not matter how it came into existence.

Thank you. Just don't feel obligated to launch into "I never said ..." quips.

I never said it did.

Crap. You just had to. We've been over this. Yes, you implied emphatically that the human origins of any given science model means everything about everything in the universe. Fortunately, you had a moment of sanity and abandoned that silliness.

I'm saying that it could not come into existence without the people

... but to what point that brings you closer to providing your rational basis for your religious beliefs?

 

[ZenMode]

Thank you. Just don't feel obligated to launch into "I never said ..." quips.


Crap. You just had to. We've been over this. Yes, you implied emphatically that the human origins of any given science model means everything about everything in the universe. Fortunately, you had a moment of sanity and abandoned that silliness.


... but to what point that brings you closer to providing your rational basis for your religious beliefs?

"Crap. You just had to. We've been over this. Yes, you implied emphatically that the human origins of any given science model means everything about everything in the universe."

Uh, no. I'm just pointing out your irrational position that you don't point to people, particularly given that none of the laws or equations that you point to what exist without people.

"but to what point that brings you closer to providing your rational basis for your religious beliefs?"

Like I said previously... Over and over and over and over and over you prove my point.

Politics....

Mental gymnastics....

 

[IBDaMann]

I will also note that I am not completely sold on climate change,

Meaningless statement. You might as well say that you are not completely sold on pththiffffftorishiz. Totally meaningless.

but at least I educate myself

Nope. There is no way to somehow "educate" yourself on the completely undefined. You cannot educate yourself on Climate Change any more than you can educate yourself on pththiffffftorishiz.

and don't go to insane levels to convince myself that it's all a religion and a lie.

Try going one day with your eyes open. See the religion for what it is. See the lie for what it is.

 

[IBDaMann]

You don't accept all science.

Yes, I most certainly do. You do not get to declare otherwise. You are a moron in that respect.

All you are doing is proving my point over and over and over and over...

I will fully stipulate to your non-point. You have no point. Granted.

Now get to your point about your rational basis for your belief in your WACKY, whack-job, screwed-up, fanatical, physics-violating, mind-fuck religion. As long as you don't, you broadcast that your religion is indefensible.

 

[IBDaMann]

I'm just pointing out your irrational position

You are the one making the affirmative argument, not I.

You are the one with the position. I am waiting to read your rational basis for belief in your religious delerium. You believe that violations of thermodynamics and of Stefan-Boltzmann are somehow thettled thienth. This calls for one heck of a rational basis.

Of course, I've been waiting for more than a year. Not only have you never shown any intention of explaining yourself, you don't appear to understand any science, math or logic.

You have declared your religion to be settled science, and the scientific method that you begged to be applied has quickly falsified your faith.

Go ahead and forget about providing any rational basis because, at this point, it's a day late and a dollar short.

 

[ZenMode]

You are the one making the affirmative argument, not I.

You are the one with the position. I am waiting to read your rational basis for belief in your religious delerium. You believe that violations of thermodynamics and of Stefan-Boltzmann are somehow thettled thienth. This calls for one heck of a rational basis.

Of course, I've been waiting for more than a year. Not only have you never shown any intention of explaining yourself, you don't appear to understand any science, math or logic.

You have declared your religion to be settled science, and the scientific method that you begged to be applied has quickly falsified your faith.

Go ahead and forget about providing any rational basis because, at this point, it's a day late and a dollar short.

"You believe that violations of thermodynamics and of Stefan-Boltzmann are somehow thettled thienth."

Again I've never said anything is settled. I've said the opposite. I mean, the thread you are reading now is a counter point to climate change.

Your misapplication of scientific laws only continues to prove my point.

 

[IBDaMann]

Again I've never said anything is settled.

Right, nothing is ever settled in science. You don't get any bonus points for not saying something is settled.

Your misapplication of scientific laws only continues to prove my point.

Your point being that you are scientifically illiterate. You think science is misapplied if it runs counter to your religious faith.

Science applies always, everywhere. The laws of thermodynamics and of Stefan-Boltzmann apply to all bodies of matter, always, everywhere. Your absurd claim that science falsifying your religion (that you made falsifiable by declaring it science) is somehow a misapplication of science, is just another round of mockery at your expense.

You screwed the pooch, and it's not science's fault. You're just a bungling science illiterate who feels compelled to argue science about which he knows nothing, and you've got a rough audience. It sucks to be you.

 

[ZenMode]

Right, nothing is ever settled in science. You don't get any bonus points for not saying something is settled.


Your point being that you are scientifically illiterate. You think science is misapplied if it runs counter to your religious faith.

Science applies always, everywhere. The laws of thermodynamics and of Stefan-Boltzmann apply to all bodies of matter, always, everywhere. Your absurd claim that science falsifying your religion (that you made falsifiable by declaring it science) is somehow a misapplication of science, is just another round of mockery at your expense.

You screwed the pooch, and it's not science's fault. You're just a bungling science illiterate who feels compelled to argue science about which he knows nothing, and you've got a rough audience. It sucks to be you.

Yep, science applies always and everywhere. That is true and it is also true that you clearly don't a) understand how climate change is believed to work and b) are misapplying scientific laws as a result.... because your political views are blinding you.

Politics is also the reason you say illogical things like claiming you "don't point to people", while referencing scientific laws that are literally named after people.

The reason you do that is because you're trying to imply that your (politically misguided view of) science is inate in the world, while climate science is made up by "evil, far-left, Marxists" pretending to be scientists.... which, in your world of politically-driven mental gymnastics, includes scientists from the 1800's.... because just that's how good those far left Marxists are!

Your fatal flaw is in the reality that both your and climate science is the result of the work of people.... scientists.

But, again, this is all the result of mental gymnastics performed to make sure your science and your beliefs about the world fit into your politics.

 

[serenity]

This is believed to occur over thousands of years, which isn't going to do anything about increased temperature, extreme weather, etc now or in the near future.

Earth can regulate its own temperature over millennia, new study finds

Scientists have confirmed that a “stabilizing feedback” on 100,000-year timescales keeps global temperatures in check.

The Earth’s climate has undergone some big changes, from global volcanism to planet-cooling ice ages and dramatic shifts in solar radiation. And yet life, for the last 3.7 billion years, has kept on beating.

Now, a study by MIT researchers in Science Advances confirms that the planet harbors a “stabilizing feedback” mechanism that acts over hundreds of thousands of years to pull the climate back from the brink, keeping global temperatures within a steady, habitable range.

Just how does it accomplish this? A likely mechanism is “silicate weathering” — a geological process by which the slow and steady weathering of silicate rocks involves chemical reactions that ultimately draw carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and into ocean sediments, trapping the gas in rocks.

Scientists have long suspected that silicate weathering plays a major role in regulating the Earth’s carbon cycle. The mechanism of silicate weathering could provide a geologically constant force in keeping carbon dioxide — and global temperatures — in check. But there’s never been direct evidence for the continual operation of such a feedback, until now.

Earth can regulate its own temperature over millennia, new study finds

MIT researchers have confirmed that Earth harbors a “stabilizing feedback” mechanism that acts over hundreds of thousands of years to keep global temperatures within a steady, habitable range.

news.mit.edu

Can or does? What is the other side of climate change besides Northern hemisphere from Southern Hemisphere with tropics staying same all year long except for storms moving between both. Rainy seasons between equinoxes happening during solstices.

those 4 seasons happening 8 times a year.

 

[IBDaMann]

you clearly don't a) understand how climate change is believed to work

If you are admitting that Climate Change is religious dogma that needs to be believed rather than supported by science, we're done.

and b) are misapplying scientific laws as a result....

Science laws cannot be applied to religious dogma.

Politics is also the reason you say illogical things like claiming you "don't point to people"

Nope. My not pointing to people is why I mention that I don't point to people. Your inability to cite a single argument of mine that rests upon my pointing to people is why you know that I don't point to people.

It no longer surprises me that something this basic nonetheless confuses you.

, while referencing scientific laws that are literally named after people.

There are also ships, bridges, airplanes, buildings, streets, counties, conference centers, etc. that are named after people and are actually not even people.

It no longer surprises me that something this basic nonetheless confuses you.

 

[ZenMode]

If you are admitting that Climate Change is religious dogma that needs to be believed rather than supported by science, we're done.


Science laws cannot be applied to religious dogma.



Nope. My not pointing to people is why I mention that I don't point to people. Your inability to cite a single argument of mine that rests upon my pointing to people is why you know that I don't point to people.

It no longer surprises me that something this basic nonetheless confuses you.


There are also ships, bridges, airplanes, buildings, streets, counties, conference centers, etc. that are named after people and are actually not even people.

It no longer surprises me that something this basic nonetheless confuses you.

Since you intentionally ignored the parts you don't want to address, in favor of nonsensical rhetoric, I'll say it again....

The reason you do that (implying that there are no people in your science) is because you're trying to imply that your (politically misguided view of) science is inate in the world, while climate science is made up by "evil, far-left, Marxists" pretending to be scientists.... which, in your world of politically-driven mental gymnastics, includes scientists from the 1800's.... because just that's how good those far left Marxists are!

 

[Daylight63]

You've officially been classified a troll. However, you have distinguished yourself from the other trolls by being the Unhinged Troll of the Week! A prize sought by many, but rarely achieved. ZenMode has never won this prestigious award, but you show up and within weeks you nab it for your very own.

Revel in your well-earned laurels.

Ummm, dude you are violating copyright. I made the graphic and did NOT give you permission to alter it. Please remove your post.

Thank you.

(NOte: I know you are not an honest person and you will be fine with STEALING from someone, so I don't expect you to be a "good person")

 

[Into the Night]

The point of that strawman is.....?

Science, even climate science, and math all originated from people, despite what you believe:

"Neither Into the Night nor I point to people."

If the 10 year old shoe fits....

Climate is not a branch of science, Void.
No strawman occurred. Fallacy fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

"Unlike you, I accept science. "

You accept Science that aligns with your politics and you apparently believe that science doesn't involve people, but floats down from heaven on gold tablets or something....even the laws literally named after scientists.

"Neither Into the Night nor I point to people. "

Science has no politics, Void.

 

[Into the Night]

"There is no science of your WACKY religion."

It's not religion

The Church of Global Warming is a fundamentalist style religion that routinely denies the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It also routinely denies statistical mathematics, probability mathematics, and random number mathematics. It also ignores the English language to a significant degree, depending instead on meaningless buzzwords and redefinitions of words (word games).

and, yes there is, but part of your mental gymnastics, and keeping science aligning with your politics, is to pretend there isn't.

It's kind of like pretending that there are no scientists involved in your science. It's all part of your looney mental gymnastics.

Science has no politics.

 

[Into the Night]

No, it does not matter how it came into existence.

Correct.

I never said it did.

Blatant lie. DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

I'm saying that it could not come into existence without the people you allegedly don't point to.

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.