Why Does the Global Warming Faith Claim to be Science?

gfm7175 said:
Splendid! So why don't you, a rational person, please explain those differences to me, an irrational sub-human... Please make sure to use very small words, since I don't have anywhere near the level of education that you do. The floor is yours.


Trumpet to English translator: and bippity boo bah is a science of which has been politicized by the Hibberjabbers, and the Bahmbahs are trying to bibblebabble for their benefit.
Click to expand...

You truly are insane.
 
gfm7175 said:
Impossible to answer? It's actually quite easy to answer.

A rational person would not believe in the Global Warming religion because Global Warming theology is in direct contradiction to logic (as it is based upon a buzzword ('global warming') that warmizombies and climate lemmings will not and cannot unambiguously define), science (as it rejects numerous laws of science, typically the laws of thermodynamics and the stefan boltzmann law, without first falsifying those laws), and mathematics (as it rejects the rules of statistical mathematics, including but definitely not limited to: unambiguously defining boundaries, declaring a desired margin of error at the outset, removing all known biases, using raw data, declaring and justifying a variance value, and calculating the margin of error).

So back to the question in the OP: Why should any rational adult believe as warmizombies and climate lemmings believe?

Answer: They shouldn't, as the Global Warming religious dogma irrationally rejects logic, science, and mathematics. Rational adults do not willingly reject such things.
Click to expand...

All buzzwords.
 
gfm7175 said:
Splendid! So why don't you, a rational person, please explain those differences to me, an irrational sub-human... Please make sure to use very small words, since I don't have anywhere near the level of education that you do. The floor is yours.


Trumpet to English translator: and bippity boo bah is a science of which has been politicized by the Hibberjabbers, and the Bahmbahs are trying to bibblebabble for their benefit.
Click to expand...

:lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup::lolup:

Seeing that you're such a clown, perhaps you ought to join the circus.
 
gfm7175 said:
Impossible to answer? It's actually quite easy to answer.
Click to expand...

I already answered it repeatedly. No logical people should believe in religions.

You made the claim that climate change is a religion without any kind of evidence whatsoever.

A rational person would not believe in the Global Warming religion because Global Warming theology is in direct contradiction to logic (as it is based upon a buzzword ('global warming') that warmizombies and climate lemmings will not and cannot unambiguously define), science (as it rejects numerous laws of science, typically the laws of thermodynamics and the stefan boltzmann law, without first falsifying those laws), and mathematics (as it rejects the rules of statistical mathematics, including but definitely not limited to: unambiguously defining boundaries, declaring a desired margin of error at the outset, removing all known biases, using raw data, declaring and justifying a variance value, and calculating the margin of error).
Click to expand...

Incoherent babbling.
 
AProudLefty said:
I already answered it repeatedly. No logical people should believe in religions.
Click to expand...
Interesting! Why not? IOW, what specifically is it about religion that is illogical?

AProudLefty said:
You made the claim that climate change is a religion without any kind of evidence whatsoever.
Click to expand...
You made the claim that no logical people should believe in religions without any kind of evidence whatsoever.

AProudLefty said:
Incoherent babbling.
Click to expand...
Right, seeing as you speak Liberal rather than English, English WOULD appear that way to you...
 
gfm7175 said:
Interesting! Why not? IOW, what specifically is it about religion that is illogical?
Click to expand...

A religion can be logical It's the claims of gods, miracles and supernatural beings that are unprovable. It is illogical to believe in them without evidence.

You made the claim that no logical people should believe in religions without any kind of evidence whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Is there an echo?

Right, seeing as you speak Liberal rather than English, English WOULD appear that way to you...
Click to expand...

Wrong. It is an incoherent babbling to any logical person, be it liberal or conservative.
 
Celticguy said:
The public is familiar with what these terms represent.
Click to expand...
IOW, you're telling this forum's readers that an unspecified group of people is familiar with what those unspecified terms represent. Hahahahahaha wow... TOTALLY meaningful...

Celticguy said:
This website is, as suggested by the title, a discussion or the various ideas surrounding it.
Click to expand...
In order to discuss something, one needs to first unambiguously define what is being discussed.
 
AProudLefty said:
A religion can be logical
Click to expand...
You are now in paradox.

[1] No logical people should believe in religions. [implying that believing in any religion is illogical].
[2] A religion can be logical [implying that believing in some religions is logical].

You can't have it both ways. This is where you respond by saying some iteration of: "but, but I didn't sayyyyyy THAAAATTTTTTT"

AProudLefty said:
It's the claims of gods, miracles and supernatural beings that are unprovable. It is illogical to believe in them without evidence.
Click to expand...
So only the religions that make claims to gods/miracles/supernatural beings/etc are illogical? Religions that don't make any such claims can be logical?

AProudLefty said:
Is there an echo?
Click to expand...
No, but there IS a paradox (see above).

AProudLefty said:
Wrong. It is an incoherent babbling to any logical person, be it liberal or conservative.
Click to expand...
No, the issue is that you don't speak English.
 
gfm7175 said:
You are now in paradox.

[1] No logical people should believe in religions. [implying that believing in any religion is illogical].
[2] A religion can be logical [implying that believing in some religions is logical].

You can't have it both ways. This is where you respond by saying some iteration of: "but, but I didn't sayyyyyy THAAAATTTTTTT"


So only the religions that make claims to gods/miracles/supernatural beings/etc are illogical? Religions that don't make any such claims can be logical?


No, but there IS a paradox (see above).


No, the issue is that you don't speak English.
Click to expand...

There is no paradox.

Example: "The Bigfoot love to eat wild berries."

That is a logical statement.

What is not logical is believing that Bigfoot exist without evidence.

What is your first language?
 
Trumpet said:
Why should I waste my time?????????
Click to expand...
Because even if I am "toooooo stooooooopid" to learn anything from the impeccably wise Trumpet, then other readers might learn a thing or two from your imparted wisdom. This isn't just about you and me.
 
Trumpet said:
and climatology is a science ...
Click to expand...
Nope, "climatology" is a WACKY religious doctrine that your WACKY religion requires you to believe is somehow a branch of science. Those who incorporate "climatology" into their faith are ignorant dupes who were selected for recruitment and indoctrination because of their scientific illiteracy and their resulting extreme gullibility. This is precisely why no such worshiper has any science to support his beliefs, i.e. he was simply indoctrinated to believe that his religion is actually "thettled thienth." The "climatology" choir is not, under any circumstances, to question what they are told to believe ... and they OBEY, instead singing the doctrine of "climatology" in three-part harmony wherever they go.

This is precisely why this thread is destined to remain absolutely devoid of any such supporting science. All are welcome to peruse the existing fourteen pages and wonder why those who obviously have no supporting science nonetheless insist that their WACKY supernatural, physics-defying beliefs are somehow "a branch of science."

A special thanks to AProudLefty for illuminating this point beyond my wildest dreams. I couldn't have done it anywhere nearly as well without you. The next beer is on me.

gfm7175 said:
Impossible to answer? It's actually quite easy to answer.

A rational person would not believe in the Global Warming religion because Global Warming theology is in direct contradiction to logic (as it is based upon a buzzword ('global warming') that warmizombies and climate lemmings will not and cannot unambiguously define), science (as it rejects numerous laws of science, typically the laws of thermodynamics and the stefan boltzmann law, without first falsifying those laws), and mathematics (as it rejects the rules of statistical mathematics, including but definitely not limited to: unambiguously defining boundaries, declaring a desired margin of error at the outset, removing all known biases, using raw data, declaring and justifying a variance value, and calculating the margin of error).

So back to the question in the OP: Why should any rational adult believe as warmizombies and climate lemmings believe?

Answer: They shouldn't, as the Global Warming religious dogma irrationally rejects logic, science, and mathematics. Rational adults do not willingly reject such things.
Click to expand...

I had mentioned to AProudLefty that my question could certainly be answered, but not only did you answer it, you knocked it out of the park. Well done. It looks like you get it.
 
IBDaMann said:
Nope, "climatology" is a WACKY religious doctrine that your WACKY religion requires you to believe is somehow a branch of science. Those who incorporate "climatology" into their faith are ignorant dupes who were selected for recruitment and indoctrination because of their scientific illiteracy and their resulting extreme gullibility. This is precisely why no such worshiper has any science to support his beliefs, i.e. he was simply indoctrinated to believe that his religion is actually "thettled thienth." The "climatology" choir is not, under any circumstances, to question what they are told to believe ... and they OBEY, instead singing the doctrine of "climatology" in three-part harmony wherever they go.

This is precisely why this thread is destined to remain absolutely devoid of any such supporting science. All are welcome to peruse the existing fourteen pages and wonder why those who obviously have no supporting science nonetheless insist that their WACKY supernatural, physics-defying beliefs are somehow "a branch of science."

A special thanks to AProudLefty for illuminating this point beyond my wildest dreams. I couldn't have done it anywhere nearly as well without you. The next beer is on me.



I had mentioned to AProudLefty that my question could certainly be answered, but not only did you answer it, you knocked it out of the park. Well done. It looks like you get it.
Click to expand...

I have already answered your question. Your refusal to accept it is not my problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top