Why Does the Global Warming Faith Claim to be Science?

Nice dance, Terry. You mention CO2, blamed the libs, kept politicizing the problem and hinted at contrail conspiracy theory but, ultimately, refused to answer the question. Fine. Your choice, but don't expect me to respect your scientific expertise when it's clear you no longer have much.

How Airplane Contrails Are Helping Make the Planet Warmer
https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-airplane-contrails-are-helping-make-the-planet-warmer

CONTRAILS AND CLIMATE CHANGE: AN INVESTIGATION OF THE ROLE OF
AVIATION-INDUCED-CLOUDINESS ON THE IRISH CLIMATE USING AATSR
IMAGERY

https://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pub/conference/Whelan.etal.ESALPS.10.pdf

NASA-DLR Study Finds Sustainable Aviation Fuel Can Reduce Contrails
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/...ustainable-aviation-fuel-can-reduce-contrails

Do airplane contrails add to climate change? Yes, and the problem is about to get worse.
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/scienc...mate-change-yes-problem-about-get-ncna1034521

CLOUDS CAUSED BY AIRCRAFT EXHAUST MAY WARM THE U.S. CLIMATE
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/releases/2004/04-140.html

Water vapor is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. A good portion of the Northern hemisphere--where most warming has been found--is covered in contrail created cloud cover daily.

Follow the fucking science and ignore the prophets of Greentard religion.
 
How Airplane Contrails Are Helping Make the Planet Warmer
https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-airplane-contrails-are-helping-make-the-planet-warmer

CONTRAILS AND CLIMATE CHANGE: AN INVESTIGATION OF THE ROLE OF
AVIATION-INDUCED-CLOUDINESS ON THE IRISH CLIMATE USING AATSR
IMAGERY

https://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pub/conference/Whelan.etal.ESALPS.10.pdf

NASA-DLR Study Finds Sustainable Aviation Fuel Can Reduce Contrails
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/...ustainable-aviation-fuel-can-reduce-contrails

Do airplane contrails add to climate change? Yes, and the problem is about to get worse.
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/scienc...mate-change-yes-problem-about-get-ncna1034521

CLOUDS CAUSED BY AIRCRAFT EXHAUST MAY WARM THE U.S. CLIMATE
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/releases/2004/04-140.html

Water vapor is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. A good portion of the Northern hemisphere--where most warming has been found--is covered in contrail created cloud cover daily.

Follow the fucking science and ignore the prophets of Greentard religion.

Yes, Terry. Follow the fucking science. Thanks for admitting to man-made global warming, even if you and I disagree that contrails are the only cause.
 
Yes, Terry. Follow the fucking science. Thanks for admitting to man-made global warming, even if you and I disagree that contrails are the only cause.

My argument is with how much is caused, and what the cause is, because right now the scientists saying it's man made CO2 are the exact same bunch of idiots and morons who told us the hole in the ozone layer would close years ago if we got rid of CFC's. Instead, the hole is still there, and they found a second bigger one. So, their "science" was nothing but a SWAGPOOYA. The aren't to be trusted when they can't get things right repeatedly.
 
My argument is with how much is caused, and what the cause is, because right now the scientists saying it's man made CO2 are the exact same bunch of idiots and morons who told us the hole in the ozone layer would close years ago if we got rid of CFC's. Instead, the hole is still there, and they found a second bigger one. So, their "science" was nothing but a SWAGPOOYA. The aren't to be trusted when they can't get things right repeatedly.

Exactly the same, Terry? I was a butter bar in 1979, now I'm well into retirement. Are you saying the exact same lead scientists who were studying the Ozone Hole are studying global warming 44 years later???

Regardless of your scientific expertise in the past, it seems to have gone the way of the Dodo bird.
 
Intelligent people use our nation's foremost science organization: NASA

https://climate.nasa.gov/

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause.
  • While Earth’s climate has changed throughout its history, the current warming is happening at a rate not seen in the past 10,000 years.
  • According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), "Since systematic scientific assessments began in the 1970s, the influence of human activity on the warming of the climate system has evolved from theory to established fact."1
  • Scientific information taken from natural sources (such as ice cores, rocks, and tree rings) and from modern equipment (like satellites and instruments) all show the signs of a changing climate.
  • From global temperature rise to melting ice sheets, the evidence of a warming planet abounds.
Intelligent people do not allow NASA to do their thinking for them.

NASA apparently cannot define the term either, and neither do they have any sort of idea what Earth's temperature is. Why should any rational adult believe that they do?
 
You'd be wrong. Of course because my area of expertise is earth science I've actually met many of the players and hung around with a huge number of scientists who specialize in the earth system sciences.
Why do I have this sneaking suspicion that everything you just claimed here is a big fat steaming hunk of shit?

It's Anthropogenic Climate Change
Oh great... yet ANOTHER meaningless buzzword!

and it is defined as the effects of humans on climate.
A meaningless definition, thus the aforementioned term remains a buzzword. What are "the effects of humans"? What is "climate"?

It is "change" because as the overall global temperature
... an unknown value.

(as measured as an "anomaly"
Anomalies are calculated values, not measured values.

or temperature difference from a baseline temperature set)
or calculated from a baseline set of random numbers... or, in simple terms, random numbers.

is INCREASING
This is the foundational axiom of the Church of Global Warming, yes... "Earth's temperature is increasing!" ... Okay, I got that bit... but why should any rational adult believe this? In fact, why should any rational adult adopt a religion that outright rejects logic, science, AND mathematics? At least Christianity (a religion that I accept as true) doesn't require me to deny any of those things...

which leads to a variety of effects including local warming but also possibly even local cooling.
So "Anthropogenic Climate Change" is just another word for weather?? Why not simply stick with the word 'weather'?

Let's take an example: The Gulf Stream in the Atlantic. It is part of a larger overall system of circulation in the North Atlantic. At it's northern point it goes by Greenland. As the Greenland ice sheet melts it pushes cold, fresh water into the water column and the density differential between that cold fresh water and the saline water of the ocean causes an impact on the gulf stream and the overall THERMOHALINE CIRCULATION. There's geologic evidence that this has slowed or rearranged in the past. And we see evidence that with global climate change and warming in the high latitudes as the Greenland Ice Sheet melts it IS having an effect on this circulation.
Your example is meaningless until you can define your terminology. I see no reason to believe that what you are claiming to be "anthropogenic climate change" is anything different than the occurrence of weather.

The reason I bring this up is because IF the Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation shuts down or rearranges it could very well lead to a significant COOLING in western Europe. Western Europe has a climate warmer than its latitude would suggest and that's because it is on the east side of the Atlantic and the Gulf Stream carries warm water up to that latitude.

Warm the earth --> Cool western Europe.
See above.

That's just one example. There are countless of them. But it all boils down to the fact (now very well established) that the planet IS warming
Yes, I realize that you are a very fervent believer in your faith, but faith is not science, no matter how much you wish to pretend that it is.

Assuming constant energy from the sun, where is this supposed additional energy coming from that is required to increase Earth's temperature?

I love it when the Marxist 'we' rears its ugly head...

cannot utilize natural cycles to explain the majority of the warming.
You have yet to explain where the additional energy (for the claimed "warming") is coming from... According to you, it "just exists". Ergo, a faith based belief. I wish that you would just be honest about it rather than attempting to redefine your faith as science...

But if we
There's that ugly Marxist 'we' again...

include forcings
Another undefined buzzword, part of your church literature.

due to HUMAN ACTIVITIES the data makes very good sense.
Of course your church literature "makes very good sense". You are a BELIEVER in the FAITH, remember? To an English speaking outsider such as myself, your church literature might as well be written in Mandarin...

It explains 50% or more of the warming we've seen in the modern era.
Where is the additional energy required for this "warming" coming from?
 
Exactly the same, Terry? I was a butter bar in 1979, now I'm well into retirement. Are you saying the exact same lead scientists who were studying the Ozone Hole are studying global warming 44 years later???

Regardless of your scientific expertise in the past, it seems to have gone the way of the Dodo bird.

Come on, you know what I mean. They are the same ilk today they were then. Yes, some are the same, most aren't the exact same ones, but their thinking hasn't changed one iota.
 
We listen to the actual professionals. AGW is real.
Then the professionals to which you listen are professional con artists who play directly on your gullibility.

But by all means act like it isn't.
He is wise to recognize it for the WACKY religion that it is. I notice you haven't managed to post any science supporting your beliefs. In fact, none of your congregation have thus far been able to even attempt to do so. Any ideas as to why not?

Hope you don't have kids because they'll learn what you couldn't.
I have children. They mock your WACKY religion.
 
Why do I have this sneaking suspicion that everything you just claimed here is a big fat steaming hunk of shit?

Oh great... yet ANOTHER meaningless buzzword!

A meaningless definition, thus the aforementioned term remains a buzzword. What are "the effects of humans"? What is "climate"?

... an unknown value.

Anomalies are calculated values, not measured values.

or calculated from a baseline set of random numbers... or, in simple terms, random numbers.

This is the foundational axiom of the Church of Global Warming, yes... "Earth's temperature is increasing!" ... Okay, I got that bit... but why should any rational adult believe this? In fact, why should any rational adult adopt a religion that outright rejects logic, science, AND mathematics? At least Christianity (a religion that I accept as true) doesn't require me to deny any of those things...

So "Anthropogenic Climate Change" is just another word for weather?? Why not simply stick with the word 'weather'?

Your example is meaningless until you can define your terminology. I see no reason to believe that what you are claiming to be "anthropogenic climate change" is anything different than the occurrence of weather.

See above.

Yes, I realize that you are a very fervent believer in your faith, but faith is not science, no matter how much you wish to pretend that it is.

Assuming constant energy from the sun, where is this supposed additional energy coming from that is required to increase Earth's temperature?

I love it when the Marxist 'we' rears its ugly head...

You have yet to explain where the additional energy (for the claimed "warming") is coming from... According to you, it "just exists". Ergo, a faith based belief. I wish that you would just be honest about it rather than attempting to redefine your faith as science...

There's that ugly Marxist 'we' again...

Another undefined buzzword, part of your church literature.

Of course your church literature "makes very good sense". You are a BELIEVER in the FAITH, remember? To an English speaking outsider such as myself, your church literature might as well be written in Mandarin...

Where is the additional energy required for this "warming" coming from?

Impressive! You totally spanked him. I doubt he will try to formulate any sort of valid responses. Well done.
 
Intelligent people use our nation's foremost science organization: NASA
Hey moron, NASA isn't a science organization. Only gullible, uneducated idiots think it is. NASA is a normal government bureaucracy, run by a political appointee who ensures adherence to a political agenda (hence "political APPOINTEE")

Only the world's stupidest fuqqs ask NASA what to believe. Only the world's stupidest fuqqs refer to NASA as "the foremost science organization".

You're one of them, aren't you?

There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate.
Can anyone clue Doc Dutch in on what he needs to post after making this assertion? Anyone?

Everything else is dismissed.
 
The existence of bad/dishonest scientists doesn't mean all scientists are bad/dishonest or that we shouldn't trust all research done by scientists.
BUT we should get our roles straight. RESEARCHERS conduct research and SCIENTISTS work with and/or create science. The two roles are not interchangeable.

By the way, on matters of science, no one should simply trust anyone's research. Science, on the other hand, has survived the scrutiny of the scientific method and can therefore be trusted. Science and research are not interchangeable.

Scientists normally avoid the term 'fact', so you'll likely never hear a scientist refer to climate change as a fact,
That depends entirely on whether said scientist is a member of the Church of Climate Change. Scientists can be religious, you know.

but there appears to be a scientific basis for believing that climate change is a thing.
Nope. If there were, you'd post it.

The purpose of this thread is for people to post the scientific basis for their Global Warming and Climate Change beliefs, yet here we are 24 pages in and not a shred of science. Ergo, the correct answer is that there does NOT appear to be any scientific basis for believing that Climate Change is anything other than a WACKY religion that is devoid of all science.
 
To me, the real question is WTF even IS "global warming"? It has yet to be unambiguously defined by any Church of Global Warming member... In fact, I've only ever seen one valid definition of the term "Global Warming", as follows:

The Arch-villain of the Global Warming mythology; born out of unfettered capitalism, Global Warming acquires His power from "heat" produced by Greenhouse Effect. Global Warming is constantly at war with the goddess Climate,. His favorite weapons are CO2, methane, water vapor and greenhouse gas which he feeds to Greenhouse Effect in return for more "heat" and thus more power.


What is there to discuss about an undefined buzzword? If you wish to discuss the arch-villain of the Global Warming mythology, then I'm all ears... but otherwise you've presented nothing TO discuss...


The "tipping point" of WHAT?

You simply don't believe that human caused, earth debilitating climate change is taking place.
That's psychotic.

I accept that as a given.
The climate scientists have said so.
The brain dead reichnuts deny, which adds yet more evidence that's it's got to be true.

I accept the fact because it's pretty obviously true. I just don't know know if it's reversible or of we're done.
I don't really give a fat flying fuck one way or the other, but younger people might want to have a last big fling if it's truly over for humanity.
It would be a shame to waste the last few generations of humanity trying to reverse something that's now irreversible.
 
My point is and has been while humanity does have some effect on climate
Please post why you believe this. Is the reason that you haven't done so already that you know it's a religion and that you realize that it would be futile to try to unambiguously define this global climate that you know is just a religious doctrinal entity (deity)?

As I've previously, and repeatedly, pointed out contrails represent at least 10% of that change, and possibly more.
How did you measure this change to a completely undefined religious deity?

fossil fuel use,
Just out of curiosity, why do you use the term "fossil fuels"? What do you mean by the term?

As for the IPCC, I could get better predictions from a psychic...
What predictions do you believe the IPCC has made?
 
Hey moron, NASA isn't a science organization. Only gullible, uneducated idiots think it is. NASA is a normal government bureaucracy, run by a political appointee who ensures adherence to a political agenda...

There's a reason why you're my favorite, Sybil. :thup:
 
Come on, you know what I mean.

They are the same ilk today they were then. Yes, some are the same, most aren't the exact same ones, but their thinking hasn't changed one iota.

Some days I get accused of trying to be a mind-reader, other days people whine that I'm not. Go figure.

Scientists look for facts. If you really worked in nuclear power and studied history, then you know this is true. Leave hyperbole to the assholes and try sticking to the facts...unless you're trying to run for office, Terry. Are you running for office, Terry?
 
Intelligent people do not allow NASA to do their thinking for them.

NASA apparently cannot define the term either, and neither do they have any sort of idea what Earth's temperature is. Why should any rational adult believe that they do?

Thanks for the consistent input, Sybil. :thup:
 
Back
Top