Why Does the Global Warming Faith Claim to be Science?

[IBDaMann]

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

Well, when you put it that way, with all that undisputable science, it seems so obvious and straightforward.

Wait, do we have a PRAYER forthcoming? The Nicene Creed of Global Warming?

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 if we're done.

I don't really give a fat flying fuck
one way or the other
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.

That is a lovely prayer, I must say. It is one of the finer professions of faith that I have ever read. In fact, that's what I'll call it: The NiftyNblick Creed

Do you have any more?

 

[IBDaMann]

There's a reason why you're my favorite, Sybil.

Terry, I've figured out why it's so easy to bend you over something and fuck you every which way from Sunday.

What you are rhymes with a wegetable.

 

[IBDaMann]

Scientists look for facts.

No, Terry, scientists work with science, or they create it.

Researchers gather data.

You need to learn what a fact is, once you have more than just a brain stem of course.

If you really worked in nuclear power and studied history, then you know this is true.

Terry, it doesn't matter where anyone has worked, your lunatic raving still isn't true.

Leave hyperbole to the assholes

Who loves irony?

and try sticking to the facts

You need to learn what a fact is, once you have more than just a brain stem of course. Wait, I think I might have already mentioned this.

 

[IBDaMann]

Thanks for the consistent input, Sybil.

Thanks for the background noise, Terry.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Terry, I've figured out why it's so easy to bend you over something and fuck you every which way from Sunday.

What you are rhymes with a wegetable.

How long have you been out of the closet, Sybil? Or is ass-fucking males something you picked up "inside"?

 

[IBDaMann]

How long have you been out of the closet, Sybil? Or is ass-fucking males something you picked up "inside"?

Silly Terry, that's for you to ask of those who fervently take advantage of your cognitive helplessness and ream you deep.

Why do you feel as though I, a mere sock, am somehow pile-driving your back door? Don't you think you should first disobey orders and at least turn around and take a look to see who it is?

No? You dare not disobey?

OK.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Silly Terry, that's for you to ask of those who fervently take advantage of your cognitive helplessness and ream you deep.

Why do you feel as though I, a mere sock, am somehow pile-driving your back door? Don't you think you should first disobey orders and at least turn around and take a look to see who it is?

No? You dare not disobey?

OK.

Be honest, Sybil; you were typing that with one hand. Amirite?

 

[AProudLefty]

You cannot clear it by pretending that it doesn't exist. Lay off the Barney and Mr Rogers, dude...

There is no paradox. You made it up. Saying it exists doesn't make it exist.

Right, as it was YOUR say so that put it into existence. I simply noted it for you (and the forum).

Saying that it exists doesn't make it so, dude.

 

[AProudLefty]

Yes you did, liar.

No I did not. Saying so doesn't make it so.

Do you have an alternative explanation for mass "flash-freezing" of random animals? I am all ears.

Yes.

RQAA.

 

[AProudLefty]

Is Buddhism a religion? What about Shinto? What about Jainism?

The Three Buddhist Deities Vajrapāṇi, Mañjuśrī and Avalokiteśvara.

Shinto literally means “the way of the gods”.

Jains believe in divine beings.

 

[AProudLefty]

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)?

Why do you think humans do not affect climates?

How did you measure this change to a completely undefined religious deity?

There is no deity in AGW.

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

It means the fuels that came from organisms millions of years ago. It's quite simple.

 

[IBDaMann]

Saying it exists doesn't make it exist.

This is about the fifth time you have chanted this denial.

Saying that it exists doesn't make it so, dude.

Perhaps SIX times.

No I did not. Saying so doesn't make it so.

Seven?

You certainly do enjoy denial, about as much as you like to contradict yourself, which is right up there with EVADING direct, easy, straightforward questions, which is just a tad below your addiction to word games and redefinition attempts. You tend to milk each thread for all it's worth.

 

[AProudLefty]

This is about the fifth time you have chanted this denial.

This is about the fifth time you have persist the claim that there was a paradox. You saying so does not make it so.

Perhaps SIX times.

Perhaps SIX times that you have persist the claim.

Seven?

Thanks for counting for me on you repeating the claim.

You certainly do enjoy denial, about as much as you like to contradict yourself, which is right up there with EVADING direct, easy, straightforward questions, which is just a tad below your addiction to word games and redefinition attempts. You tend to milk each thread for all it's worth.

How does deny one that doesn't exist.

Quote me creating the paradox.

 

[IBDaMann]

Why do you think humans do not affect climates?

Aaaaah, lets relish the moment. You have pulled another word game off the shelf. You have stealthily shifted from "THE (global) climate" (a deity of your WACKY religion) to mere "climates" (the plural of something that exists and is not inherently contradictory.

First, allow me to be unlike you and to actually address your question before I dig into your attempted dishonesty.

A climate is a subjective human characterization, e.g. the summer daytime climate of Phoenix, Arizona is hot and humid. Notice, there is no data associated with a climate. You can ask a child with no credentials about the climate of Phoenix and without any data, he'll give you the correct answer. This is because there are no numerical values associated with a climate, therefore there is nothing that can increase or decrease. The summer daytime temperature in Phoenix may fluctuate, but Phoenix will still be "hot and arid".

So, since you asked, you must have a terrestrial climate in mind that humans are altering. Which one or ones?

Also, since we are on the subject, notice that a climate has no "minimum time requirement", but is usually bounded by a time constraint, e.g. winter climate, nighttime climate, seasonal climate, etc... If you ever encounter someone arguing that the global climate is somehow open-ended, requiring a certain minimum amount of time to calculate or otherwise understand, feel free to call bullshit right then and there. If you're too spineless to call bullshit, bring him here to this site and I'll call bullshit for you.

It means the fuels that came from organisms millions of years ago. It's quite simple.

Which is why it cannot apply to hydrocarbons and why petroleum and natural gas should not be included in the term. It's quite simple.

 

[AProudLefty]

Aaaaah, lets relish the moment. You have pulled another word game off the shelf. You have stealthily shifted from "THE (global) climate" (a deity of your WACKY religion) to mere "climates" (the plural of something that exists and is not inherently contradictory.

It is not another word game.

Let's review the definition, shall we?

cli·mate
noun
noun: climate; plural noun: climates

the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.
"our cold, wet climate"
h
Similar:
weather pattern

a region with particular prevailing weather conditions.
"vacationing in a warm climate"

Be sure to read the definition slowly, few times if needed, to comprehend it.

First, allow me to be unlike you and to actually address your question before I dig into your attempted dishonesty.

A climate is a subjective human characterization, e.g. the summer daytime climate of Phoenix, Arizona is hot and humid. Notice, there is no data associated with a climate. You can ask a child with no credentials about the climate of Phoenix and without any data, he'll give you the correct answer. This is because there are no numerical values associated with a climate, therefore there is nothing that can increase or decrease. The summer daytime temperature in Phoenix may fluctuate, but Phoenix will still be "hot and arid".

More obfuscation.

At least you admit that we can measure the temperatures. Small progresses. Good job.

So, since you asked, you must have a terrestrial climate in mind that humans are altering. Which one or ones?

Also, since we are on the subject, notice that a climate has no "minimum time requirement", but is usually bounded by a time constraint, e.g. winter climate, nighttime climate, seasonal climate, etc... If you ever encounter someone arguing that the global climate is somehow open-ended, requiring a certain minimum amount of time to calculate or otherwise understand, feel free to call bullshit right then and there. If you're too spineless to call bullshit, bring him here to this site and I'll call bullshit for you.

More obfuscation.

A climate is weather patterns over time in areas.

Which is why it cannot apply to hydrocarbons and why petroleum and natural gas should not be included in the term. It's quite simple.

You asked the question then denied the answer presented to you.

It just simply means the fuels that came from organisms millions of years ago. That's it.

 

[IBDaMann]

Perhaps SIX times that you have persist the claim.

If you don't mind me asking, what is your first language? I noticed how defensive you became when I asked Gecko Sportivo the same question. So if you don't want to tell me, that's fine. If your first language is English and you simply didn't have the opportunity to learn it well, I get it, but rather than afford others the chance to help you, you are totally butchering your own arguments when you pull the rug out from under yourself.

Can we just stipulate that you will never be providing any science to support your beliefs?

 

[AProudLefty]

If you don't mind me asking, what is your first language? I noticed how defensive you became when I asked Gecko Sportivo the same question. So if you don't want to tell me, that's fine. If your first language is English and you simply didn't have the opportunity to learn it well, I get it, but rather than afford others the chance to help you, you are totally butchering your own arguments when you pull the rug out from under yourself.

Can we just stipulate that you will never be providing any science to support your beliefs?

Actually English sign language was my first language since I am deaf. I've learned written English alongside.

One more time, I have no belief in climatology. Not sure why you persist that claim. Are you on a mission or something?

 

[IBDaMann]

It is not another word game.

Yes it is. You just don't understand what "word games" are.

Let's review the definition, shall we?

Nope. I know what it is ... and you do as well because I taught you in my preceding post.

By the way, I think we can both agree that you have no idea what part of that definition you posted makes it entirely bogus. You haven't the vaguest clue. I suppose you should, seeing as how you claim to have a decent math background, except I'm now beginning to see that it was a sham, i.e. you must suck at math.

Anyway, it's a free puzzle for you: What part of that definition instantly flags it as bogus?

Note: You still haven't posted any science supporting your religious beliefs. Asserting that you don't have any religious beliefs does not, somehow, afford your beliefs science support. Your beliefs are without any rational basis, which makes them religious. It does not matter that you live in denial, everyone reading this thread can realize your beliefs for the religion they are.

25 pages in and you can't provide any sort of rational basis for your beliefs. All you are able to do is regurgitate what you have been told to believe.

 

[AProudLefty]

Yes it is. You just don't understand what "word games" are.

I have given you the definition. I asked you to read it slowly few times to grasp the concept. What is your first language? Because obviously you cannot comprehend the definition.

Nope. I know what it is

No you do not know as evidenced above.

By the way, I think we can both agree that you have no idea what part of that definition you posted makes it entirely bogus. You haven't the vaguest clue. I suppose you should, seeing as how you claim to have a decent math background, except I'm now beginning to see that it was a sham, i.e. you must suck at math.

Your inability to understand the definition is not my problem. Feel free to ask me or anyone to help you comprehend it.

Anyway, it's a free puzzle for you: What part of that definition instantly flags it as bogus?

I'll bite... what part? And why?

Note: You still haven't posted any science supporting your religious beliefs. Asserting that you don't have any religious beliefs does not, somehow, afford your beliefs science support. Your beliefs are without any rational basis, which makes them religious. It does not matter that you live in denial, everyone reading this thread can realize your beliefs for the religion they are.

Note: I have already told you that I have no belief in climatology.

25 pages in and you can't provide any sort of rational basis for your beliefs. All you are able to do is regurgitate what you have been told to believe.

Again, I have no belief in climatology. This literally is the definition of gaslighting.

 

[IBDaMann]

Actually English sign language was my first language since I am deaf. I've learned written English alongside.

Thank you. That very clearly answers my question.

At one point, I was learning sign language from a deaf co-worker. He couldn't write anything without making egregious grammatical errors, but he could certainly do all the other work. It stems from the inherent shortcuts built into ASL so that people can communicate at a fast pace, e.g. speaking. This removes many prepositions and alters standard usage. When the deaf try to learn to write, it's an uphill battle because they don't have the background of having heard the correct usage.

I wish you luck in your pursuit of mastering written English. It is tough enough even for those who get to hear it used correctly.

One more time, I have no belief in climatology.

This doesn't say anything other than that you are in a different sect of the Climate faith.

1. Do you believe that CO2 has the power to cause other matter to increase in temperature?
2. Do you believe in greenhouse effect?
3. Do you believe that any human has ever either computed or measured the earth's temperature to within a 3-degree margin of error?
4. Do you believe that heat can be trapped?
5. Do you believe the average ocean level is rising?
6. Do you believe in "ocean acidification"?