AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
It is all about politics. Biden's war against domestic oil production is proof
https://www.theepochtimes.com/clima...utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=BonginoReport
Huh?
It is all about politics. Biden's war against domestic oil production is proof
https://www.theepochtimes.com/clima...utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=BonginoReport
2. There is no such thing as a "scientific consensus." Science is not determined by consensus. That's how religion is shaped.
Huh?
Awesome! ... but wait ... why haven't you explained how those religions are not isomorphic? I mean, shouldn't you be able to prove that I cannot have a one-to-one and onto mapping of Christianity to Global Warming?I have a degree in mathematics. I know all about the groups and rings.
As they all should be. Fortunately, I haven't made any. Meanwhile, everything of yours that isn't answering my question is being summarily dismissed, which is everything thus far.Your irrational utterances are dismissed.
It's not. Your religion, which you are calling "thettled thienth" is based purely on a very WACKY faith.If science is based on faith,
Your style of EVASION involves injecting some totally irrelevant point into the discussion and then stealthily shifting the discussion away from the main topic to your irrelevant point. Consciousness not being needed to not express anything has no bearing on whether living humans should be killed for someone's convenience. Similarly, it not mattering that science isn't "based on" anything does nothing to somehow transmute your WACKY religion into science.Science is based on observations, researches, evidence and such.
All science theories are falsifiable. All religions are unfalsifiable. Let me pull out my pocket one-to-one and onto mapping here and ... yes, it shows quite clearly that Global Warming and Climate Change are completely unfalsifiable, just like their isomorphism Christianity.Yes you are correct that theories are falsifiable.
A much better question is how you claim to know on what a science model is based. Let's take a look at it:Are you claiming that Newton's law of gravitation is not based on observation?
We have already established that you have no business commenting on anything related to science. I'll have someone send over some more crayons.Science absolutely is about consensus.
Awesome! ... but wait ... why haven't you explained how those religions are not isomorphic? I mean, shouldn't you be able to prove that I cannot have a one-to-one and onto mapping of Christianity to Global Warming?
(guess what I have in my hip pocket)
As they all should be. Fortunately, I haven't made any. Meanwhile, everything of yours that isn't answering my question is being summarily dismissed, which is everything thus far.
It's not. Your religion, which you are calling "thettled thienth" is based purely on a very WACKY faith.
Your style of EVASION involves injecting some totally irrelevant point into the discussion and then stealthily shifting the discussion away from the main topic to your irrelevant point. Consciousness not being needed to not express anything has no bearing on whether living humans should be killed for someone's convenience. Similarly, it not mattering that science isn't "based on" anything does nothing to somehow transmute your WACKY religion into science.
All science theories are falsifiable. All religions are unfalsifiable. Let me pull out my pocket one-to-one and onto mapping here and ... yes, it shows quite clearly that Global Warming and Climate Change are completely unfalsifiable, just like their isomorphism Christianity.
A much better question is how you claim to know on what a science model is based. Let's take a look at it:
g = [m1 * m2] / d^2
It looks like math is the only basis you can claim with certainty. I notice that you are attempting to derail the discussion with this irrelevant and inconsequential philosophical point about a model's "basis." If we are going to go down this road, would you mind explaining to me the following:
1. Why should anyone care what constitute's a model's basis?
2. How do you assert that the "basis" for any model can be known?
3. How does knowing this "basis" somehow affect the science in question?
4. What human activity does not involve "observation" somehow?
5. Why do you believe that science is somehow a human activity rather than a falsifiable model? (models don't need any observations)
I really hadn't given you enough credit. This is a drastic improvement over your previous commentary. Maybe, if we keep working at it, we can get you responding in grunts.Science is a big stupid poopy head!
We have already established that you have no business commenting on anything related to science. I'll have someone send over some more crayons.
I really hadn't given you enough credit. This is a drastic improvement over your previous commentary. Maybe, if we keep working at it, we can get you responding in grunts.
Just tipping your king is sufficient.Oh my goodness. You are truly insane.
Just tipping your king is sufficient.
![]()
Don't try to run before you can walk. Baby steps. Take it slowly. Go at your own pace. We have all the time in the world. Don't rush it.You are extremely stupid.
You don't debate with anyone. You haven't been given permission.How does one debate with an insane person?
Don't try to run before you can walk. Baby steps. Take it slowly. Go at your own pace. We have all the time in the world. Don't rush it.
Baby steps.
If you'll notice, I simply continue as I would with a rational individual.How does one debate with an insane person?
Are you suggesting that climate science is based on faith, not studies?
More that these studies are, at a minimum, flawed and at worst, outright lies.
You would do well to brush up on your grammar. The correct word is "they," not "it.". They, the studies, involve research, and their conclusions are determined by political agenda.So you agree that it's not based on faith? Good.
No technical training is required to question anything, much less a religion, much less a stupid religion.I highly doubt that any of us on this forum have the requisite scientific training or skill to question anthropogenic climate change.