Why Does the Global Warming Faith Claim to be Science?

[Cancel 1 2023]

Funny you can't agree he's a putz.

So it seems that I have to agree with that specific word. Is it magical for you? You know "magical thinking" is common among some people.

I've already agreed he's a bastard like you. But it is utterly fascinating that you NEED me to say "putz".

I wonder why?

If I withhold "putz" from you will you continue to whine? I hope so.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

Meh. I'm retired. It's not like people disliking me will affect my pay check. LOL

That's good. What did you do for a living? I assume it wasn't particularly technical. And obviously didn't require a lot of reading (since you hate it when there's more than 5 words)

 

[Dutch Uncle]

"retard"? Are you serious? What are you 80 years old?

You have a problem with retard but not idiot, imbecile or moron?

BTW, my favorite is "fucking moron". Mostly used for Trumpers.

Idiots. —Those so defective that the mental development never exceeds that or a normal child of about two years.
Imbeciles. —Those whose development is higher than that of an idiot, but whose intelligence does not exceed that of a normal child of about seven years.
Morons. —Those whose mental development is above that of an imbecile, but does not exceed that of a normal child of about twelve years.
— Edmund Burke Huey, Backward and Feeble-Minded Children, 1912

 

[Dutch Uncle]

So it seems that I have to agree with that specific word. Is it magical for you? You know "magical thinking" is common among some people.

I've already agreed he's a bastard like you. But it is utterly fascinating that you NEED me to say "putz".

I wonder why?

If I withhold "putz" from you will you continue to whine? I hope so.

I gave you lots of other options but you refused to say a bad word about Perry Penismosis the phobic phallus. You spread hate and lies against others but not the Putz. Why?

Bastard isn't an insult these days. Call him a Peter Puffer, a Perfidious Parasite, Phalse claimer of a PhD and maybe I'll believe you. LOL

 

[Dutch Uncle]

That's good. What did you do for a living? I assume it wasn't particularly technical.

And obviously didn't require a lot of reading (since you hate it when there's more than 5 words)

I floated around a lot. Spent a lot of time living out of a suitcase. It was pretty easy which is why I liked it so much.

On the contrary, it left me with a lot of time for reading. Mostly newspapers and magazines. History and politics were my favorites.

 

[gfm7175]

Even hard-core denialists

Is this what you mindlessly label anyone who doesn't subscribe to your particular sect of the Global Warming Faith?

no longer debate whether the globe is warming or not. They usually just focus on attribution.

I do not accept as true the foundational belief of your faith, namely that the Earth is warming.

I meant people who know how to read and understand basic science.

Obviously you don't mean yourself, since you are illiterate in basic science.

 

[gfm7175]

Tomayto, Tomahto, Sybil. What happened to your "friends" Into the Night and gfm7175?

Don't worry, I'm back. I know you missed me.

 

[gfm7175]

The minute you said "There's no such thing as greenhouse gases" that was when I knew you were not going to be able to offer a viable discussion. Then you claimed everything absorbs IR (which is obviously wrong).

You are mostly just posting stuff you don't understand and you wouldn't be able to discuss science if you don't understand it.

Of course you're going to get worked up about some people rejecting the claim that "greenhouse gases" exist, as that claim is a core tenant of your faith.

Of course when you mention "a viable discussion", you actually mean a discussion involving your fellow sect of fellow believers. Anything outside of your particular sect of the church is "unviable" to you.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Don't worry, I'm back. I know you missed me.

You were never really gone, Sybil. That's the point.

 

[gfm7175]

You were never really gone, Sybil. That's the point.

 

[Into the Night]

1. We KNOW the earth is warming. No one doubts that anymore.

There's that Marxist 'we' again. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy.

2. We KNOW CO2 is a greenhouse gas capable of absorbing IR photons

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.

3. We KNOW energy doesn't just disappear.

Energy dissipates.

4. We KNOW we are producing alarming levels of greenhouse gases (sufficient to alter the isotopic composition of the atmospheric CO2 exactly as one would expect, increase 12-C over 13-C, decreased 14-C. (Human fingerprint)

There is no alarm bell in a gas. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

5. We KNOW a great deal about NATURAL FORCINGS which affect climate (Paleoclimatology) and we cannot rely on the natural forcings to explain the warming we see.

No gas is a force. 'Natural forcings' is a meaningless buzzword. So is 'paleioclimatology'. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

Here's one of the most interesting graphs I ever saw from the IPCC.

A graph of random numbers is still just random numbers.

Researchers took 150 years or so of temperature anomaly data and tried to fit it to NATURAL FORCINGS as well as ANTHROPOGENIC FORCINGS.

There is no such thing as 'temperature anomaly', 'natural forcings' or 'anthropogenic forcings'. Buzzword fallacies.]

When you look at JUST the natural forcings you see that the data and the fit don't match. It isn't until you add in the ANTHROPOGENIC FORCINGS (human activities) that the data start to make sense.

Buzzword fallacies. There is no data. Argument from randU fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Post #484 contains some science.

No one will discuss it.

No science here...move along...move along...

 

[Into the Night]

Tick-tick-tick.

Still no science discussion on Post #484.

Huh. Color me surprised!

Anyone want to talk about carbon isotopes? No? How about climate forcings? No? Any discussion on CO2 absorption of IR photons? No? Nothing? Hindcasting? Not that either?

No science in post #484...move along...move along...

Most any substance (including CO2) absorbs infrared light. Such light is emitted by the surface of Earth. That COOLS the surface. It doesn't heat it. CO2 is colder than the surface (generally). You cannot heat the surface using a colder gas. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics again.

 

[Into the Night]

So far demonstrably I've posted more science in one day than I've seen you post all week.

You have so far denied:
* the 1st law of thermodynamics.
* the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
* the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
* Planck's laws.

 

[Into the Night]

Similarly, I tell Christians that there is no such thing as "the grace of God" to be found anywhere, but they politely grin and ignore me as well. Science makes me unpopular with religious people.

You can tell Christians this, but many of them have experienced the grace of God for themselves. It is a real thing to them. I have also experienced the grace of God. It does exist, even though you have not found it yourself. This forms an argument from ignorance fallacy.

Note that I do not need science for this. Only faith.

Science has no religion and cares not whether there is a god or gods or not. It is completely atheistic. Science is not in conflict with religion per se. Science simply doesn't go there.

There are, of course, NO theories of 'global warming' or 'climate change'. Science has no theories based on undefined words and phrases. They fail the internal consistency check. No theory of any kind (scientific or not) is possible based on undefined words. No theory is possible based on a fallacy of any kind. Oddly enough, religions can be based entirely on undefined buzzwords. The Church of Global Warming is no exception.

 

[IBDaMann]

You can tell Christians this, but many of them have experienced the grace of God for themselves. It is a real thing to them. I have also experienced the grace of God. It does exist, even though you have not found it yourself. This forms an argument from ignorance fallacy.

Note that I do not need science for this. Only faith.

You make a great point. When drawing a comparison to the nonexistent global climate, I should not have used the grace of God; it implies that the grace of God is not real. I should have used something that actually isn't real, like crimson three-toed leprechauns.

Allow me to extend an apology.

 

[Into the Night]

The minute you said "There's no such thing as greenhouse gases" that was when I knew you were not going to be able to offer a viable discussion. Then you claimed everything absorbs IR (which is obviously wrong).

You are mostly just posting stuff you don't understand and you wouldn't be able to discuss science if you don't understand it.

Did you know that you can't heat the surface using a colder gas? You are not discussing science. Religion is not science.

 

[Into the Night]

You make a great point. When drawing a comparison to the nonexistent global climate, I should not have used the grace of God; it implies that the grace of God is not real. I should have used something that actually isn't real, like crimson three-toed leprechauns.

Allow me to extend an apology.

Heh. Accepted. Remember, though, that leprechauns wear shoes and know one knows what color toes they have or how many they have!

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Did you know that you can't heat the surface using a colder gas? You are not discussing science. Religion is not science.

So you don't think the temperature is increasing as measured by thermometers at the surface of the earth?

 

[gfm7175]

Nope. Nobody somehow knows this. This is just religious dogma of your religion. Many people BELIEVE this because their religious dogma commands the congregation to BELIEVE, without question, that Global Warming is KNOWN, and to BELIEVE this under the BELIEF that Global Warming is OBSERVED. Ergo, devoted worshipers such as yourself roam the earth preaching the "Bad News of the Word of Global Warming."

If you actually knew this, you would be able to post the rational basis thereof so that I could know this as well. However, just as it is in any religion, one is required to BELIEVE first such that no rational basis ever need be given. It's all part of the "You must BELIEVE without question."

Who is this "we" in your point #1 anyway? Don't worry, I'll answer that question for you. It is the Marxist "we." It is the pronoun used by dishonest people who wish to present their own unsupported opinions (or to preach their religions) as though they are absolute truths that are somehow already accepted by the entirety of humanity, and thus do not need to be supported in any way ... AND ... to insinuate that anyone who questions the unsupported opinions/dogma somehow bears the burden to support their rejection of the dogma.

Your statement should have read "I BELIEVE the earth is warming." That would have been an honest, truthful and accurate statement.

Did you write this with a straight face? Right off the bat, you knew that I, the person with whom you are discussing this matter, reject this item of your dogma. How can you say that no one doubts it?

Then we have to explore why you believe that anyone would believe that you somehow speak for everyone, or why you believe you can read everyone's mind? Let's jump to the chase. Can you and I both agree that you do not speak for everyone and that you cannot read anyone's mind?


This is a stupid statement. There is no such substance as greenhouse gas. All substances absorb IR.


Exactly. For the same reason, we know that energy does not simply come into existence from nothing. There is no matter anywhere in the universe that somehow spontaneously increases in temperature without additional thermal energy, and thermal energy never pops into existence out of nothing.

I'm not producing any greenhouse gas. There is no such substance as a greenhouse gas. Similarly, I tell Christians that there is no such thing as "the grace of God" to be found anywhere, but they politely grin and ignore me as well. Science makes me unpopular with religious people.

Here, the overall point you are making does make sense in general, however I have to somewhat disagree on the "grace of God" bit. The grace of God is very much real, as I have experienced it for myself, through Jesus Christ, even though my sins of habit and choice make me undeserving of it. With that being said, it should also be noted that the grace of God does not meet the "scientific method" requirement of being repeatable. Other than this little nitpick, you are spot on about there being no "global climate"!