Why Does the Global Warming Faith Claim to be Science?

[gfm7175]

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

There's that Marxist "we" again, pretending that you speak for everyone, pretending that there is a universal consensus in favor of your Global Warming faith, and pretending that universal consensus makes a claim truthful.

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

"We" know that there is no such thing as a "greenhouse gas".

3. We KNOW energy doesn't just disappear.

"We" know that 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)

"We" know that "we" can't produce something that doesn't exist.

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.

"We" know nothing about that which doesn't exist.

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

Made up numbers. Garbage in, garbage out.

Researchers took 150 years or so of temperature anomaly data

There is no such thing. Anomalies are calculated values, not measured values. Where are the valid measured values that meet the rules of statistical mathematics?

and tried to fit it to NATURAL FORCINGS as well as ANTHROPOGENIC FORCINGS.

More meaningless church literature.

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.

You have not provided any valid data that meets the requirements of science and mathematics; only church literature.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

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

So something people measure directly and shows warming, you don't believe them? Do you think the entire earth's weather people who go out and record the temperatures daily over the last century or century and a half were all part of a global cabal to fake the data?

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

I don't know about the other poster but I know I have more science background than you. Do you wish to ask any basic questions on the topic?

 

[Saint Guinefort]

There's that Marxist 'we' again.

There's that Marxist "we" again,

Might want to get a set of suspenders for those socks.

 

[gfm7175]

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

The temperature of WHAT is increasing? The Earth?

The "surface of the Earth" is not the Earth. Any data from said thermometers is only applicable to each precise location of each thermometer. However, you wish to pretend that thousands of thermometers, purposefully located with regard to having access for routine servicing, can somehow measure the temperature of not only the Earth's surface, but the entirety of Earth as well, all without the data summary being tainted by location and time bias... all without considering how high of a variance value temperature has... all without declaring a target margin of error at the outset... all without calculating a margin of error from the declared variance... etc etc

Faith is not science, dude.

 

[gfm7175]

Might want to get a set of suspenders for those socks.

"I SEE SOCK PEOPLE!"

 

[Saint Guinefort]

The temperature of WHAT is increasing? The Earth?

The "surface of the Earth" is not the Earth. Any data from said thermometers is only applicable to each precise location of each thermometer. However, you wish to pretend that thousands of thermometers, purposefully located with regard to having access for routine servicing, can somehow measure the temperature of not only the Earth's surface, but the entirety of Earth as well, all without the data summary being tainted by location and time bias... all without considering how high of a variance value temperature has... all without declaring a target margin of error at the outset... all without calculating a margin of error from the declared variance... etc etc

Faith is not science, dude.

Doesn't sound like you know anything about this. You clearly have never read any of Karl's work from the 1980's. Back in the 1980's time of observation bias has been explicitly dealt with. That's almost 40 years ago and you didn't even know this?

Also: NOAA took the data from the poorest sited stations (as chosen by denialists who ranked them) and showed that with or without these poorly sited stations the warming trend is seen. This was done years ago.

On top of that Peterson wrote one or two articles showing that urban heat island effect doesn't alter the overall trend.

It's like you haven't read ANY science in this area.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Doesn't sound like you know anything about this. You clearly have never read any of Karl's work from the 1980's. Back in the 1980's time of observation bias has been explicitly dealt with. That's almost 40 years ago and you didn't even know this?

Also: NOAA took the data from the poorest sited stations (as chosen by denialists who ranked them) and showed that with or without these poorly sited stations the warming trend is seen. This was done years ago.

On top of that Peterson wrote one or two articles showing that urban heat island effect doesn't alter the overall trend.

It's like you haven't read ANY science in this area.

Sybil is most likely a paranoid schizophrenic with delusional disorder.

 

[gfm7175]

So something people measure directly and shows warming,

There is no valid temperature data for Earth, "valid" meaning that it meets the requirements of statistical mathematics.

you don't believe them?

Why should any rational adult believe that the Earth is warming?

Do you think the entire earth's weather people who go out and record the temperatures daily

The temperatures of WHAT? Individual thermometers at individual precise locations? Earth's surface? Earth?

over the last century or century and a half were all part of a global cabal to fake the data?

What "data"? See above.

I don't know about the other poster

I thought that I was a sock of at least ITN and IBD (if not numerous others), remember??

but I know I have more science background than you. Do you wish to ask any basic questions on the topic?

Dude, I should be teaching you.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Dude, I should be teaching you.

Given that you weren't aware of Peterson's work or Karl's work I should think you might be more modest about your "abilities" in this area.

 

[gfm7175]

Doesn't sound like you know anything about this.

What is "this"? You are speaking in terms that are very ambiguous at best and absolutely meaningless at worst. How can I understand something that you can't even properly express to me?

You clearly have never read any of Karl's work from the 1980's. Back in the 1980's time of observation bias has been explicitly dealt with. That's almost 40 years ago and you didn't even know this?

I noticed that you used the words "dealt with" rather than "eliminated at the outset". That implies the existence of data cooking, which is not allowed in a valid statistical summary.

Also: https://skepticalscience.com/Is-the-US-Surface-Temperature-Record-Reliable.html

I do not accept skepticalscience.com as a source. You cannot use it with me.

NOAA took the data from the poorest sited stations

(as chosen by denialists who ranked them) and showed that with or without these poorly sited stations the warming trend is seen. This was done years ago.

Irrelevant.

There still aren't enough stations. They aren't uniformly spaced nor simultaneously read by the same observer. No target margin of error was declared at the outset. No variance value was declared and justified. No margin of error value was calculated from said variance. ... ... ...

On top of that Peterson wrote one or two articles showing that urban heat island effect doesn't alter the overall trend.

Irrelevant (see above).

It's like you haven't read ANY science in this area.

Science isn't a couple of random websites, dude.

 

[gfm7175]

Given that you weren't aware of Peterson's work or Karl's work I should think you might be more modest about your "abilities" in this area.

Given that you aren't aware of the laws of thermodynamics, the Stefan Boltzmann law, or Planck's law, I should think you might be more modest about your "abilities" in this area.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

There is no valid temperature data for Earth, "valid" meaning that it meets the requirements of statistical mathematics.


Why should any rational adult believe that the Earth is warming?


The temperatures of WHAT? Individual thermometers at individual precise locations? Earth's surface? Earth?


What "data"? See above.


I thought that I was a sock of at least ITN and IBD (if not numerous others), remember??


Dude, I should be teaching you.

We don't even have to rely on temperature readings to see that the earth is warming.
We have over 600 years of records of ice forming and leaving lakes.
We have records of bird migrations.
All of those point to winter arriving later and spring arriving earlier.
Explain why lakes are on average losing their ice 1 week earlier than they did 100 and 200 years ago. Was there a change in the temperature at which ice melts in that time frame?

 

[Saint Guinefort]

I noticed that you used the words "dealt with" rather than "eliminated at the outset". That implies the existence of data cooking, which is not allowed in a valid statistical summary.

So it sounds like you don't know how data is processed in science. Have you ever been in a laboratory?

There still aren't enough stations. They aren't uniformly spaced nor simultaneously read by the same observer. No target margin of error was declared at the outset. No variance value was declared and justified. No margin of error value was calculated from said variance. ... ... ...

You are just posting random statistically sounding words now. You have no clue what any of them mean.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Given that you aren't aware of the laws of thermodynamics, the Stefan Boltzmann law, or Planck's law, I should think you might be more modest about your "abilities" in this area.

Oh, look it's the Stefan Boltzmann law bullshit again.
Does the Stefan Blotzmann law apply to all matter or not? This is where we see you fail in your arguments since you only apply it for some matter and when it disproves your bullshit then you say it doesn't apply.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Given that you aren't aware of the laws of thermodynamics, the Stefan Boltzmann law, or Planck's law, I should think you might be more modest about your "abilities" in this area.

Wow. Those are EXACTLY THE SAME THINGS IntoTheNight complain about.

Which law of thermo do you think I don't know? (Go ahead, say the Second Law...and then try defining it for the class)

 

[gfm7175]

We don't even have to rely on temperature readings to see that the earth is warming.

Hahahahahahahahaha this is such a profound statement of faith if I ever did see one. Thank you for this. Thank you for openly and clearly making the OP's point (about GW being a faith based belief) all on your own.

IOW, you are hereby telling this forum that valid temperature measurements are not necessary in order to conclude that the temperature of the Earth is rising. "Just BELIEVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE"!!!!!!!!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha this is pure GOLD right here!

We have over 600 years of records of ice forming and leaving lakes.

So?

We have records of bird migrations.

So?

All of those point to winter arriving later and spring arriving earlier.

Seasons are not determined by ice formation/melting, nor are they determined by bird migration. The winter solstice and the spring equinox occur at roughly the same respective time every year.

Explain why lakes are on average losing their ice 1 week earlier than they did 100 and 200 years ago. Was there a change in the temperature at which ice melts in that time frame?

I don't have to explain anything. You have to explain why any rational adult should believe that the Earth is warming. If that's your faith, then believe whatever you want, but don't pretend that your faith is science.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Hahahahahahahahaha this is such a profound statement of faith if I ever did see one. Thank you for this. Thank you for openly and clearly making the OP's point (about GW being a faith based belief) all on your own.

IOW, you are hereby telling this forum that valid temperature measurements are not necessary in order to conclude that the temperature of the Earth is rising. "Just BELIEVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE"!!!!!!!!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha this is pure GOLD right here!


So?


So?


Seasons are not determined by ice formation/melting, nor are they determined by bird migration. The winter solstice and the spring equinox occur at roughly the same respective time every year.


I don't have to explain anything. You have to explain why any rational adult should believe that the Earth is warming. If that's your faith, then believe whatever you want, but don't pretend that your faith is science.

You are confusing meterological winter and spring with astrological winter and spring. They are not the same thing.
Why is the ice forming on lakes later and leaving lakes earlier?

 

[gfm7175]

So it sounds like you don't know how data is processed in science. Have you ever been in a laboratory?

So it sounds like you don't know what science is. Have you ever looked at the laws of science themselves? That doesn't require a laboratory.

You are just posting random statistically sounding words now.

They are all an important part of statistical mathematics, and are all important in any attempt to measure Earth's temperature.

You have no clue what any of them mean.

The fact that you referred to them as "random" shows that YOU have no clue what any of them mean.

 

[gfm7175]

Oh, look it's the Stefan Boltzmann law bullshit again.

ITN might want to include this doozy of a statement in his signature. You have now been reduced to asserting that "science is bullshit".

Does the Stefan Blotzmann law apply to all matter or not?

Is there a substance term in the SB law?

This is where we see you fail in your arguments since you only apply it for some matter and when it disproves your bullshit then you say it doesn't apply.

What is "my bullshit"? What are you even talking about?

YOU are the one who attempts to modify the SB law by adding in a wavelength term. YOU are the one who ignores it when it contradicts the AGW theory of "trapped heat" "reducing Earth's radiance" while simultaneously "increasing Earth's temperature".

This is YOUR issue, not mine. Own it.

 

[gfm7175]

Wow. Those are EXACTLY THE SAME THINGS IntoTheNight complain about.

Science is science, no matter who is talking about it.

Which law of thermo do you think I don't know? (Go ahead, say the Second Law...and then try defining it for the class)

As far as I can tell, you don't understand ANY of them...