Why Does the Global Warming Faith Claim to be Science?

[BidenPresident]

Have you never heard of "Grid Averaging"

You don't know anything about this topic, do you?

He may be insane.

 

[Into the Night]

Have you never heard of "Grid Averaging"

You don't know anything about this topic, do you?

Math errors: Failure to use raw data. Failure to select by randN. Failure to normalize by paired randR. Failure to declare and justify variance. Failure to calculate margin of error. Use of dependent as circular independent.

Nope. You cannot use cooked data in statistical math.

 

[Into the Night]

He may be insane.

Psychoquackery.

 

[IBDaMann]

^^^^LIE



"Scalar". Like you know what that means. LOL.



^^^Bullshit



^^^^PURE unadulterated bullshit.



Moron. You don't declare variance. Variance is the square of the standard deviation of the data. It is what it is. Jesus you are uneducated.



^^^^Lie



^^^^MOTHER OF ALL LIES



^^^^Declaration of a moron who knows neither math nor science.


God your post was a mess of stupidity and lies. Why do you bother?

You are obviously a scientifically illiterate moron. Well, I guess we know who won't be teaching any science to anyone. I'll get someone to bring you some crayons over there at the kids' table.

 

[IBDaMann]

Have you never heard of "Grid Averaging"

Well, I guess we now know who won't be developing any data collection plans anytime soon. I guess we also know who won't be contributing to any discussions on statistical math.

You don't know anything about this topic, do you?

Yes, it's my topic. Do you have any science to support your WACKY Global Warming beliefs?

You don't, do you? ... and it's everybody else's fault, isn't it?

 

[Into Тhe Night]

Well, I guess we now know who won't be developing any data collection plans anytime soon. I guess we also know who won't be contributing to any discussions on statistical math.


Yes, it's my topic. Do you have any science to support your WACKY Global Warming beliefs?

You don't, do you? ... and it's everybody else's fault, isn't it?

You people are such a joke.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Math errors: Failure to use raw data. Failure to select by randN. Failure to normalize by paired randR. Failure to declare and justify variance. Failure to calculate margin of error. Use of dependent as circular independent.

Nope. You cannot use cooked data in statistical math.

Wow....you type so much and say nothing. This is pure unadulterated bullshit. Literally nothing you just said means anything. It sounds all fancy (and the randR and randU sound a lot like specific software codes for random number generators which indicates you don't really know what you are talking about).

You haven't said ANYTHING that even remotely relates to real statistics, real math or real science.

You are so full of shit it isn't even funny.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Well, I guess we now know who won't be developing any data collection plans anytime soon. I guess we also know who won't be contributing to any discussions on statistical math.

I use statistical analysis pretty much every single day. I've probably done more DOE's in one month than you have your entire life.

As for your incredulity about "grid averaging" I will point you to the NOAA Monthy US Climate Gridded data

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/metadata/landing-page/bin/iso?id=gov.noaa.ncdc:C00332

Yes, it's my topic. Do you have any science to support your WACKY Global Warming beliefs?

Only about 95% of the earth's climate and earth science professionals. But other than that.....

 

[Saint Guinefort]

You are obviously a scientifically illiterate moron. Well, I guess we know who won't be teaching any science to anyone. I'll get someone to bring you some crayons over there at the kids' table.

LOL. Let me know when you want to learn some science in this area.

 

[Into the Night]

Wow....you type so much and say nothing. This is pure unadulterated bullshit. Literally nothing you just said means anything. It sounds all fancy (and the randR and randU sound a lot like specific software codes for random number generators which indicates you don't really know what you are talking about).

You haven't said ANYTHING that even remotely relates to real statistics, real math or real science.

You are so full of shit it isn't even funny.

Discard of random number mathematics. Discard of statistical mathematics. Discard of probability mathematics. Discard of science. True Scotsman fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

I use statistical analysis pretty much every single day.
I've probably done more DOE's in one month than you have your entire life.

Discarding mathematics is not using it.

As for your incredulity about "grid averaging" I will point you to the NOAA Monthy US Climate Gridded data

Math errors: Failure to use raw data. Failure to select by randN. Failure to normalize by paired randR. Failure to declare and justify variance. Failure to calculate margin of error. Use of dependent as circular independent.

Only about 95% of the earth's climate and earth science professionals. But other than that.....

Science is not 'professionals'. 'Expert' worship. Climate is not a branch of science. You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy. Redefinition fallacy (science<->religion).

 

[Into the Night]

LOL. Let me know when you want to learn some science in this area.

You are not discussing science. Redefinition fallacy (science<->religion, mathematics<->religion).

 

[IBDaMann]

LOL. Let me know when you want to learn some science in this area.

You have piqued my interest. What are you claiming is "this area.". You can't even unambiguously define "global climate" much less provide ANY science supporting either Global Warming or Climate Change (which is the purpose of this thread, after all).

Now is as good a time as any to teach this board whatever science you have that supports either Global Warming or Climate Change.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

You have piqued my interest. What are you claiming is "this area.". You can't even unambiguously define "global climate" much less provide ANY science supporting either Global Warming or Climate Change (which is the purpose of this thread, after all).

Now is as good a time as any to teach this board whatever science you have that supports either Global Warming or Climate Change.

There is no single global climate. No one thinks there is. The key is that the average global temperature increases leading to changes in the climate all over the planet.

We KNOW the earth's been seeing a general warming now for at least a century. We've measured it directly.

We KNOW that greenhouse gases like CO2 absorb IR photons (you can do it in a lab and see it directly)

We KNOW energy doesn't just disappear. When it is absorbed by a greenhouse gas molecule it is then re-emitted as another IR photon which is then absorbed by another CO2 molecule and so forth.

The earth is in energetic balance: as much energy comes into the earth from the sun as is re-radiated back out into space. With increased greenhouse gases the level of the atmosphere at which the energy re-radiates back out into space gets successively higher and higher and higher. At very high elevations the efficiency of that re-radiation decreases because there are fewer gas molecules.

This causes the warming at the surface.

How do we know we are partially responsible?

1. Because the NATURAL FORCINGS which we know about from paleoclimatological analyses cannot explain the warming completely.
2. It isn't until you add in human forcings that the data start to make sense and are explicable.
3. We also know from isotopic analysis of the C in the CO2 in the atmosphere that shows an increase in 12-C over 13-C which is exactly what one would expect from the burning of fossil fuels since plants tend to concentrate lower atomic mass isotopes.

There's a reason that more than 90% of the earth's climate and earth systems scientists believe in AGW. It's getting so hard to deny it that really only a handful of people with any scientific background doubt it anymore. Most of the doubters are untrained in the field.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

You have piqued my interest. What are you claiming is "this area.". You can't even unambiguously define "global climate" much less provide ANY science supporting either Global Warming or Climate Change (which is the purpose of this thread, after all).

Now is as good a time as any to teach this board whatever science you have that supports either Global Warming or Climate Change.

How about the good folks at Columbia University:

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/

 

[IBDaMann]

How about the good folks at Columbia University:

Nope. Just you. ... and no links. Just write in your own words the science you insist that you have and understand. That way the science will be here in this thread and no one will be able to deny it.

Otherwise, if you are just another case of someone who has faith in Global Warming and Climate Change because other people have instructed you to believe and to regurgitate church material, not because of any science that you understand, then I appreciate you at least acknowledging the faith-based religion you worship.

Cope.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Nope. Just you. ... and no links. Just write in your own words the science you insist that you have and understand. That way the science will be here in this thread and no one will be able to deny it.

Otherwise, if you are just another case of someone who has faith in Global Warming and Climate Change because other people have instructed you to believe and to regurgitate church material, not because of any science that you understand, then I appreciate you at least acknowledging the faith-based religion you worship.

Cope.

WHY DID YOU IGNORE EXACTLY THAT HERE:

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...ith-Claim-to-be-Science&p=5527530#post5527530

I wrote out in my own words. You ignored it.

Can you read????

 

[IBDaMann]

Global Warming is a WACKY Religion

I apologize if I haven't already ripped this to shreds.

There is no single global climate. No one thinks there is.

Every single warmizombie and every single climate lemming that I have ever encountered believes in the one true Climate, creator of forcings and feedbacks, through her all things are nurtured, and all carbon sins avenged.

You only get to speak for you. You don't get to speak for anyone else unless you have a signed affidavit.

The key is that the average global temperature increases leading to changes in the climate all over the planet.

Incorrect. The key is that no human who has ever lived has ever known the earth's average global temperature to any usable accuracy. This means that you haven't the vaguest idea what the earth's average global temperature is to any usable accuracy. This means that you haven't the vaguest idea if the earth's average global temperature is increasing, decreasing or remaining the same.

Of course this does not preclude you from holding the utmost religious faith that what your church clergy tells you to believe is absolutely TRUE, even though nothing is ever considered TRUE or "confirmed" in science. I am fully aware of your obligation to demonstrate only the most profound dedication to whatever dogma you have been ordered to believe. Just remember that I am not a member of your religion and I only accept hypotheses derived from science and assertions derived from math, logic and direct observation.

We KNOW the earth's been seeing a general warming now for at least a century.

You have reverted back to the Marxist "we" to make your singular self falsely appear to be multitudes. Allow me to provide the correct wording for your statement:

"I BELIEVE the earth's been seeing a general warming now for at least a century."

OK, this sounds WACKY. Why do you believe this? Are you insane? Do you suffer from delusions? ... or do you have some rational basis for your belief?

By the way, your devotion to your religious dogma is not in question. The strength of your faith is a given, beyond any doubt.

T We've measured it directly.

Nobody has. It's not possible to accomplish to any usable accuracy. Of course you don't understand why not because you are mathematically incompetent and the correct answer resides in statistical mathematics. One solution would be for you to learn the math. It's easy and straightforward. There's nothing stopping you from learning, unless of course you are too stupid to learn. Any community college can help you.

We KNOW that greenhouse gases like CO2 absorb IR photons (you can do it in a lab and see it directly)

Only within your religion can you find the doctrine of greenhouse effect. It's the central miracle of your religion. Of course, it violates thermodynamics and black body science, depending on the version of the doctrine professed by any individual worshiper.

Otherwise, no greenhouse effect means there's no such thing as greenhouse gas.

If you really want to cause a stir at your next congregation of the faithful, remind them that ALL substances absorb IR. Have your camera out ready to capture the arching of the backs and the hissing, the screams of "sacrilege" and the sporadic meltings like that of the wicked witch of the west.

We KNOW energy doesn't just disappear. When it is absorbed by a greenhouse gas molecule it is then re-emitted as another IR photon which is then absorbed by another CO2 molecule and so forth.

Focus on the other part of the first law of thermodynamics. Energy does not just appear out of nothing. There is no way for the earth to somehow spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy, specifically additional thermal energy.

The earth is in energetic balance:

This is gibberish. You haven't defined what this supposedly means.

as much energy comes into the earth from the sun as is re-radiated back out into space.

The term for this is "equilibrium."

With increased greenhouse gases the level of the atmosphere at which the energy re-radiates back out into space gets successively higher and higher and higher.

Nope. Also, equilibrium is maintained.

At very high elevations the efficiency of that re-radiation decreases because there are fewer gas molecules.

Totally meaningless. I'll let you in on a little secret. Anyone who is well-versed in science will immediately pick up on your use of the word "re-radiate" and know right away that you are a scientifically illterate moron who doesn't know enough to contribute to a science discussion in any value-added way. So when your church clergy tells you to believe that Global Warming involves the "re-radiation" of IR, you can chuckle knowing that he's a scientifically illiterate moron who is babbling gibberish.

This causes the warming at the surface.

...as opposed to where?

How do we know we are partially responsible?

I give up. Why do you believe that you are partially responsible?

1. Because the NATURAL FORCINGS which we know about from paleoclimatological analyses cannot explain the warming completely.

"Forcings" is just your religion's term for "miracles", of which the primary types are "feedbacks." They don't really exist.

There is no such thing as "paleoclimatological." You should have called bullshit. However, you were gullible and did not, and now someone is having a good laugh at what they got you to post.

2. It isn't until you add in human forcings that the data start to make sense and are explicable.

There's no such thing as "forcings", e.g. "human forcings," "thermal forcings," "climate forcings," "atmospheric forcings," "trust in the forcings, Luke," etc...

There is no "The Data." I know you believe that "The Data" exists and is real, but there's a good reason why you've never seen "The Data" and why you can't find plastered millions of places over the internet.

3. We also know from isotopic analysis of the C in the CO2 in the atmosphere that shows an increase in 12-C over 13-C which is exactly what one would expect from the burning of fossil fuels since plants tend to concentrate lower atomic mass isotopes.

You are gullible. That is all I can say. You will apparently fall for any gibber-babble as long as it is completely devoid of any meaning.

There's a reason that more than 90% of the earth's climate

Explain this. How are you somehow not claiming that the earth has a global climate? Let me verify ... yes, you used the singular "climate" and not the plural "climates" and you used the definitie article "the" ... so yes, you keep the figure at 100% of warmizombies and climate lemmings who preach a global climate.

and earth systems scientists believe in AGW.

There is no Earth Systems Science. Nonetheless, this does not preclude anyone from believing in and worshiping your AGW religion.

It's getting so hard to deny it

It's becoming impossible for your religion to hold onto worshipers. They are leaving in droves. The dogma runs counter to science and is far too WACKY to take seriously.

You can review this thread and see that it remains completely devoid of any science. There simply isn't any to be had. Global Warming and all its flavors are just different sects of the same WACKY religion.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Every single warmizombie and every single climate lemming that I have ever encountered believes in the one true Climate, creator of forcings and feedbacks, through her all things are nurtured, and all carbon sins avenged.

Strawman argument. You are wrong.

Incorrect. The key is that no human who has ever lived has ever known the earth's average global temperature to any usable accuracy. This means that you haven't the vaguest idea what the earth's average global temperature is to any usable accuracy. This means that you haven't the vaguest idea if the earth's average global temperature is increasing, decreasing or remaining the same.

No one thinks there is one climate.

Focus on the other part of the first law of thermodynamics. Energy does not just appear out of nothing. There is no way for the earth to somehow spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy, specifically additional thermal energy.

No one says the increase is spontaneous. There is something called THE SUN which provides radiant heat to the earth's atmosphere.

You should have learned that the sun exists at some point.

This is gibberish. You haven't defined what this supposedly means.

As much energy comes in as goes out.

Totally meaningless. I'll let you in on a little secret. Anyone who is well-versed in science will immediately pick up on your use of the word "re-radiate" and know right away that you are a scientifically illterate moron who doesn't know enough to contribute

OK, I think I see your game. You don't know anything and this is how you troll.

Got it.


I can safely ignore every other thing you say.

"Forcings" is just your religion's term for "miracles", of which the primary types are "feedbacks." They don't really exist.

Wrong.

There is no such thing as "paleoclimatological."

Interesting. I'll have to tell my paleo professor back in college he doesn't exist.

You're an idiot and a waste of time.

Bye!

 

[IBDaMann]

Strawman argument. You are wrong.

We need to add "strawman argument" to the ever-growing list of things you just don't understand. It is absolutely true that every single warmizombie and climate lemming that I have ever encountered, and that includes you, believes deeply and passionately in the One True Climate (PBUH) creator of all things, giver of life and dispenser of Climate Justice. Your wording and grammar give you away. When discussing the earth, you speak exclusively of THE CLIMATE. Did you think no one would notice?

You are a fanatically religious, scientifically illiterate and mathematically incompetent moron. You are always guaranteed to be a lot of fun.

No one thinks there is one climate.

You and your ilk all do. I don't know who you think you are fooling ... besides yourself.

No one says the increase is spontaneous.

Again, you are pretending to speak for countless people who have already asserted such. The problem here is that you don't even know what the word means because you are nothing more than a totally uneducated shoe-drooler.

Notice that you STILL haven't posted any of the science you insist that you have. Wow, I am so genuinely surprised. I'm betting that you don't even know what science is. You're probably betting that as well. Too funny.

There is something called THE SUN which provides radiant heat to the earth's atmosphere.

Hey moron, ask yourself this question (it's what any physicist would ask you, and what you should have asked when you were told this while you were bent over furniture getting reamed):

Was the sun ALREADY THERE when your so-called greenhouse gas was released into the atmosphere? If so, how is this greenhouse gas somehow creating new energy out of nothing so that the earth's temperature can effectively increase?

Clue #1: If your greenhouse gas is creating energy out of nothing then the 1st law of thermodynamics is being violated ... egregiously!
Clue #2: If no energy is being created out of nothing then yes, you are claiming that the earth is somehow spontaneously increasing in temperature.
Clue #3: If you claim that greenhouse gas somehow reduces earth's radiance escaping off into space which then somehow results in an increase in earth's temperature then Stefan-Boltzmann is being violated ... egregiously!
Clue #4: You are a gullible idiot if the above isn't obvious to you and you let others bend you over furniture and force you to believe really stupid shit.
Clue #5: You really are a scientifically illiterate, mathematically incompetent, logically inept, totally gullible moron who allows others to do his thinking for him. Enjoy.

Regarding your fear of what I write and your need to ignore me while you tuck your tail between your legs and flee, I totally get it. It's your only option. There's no way that you WACKY, science-defying religious dogma can stand up to actual science (and math). You're going to have to ignore me at some point. I think it would be best if you just kept busy coloring over at the kids' table.