Why Does the Global Warming Faith Claim to be Science?

Cypress said:
I accept your tacit confession that you cannot point to any substantial body of peer reviewed scientific literature supporting your claim that global warming is a hoax, or that is is totally due to natural causes
Click to expand...
Your lack of reading comprehension is complete. I did not tacitly imply this. I expressly stated that I have all the science to debunk any of your religious beliefs.

You are welcome to express any or all of your Global Warming beliefs here in this thread and I will rake them over the coals at no charge, using only science (and any required supporting math and/or logic).


The floor is yours to proudly state your Global Warming beliefs. Make sure you unambiguously define all your terms.
 
IBDaMann said:
Your lack of reading comprehension is complete. I did not tacitly imply this. I expressly stated that I have all the science to debunk any of your religious beliefs.

You are welcome to express any or all of your Global Warming beliefs here in this thread and I will rake them over the coals at no charge, using only science (and any required supporting math and/or logic).


The floor is yours to proudly state your Global Warming beliefs. Make sure you unambiguously define all your terms.
Click to expand...

Still chanting about religion?
 
AProudLefty said:
You are a member of the Trump cult and you worship Trump.

Cope.
Click to expand...

The Party of Trump is full of Cray-Crays.

youre-supposed-to-vote-for-donald-trump-but-bish-he-cray.gif
 
IBDaMann said:
Your lack of reading comprehension is complete. I did not tacitly imply this. I expressly stated that I have all the science to debunk any of your religious beliefs.

You are welcome to express any or all of your Global Warming beliefs here in this thread and I will rake them over the coals at no charge, using only science (and any required supporting math and/or logic).


The floor is yours to proudly state your Global Warming beliefs. Make sure you unambiguously define all your terms.
Click to expand...
You have zero training, expertise, or competency in climate science.

Do you ask a car mechanic for his expert opinion on biochemistry?

Parroting some words you read on a rightwing blog and passing them off as your own thoughts is not making a credible argument.


The only way you will ever debunk global warming is to point to a large body of reputable peer reviewed science showing global warming is a hoax, or is due only to natural causes.

You have been repeatedly asked to provide links to this science, but you have repeatedly failed to do so.
 
Cypress said:
You have zero training, expertise, or competency in climate science.
Click to expand...
You have this line written down somewhere and you copy-paste it as a response to everyone who makes you feel threatened in your WACKY faith. You really should ditch your religion; it's keeping you stupid.

You didn't post any science supporting your beliefs. You're supposed to be posting science but you keep avoiding science altogether. It's the huge elephant in the room, along with this thread which remains completely devoid of any science supporting your religion. Pivot as you may, you can't brush this mountain under the rug. Nobody in your religion has any of the science that he insists he has. The hilarity is comedy gold. The kicker is that you ensure it stays this way. You have no science and you don't even know what science is. You look around at the world thinking to yourself "I wonder if that over there is science."

Cypress said:
Do you ask a car mechanic for his expert opinion on biochemistry?
Click to expand...
Here is where you crash and burn. In order for you to get me to admit that I am not an expert in your religious faith requires you to admit that your beliefs are purely faith-based religion. If, on the other hand, you wish to maintain that your religious beliefs are actually science, then I stand ready to spank you up and down the block if you try to discuss any, and to expose you for the scientifically illiterate, mathematically incompetent, undereducated moron that you are who drools way too much on his shoes.

I'll let you choose your poison.

Cypress said:
The only way you will ever debunk global warming
Click to expand...
It's already debunked. The dogma holds several egregious violations of physics. I'm sorry you never got the memo. Oooops, I meant that I'm sorry that your thought-masters never let you read the memo. At least today you are an expert in getting reamed.

Cypress said:
You have been repeatedly asked to provide links to this science,
Click to expand...
I don't care. I will only provide actual science right here in this thread. I will trash any of your precious religious beliefs right here on JPP.

Just pick your first Global Warming belief to be publicly trashed by science. Tell me about it here, in this thread, and I'll destroy it here, in this thread. No links will be involved.

Then we'll trash your second belief, then your third , then the fourth ... we'll have ourselves a ball.

When you grow tired of this thread remaining totally devoid of any science supporting your religious beliefs, feel free to post the science here in this thread. Until then, your religion is long-since debunked.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Over the years, our resident right wing wonks and MAGA mooks have claimed amateur "expertise" in the following fields: weaponry, international politics, auto mechanics, military tactics, history, sociology, religion, linguistics, etc. They do this when they either cannot produce valid documented source material from real experts to support their contentions. It gets to the point when they indirectly profess to know MORE than valid experts, much less people who may have invented/created the topic/product of discussion. After a point, trying to rationally and factually debate them is like banging your head against the wall ... it feels so good when you stop.
Click to expand...
Taichiliberal, you explain very well the deeply-rooted inadequacies felt by undereducated, scientifically illiterate leftists who are DESPERATE to be the center of attention as a "scientist". Leftists smply PRETEND to understand science and PRETEND to speak for the world's "science community" but they can never produce any valid data sets to support their contentions. It gets to the point when they indirectly profess to know MORE than actual experts who simply want to discuss science and math with them. After a point, trying to rationally and factually debate them is like banging your head against the wall ... it feels so good when you stop.
 
IBDaMann said:
Taichiliberal, you explain very well the deeply-rooted inadequacies felt by undereducated, scientifically illiterate leftists who are DESPERATE to be the center of attention as a "scientist". Leftists smply PRETEND to understand science and PRETEND to speak for the world's "science community" but they can never produce any valid data sets to support their contentions. It gets to the point when they indirectly profess to know MORE than actual experts who simply want to discuss science and math with them. After a point, trying to rationally and factually debate them is like banging your head against the wall ... it feels so good when you stop.
Click to expand...

You say pretend but they say "If I feel it to be true then it is true, my feelings cant be wrong".
 
Cypress said:
You have zero training, expertise, or competency in climate science.
Click to expand...
Correct, because there is no such thing as 'climate science'.
Cypress said:
Do you ask a car mechanic for his expert opinion on biochemistry?
Click to expand...
Do you ask a car mechanic to fix a car that doesn't exist?
Cypress said:
Parroting some words you read on a rightwing blog and passing them off as your own thoughts is not making a credible argument.
Click to expand...
Science is not a blog.
Cypress said:
The only way you will ever debunk global warming is to point to a large body of reputable peer reviewed science showing global warming is a hoax, or is due only to natural causes.
Click to expand...
Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science. Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.
Cypress said:
You have been repeatedly asked to provide links to this science, but you have repeatedly failed to do so.
Click to expand...
Science is not a link and does not require a link for any theory of science to exist. You are free to look the theories you are discarding for yourself. My link points to a forum containing some reference material for many theories of science. You deny and discard the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
You cannot just discard theories of science.

Science has no proofs. Science is an open functional system.
You cannot create energy out of a magick gas.
You cannot trap heat.
You cannot trap light.
You cannot heat a warmer object with a colder one.
You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
 
Into the Night said:
Correct, because there is no such thing as 'climate science'.

Do you ask a car mechanic to fix a car that doesn't exist?

Science is not a blog.

Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science. Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.

Science is not a link and does not require a link for any theory of science to exist. You are free to look the theories you are discarding for yourself. My link points to a forum containing some reference material for many theories of science. You deny and discard the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
You cannot just discard theories of science.

Science has no proofs. Science is an open functional system.
You cannot create energy out of a magick gas.
You cannot trap heat.
You cannot trap light.
You cannot heat a warmer object with a colder one.
You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
Click to expand...

I love your obsession with Stefan-Boltzmann and the Second Law of Thermo. Now if only you knew what either one was actually about it might be interesting to read your posts.
 
Perry Phimosis said:
I love your obsession with Stefan-Boltzmann and the Second Law of Thermo. Now if only you knew what either one was actually about it might be interesting to read your posts.
Click to expand...
You don't get to declare what others understand and what they don't. You can at most make observations of understanding.

With that said, what have you observed that indicates Into the Night doesn't understand those science models? Or is it really you who doesn't have the vaguest clue?
 
IBDaMann said:
You don't get to declare what others understand and what they don't.
Click to expand...

But IntotheNight has effectively declared he doesn't know much about either topic.

You can at most make observations of understanding.
Click to expand...

Which I have.

With that said, what have you observed that indicates Into the Night doesn't understand those science models? Or is it really you who doesn't have the vaguest clue?
Click to expand...

Well, his "definition" of the second law left out a MAJOR caveat and didn't even really look like how anyone who actually DOES understand it would summarize it. As for S-B, well, he never talks about it in detail, he just declares everyone is violating it somehow.

I can guarantee you they don't know what they are talking about.
 
Perry Phimosis said:
But IntotheNight has effectively declared he doesn't know much about either topic.
Click to expand...
Nope. You have ineffectively declared that he doesn't know much, and you don't get to declare beyond your observations.

Perry Phimosis said:
Well, his "definition" of the second law left out a MAJOR caveat and didn't even really look like how anyone who actually DOES understand it would summarize it.
Click to expand...
Since he and I have had many discussions on the topic, you are going to have to be specific.

Perry Phimosis said:
As for S-B, well, he never talks about it in detail, he just declares everyone is violating it somehow.
Click to expand...
He understands Stefan-Boltzmann so if he states that you are violating it, you most likely are. You, on the other hand, have not demonstrated any understanding of Stefan-Boltzmann that I have seen.

If you want, I'll help you out. What is your position that Into the Night asserts violates Stefan-Boltzmann?

Perry Phimosis said:
I can guarantee you they don't know what they are talking about.
Click to expand...
Nope. You cannot make that guarantee.
 
IBDaMann said:
Since he and I have had many discussions on the topic, you are going to have to be specific.
Click to expand...

Already explained it to you. Guess you don't know the Second Law either!

If you want, I'll help you out. What is your position that Into the Night asserts violates Stefan-Boltzmann?
[/QUOTE]

Already explained it to you. Sorry you don't understand it enough to have caught that. :)

That was easy!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top