Why Does the Global Warming Faith Claim to be Science?

I have no wacky religion.

Yes, you worship the Global Warming and Climate Change religions ... because you were ordered to. You will never catch me allowing others to do my thinking for me.

Faith requires no evidence.

Thank you for the concession.

There is no deity to worship in climate science.

Now you are suffering from delusion disorder. I have listed them for you and you are simply deny them without explanation. I have asked you which ones would afford me difficulty in finding articles about them written by their worshipers and you refuse to answer because you know the internet is crawling with the very religious dogma that sucked you in, i.e. you know that I would have no difficulty whatsoever.

So, your official and final answer is that your Global Warming and Climate Change beliefs are not supported by any science that you care to share with the board, correct?
 
Yes, you worship the Global Warming and Climate Change religions ... because you were ordered to. You will never catch me allowing others to do my thinking for me.

No I do not worship anything. It is your projection. Nobody ordered me.

Thank you for the concession.

Assumption of victory fallacy.

Now you are suffering from delusion disorder. I have listed them for you and you are simply deny them without explanation. I have asked you which ones would afford me difficulty in finding articles about them written by their worshipers and you refuse to answer because you know the internet is crawling with the very religious dogma that sucked you in, i.e. you know that I would have no difficulty whatsoever.

So, your official and final answer is that your Global Warming and Climate Change beliefs are not supported by any science that you care to share with the board, correct?

The rest of your incoherent babbling is dismissed.

Again, faith is not supported by science.
 
No I do not worship anything. It is your projection. Nobody ordered me.
Pure denial on your part. You still have not provided any science to refute my position or to support yours. Your Global Warming and Climate Change faith is unfalsifiable religion, no different from Christianity.

You should call me a "denier", i.e. your religion's slur for "non-believer", just like "infidel" for Muslims and "heathen" for Christians.

Why won't you admit that there is no science behind any of the Global Warming or Climate Change dogma? Am I the first person to bring this to your attention?

Assumption of victory fallacy.
Negative. I haven't won anything. You are the one who lost ... credibility, standing, etc. You shouldn't have tried to claim that your religion isn't a religion, especially when you were painfully aware that you didn't have any science to back up any claims of some science basis. You knew that your religion is a religion, but you just had to OBEY the people who do your thinking for you and at least pretend to be portraying your religion as "thettled thienth!"

I didn't win, but your defeat was crushing nonetheless. Did you really imagine that nobody would ever notice your complete lack of any science?

The rest of your incoherent babbling is dismissed.
Now you're just pouting. I can imagine how curled your lower lip is right now.

Again, faith is not supported by science.
When you have lost, you tend to grumble totally irrelevant points under your breath. You tell yourself that if you end on a "correct" note that you actually won the point. Well, I hope it makes you feel better. If we were in a bar, I'd buy you a beer and we could have a good laugh.
 
Pure denial on your part. You still have not provided any science to refute my position or to support yours. Your Global Warming and Climate Change faith is unfalsifiable religion, no different from Christianity.

Again, you constructed a straw man fallacy, i.e., the claim that climate science is a religion. You asked us why any rational person would believe in such a "religion" that you claimed. It was constructed that it is impossible to answer. It was done on purpose.

You should call me a "denier", i.e. your religion's slur for "non-believer", just like "infidel" for Muslims and "heathen" for Christians.

More babble from you. Nobody in this thread called you a denier.

Why won't you admit that there is no science behind any of the Global Warming or Climate Change dogma? Am I the first person to bring this to your attention?

You constructed a straw man fallacy that nobody can answer. You made the claim that climate science is a religion.

Negative. I haven't won anything. You are the one who lost ... credibility, standing, etc. You shouldn't have tried to claim that your religion isn't a religion, especially when you were painfully aware that you didn't have any science to back up any claims of some science basis. You knew that your religion is a religion, but you just had to OBEY the people who do your thinking for you and at least pretend to be portraying your religion as "thettled thienth!"

I didn't win, but your defeat was crushing nonetheless. Did you really imagine that nobody would ever notice your complete lack of any science?

More babble.

Now you're just pouting. I can imagine how curled your lower lip is right now.

More projecting.

When you have lost, you tend to grumble totally irrelevant points under your breath. You tell yourself that if you end on a "correct" note that you actually won the point. Well, I hope it makes you feel better. If we were in a bar, I'd buy you a beer and we could have a good laugh.

More crying because you got your trolling ass whooped.
 
Again, you constructed a straw man fallacy,
Yep, you've tipped your king. You're back to your "declaring fallacies" without support. Dismissed. Let me know if you should change your mind and you want to support the things you write.

You asked us why any rational person would believe in such a "religion"
... and you can provide no such rational basis. Now your only move is your patented "pivot to the irrelevant" and hope that no one notices that you can't provide any rational basis for your Global Warming and Climate Change beliefs, regardless of whether or not you acknowledge that it is all religion.

Well, guess what. It's now public knowledge. There is no science. There is no rational basis for such beliefs. On the positive side, you're not alone. None of your congregation has any science. You've all been left standing with a bill of goods. You've all been hoodwinked, which I imagine was pretty easy considering the undereducation and gullibility of the warmizombies on this site.

Nobody in this thread called you a denier.
You should work on your reading comprehension. You really should. I didn't say that someone called me a "denier." Try rereading.

You constructed a straw man fallacy that nobody can answer.
Ignoring your bogus declarations for the moment, I will find someone who will answer this totally answerable question.

You made the claim that Climate Science is a religion.
Yes, I did point this out to you and mention that Christianity is a religion as well.
 
Yep, you've tipped your king. You're back to your "declaring fallacies" without support. Dismissed. Let me know if you should change your mind and you want to support the things you write.


... and you can provide no such rational basis. Now your only move is your patented "pivot to the irrelevant" and hope that no one notices that you can't provide any rational basis for your Global Warming and Climate Change beliefs, regardless of whether or not you acknowledge that it is all religion.

Well, guess what. It's now public knowledge. There is no science. There is no rational basis for such beliefs. On the positive side, you're not alone. None of your congregation has any science. You've all been left standing with a bill of goods. You've all been hoodwinked, which I imagine was pretty easy considering the undereducation and gullibility of the warmizombies on this site.


You should work on your reading comprehension. You really should. I didn't say that someone called me a "denier." Try rereading.


Ignoring your bogus declarations for the moment, I will find someone who will answer this totally answerable question.


Yes, I did point this out to you and mention that Christianity is a religion as well.

Bye. Enjoy your failure.
 
It's science. There is no such thing as "taking a stab."

Are you claiming that the earth's average surface temperature is somehow increasing yet the rest of the planet's average temperature is not?

What do yo mean by the rest of the planet's average temperature? Are you talking about the core and mantle as well?????

You don't seem to know what the Second Law is about. Let's be clear. The second law states that in a CLOSED system the entropy will increase. That's it'. How does the warming of the surface of the earth violate the second law? And exactly how much of the earth's surface temperature do you think is due to heat from the planet's cooling itself?
 
What do yo mean by the rest of the planet's average temperature? Are you talking about the core and mantle as well?????
Negative. I'm speaking of the atmosphere, hydrosphere and top three or four kilometers of the lithosphere (if you have a specific depth to which you normally operate we can go with that).

You don't seem to know what the Second Law is about.
I understand thermodynamics and thank you for your concern. I am pleased that you understand how the 2nd LoT is expressed, but you don't seem to understand the principle in practice. I imagine that you understand that if you turn on an oven, all of the volume increases in temperature, not just one corner or the part in the back while other parts remain the same temperature. If that were to happen, it would violate the 2nd LoT.

When I asked you if this is what you were claiming about the earth, i.e. the surface temperature increases but not everything else, you became confused and didn't understand what I was asking or how the 2nd LoT was involved.

Do you think you could specify unambiguously what is supposedly occurring with Global Warming such that a rational adult doesn't have to ask a boatload of clarification questions?

Oh, and I'll thank you in advance for ensuring adherence to thermodynamics by accounting for all additional energy whenever you specify an increase in temperature.

Let's be clear. The second law states that in a CLOSED system the entropy will increase.
Actually, it states that in a CLOSED system, the amount of energy available to perform work strictly decreases over time. Where your thought-masters are going to lead you astray is on the page of the playbook where they tell you to say "but the earth isn't a closed system!". That's when they will have set you up to take the fall because they don't care about you. I know that's exactly what you are poised to do, without having given any thought to how you are going to respond when I give you the correct answer ... that reveals that you don't understand thermodynamics.

Well, let's get to it. Go ahead, exclaim that "the earth is not a closed system" and start celebrating that surely you have me stumped.I'll be standing by.
 
Edited - I worded that the wrong way.

You need to give evidence that it's a myth.
You have to specify it unambiguously before anyone is obligated to falsify it. Until then, everything about it is just undefined religious buzzwords.

Would you care to unambiguously specify, or are you content to follow suit with the Christians and leave "God" and "Soul" as undefined religious terms?
 
Human caused climate change is quite clearly real.

The scientists who demonstrate that are far more credible than the conspiracy theorists who deny it.

The real question to discuss is whether or not it's too late to do anything about it.

If it's already too late, we shouldn't deprive ourselves of the lifestyle we prefer.
 
Negative. I'm speaking of the atmosphere, hydrosphere and top three or four kilometers of the lithosphere (if you have a specific depth to which you normally operate we can go with that).


I understand thermodynamics and thank you for your concern. I am pleased that you understand how the 2nd LoT is expressed, but you don't seem to understand the principle in practice. I imagine that you understand that if you turn on an oven, all of the volume increases in temperature, not just one corner or the part in the back while other parts remain the same temperature. If that were to happen, it would violate the 2nd LoT.

When I asked you if this is what you were claiming about the earth, i.e. the surface temperature increases but not everything else, you became confused and didn't understand what I was asking or how the 2nd LoT was involved.

Do you think you could specify unambiguously what is supposedly occurring with Global Warming such that a rational adult doesn't have to ask a boatload of clarification questions?

Oh, and I'll thank you in advance for ensuring adherence to thermodynamics by accounting for all additional energy whenever you specify an increase in temperature.


Actually, it states that in a CLOSED system, the amount of energy available to perform work strictly decreases over time. Where your thought-masters are going to lead you astray is on the page of the playbook where they tell you to say "but the earth isn't a closed system!". That's when they will have set you up to take the fall because they don't care about you. I know that's exactly what you are poised to do, without having given any thought to how you are going to respond when I give you the correct answer ... that reveals that you don't understand thermodynamics.

Well, let's get to it. Go ahead, exclaim that "the earth is not a closed system" and start celebrating that surely you have me stumped.I'll be standing by.

Yeah, as I suspected.
 
The most environmental safe oil production is here in the US. Biden coming against our oil production means the oil will come from dirty oil production

Biden has already set the record for oil production in this country. We have passed the record previously set under your velveeta man.

12.4 million barrels per day
In the January 2023 Short-Term Energy Outlook, crude oil production in the United States will average 12.4 million barrels per day (b/d) in 2023 and 12.8 million b/d in 2024, surpassing the previous record of 12.3 million b/d set in 2019.

Get with the program shithead, you just make yourself look stupid. (although we already knew that)
 
Why should any rational adult believe as warmizombies and climate lemmings believe? Why do warmizombies and climate lemmings believe in a global climate, which is a contradiction in terms?

The speculation is that they are all egregiously undereducated and ill-prepared for the world at large, leaving them highly gullible to the craziest of beliefs.

Because far and away the scientic consensus is that it is real. most rational people believe them before they do a right wing ignorant shithead such as yourself.
 
Yeah, as I suspected.
Your king is tipped. Let me know if you'd like to play again.

I realize the discomfort of having your religious beliefs totally doused with cold water, especially after you were assured by people you trusted to do your thinking for you that your faith was thettled thienth. The good news is that the rough part is over. It only stings for a couple of days and then FREEDOM. You won't be bent over furniture and fucked up the ass until you beg for more.

Allow me to be the first to congratulate you.
 
Back
Top