Catastrophic global warming
| Catastrophic global warming06-10-2017 23:46 | |
| Gaynor☆☆☆☆☆ (32) |
You tube - Doomsday 2020 Haart Report Please, please watch this on you tube. This is the reality of what we are really facing. Also watch Guy Mc Phearsons videos. Global warming is being seriously under estimated by us all. Hydrogen sulphate release, methane, CO2, anthrax - see Siberian sinkholes on Google for anthrax. Google hydrogen sulphate and permafrost also. This is far worse than we are being told. Edited on 07-10-2017 00:22 |
| RE: Global warming07-10-2017 00:56 | |
| Gaynor☆☆☆☆☆ (32) |
Sorry, meant to say hydrogen sulphide |
| 07-10-2017 01:01 | |
| Gaynor☆☆☆☆☆ (32) |
Gaynor wrote: |
| 07-10-2017 02:01 | |
Into the Night ★★★★★(21597) |
For those that don't want to waste their time on an 18 minute video, I actually watched it (Didn't have anything else to do at the time, since I had a long compile running. This video has quite a few problems with it. Detail follows: 0:00 General warning to make video sound important using phrase like "might be disturbing". 0:32 Presentation of the same manufactured data that NASA has been pushing for years, namely the 'temperature anomaly' image. It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth.No satellite can measure temperature of the Earth. Anomalies are the result of statistical analysis, which was never done. 1:51 Presentation of HAARP. It is 'baaad'. HAARP is a 3.5MW signal in the 2.8 to 10Mhz range. It is used to study the Auroras, at least until 2014, when the study was completed. It is used occasionally by the U of AK for similar studies. These are the same frequencies used for amateur radio and certain propagation beacons. The clever part about HAARP is not the broadcast radio signal, but the instrumentation that is used to measure its effect on the ionized Aurora. It physically looks like an antenna farm. It is located about half way on the road from Anchorage to Tetlin Jct, where the road joins the Alaskan Highway that leads to Fairbanks. 2:30 General usual stupid claims using bad math over random data and claiming the 'best scientists' did it. 6:25 Now the beginning of the meat of it. HAARP is causing the Arctic to melt, releasing tremendous amounts of methane, which is then claimed as a 'greenhouse' gas, which warms the Earth, which starts an unstable loop. This is followed by predictions that a 6 deg F change in air temperature kills most of mankind. Guess this guy has never heard of daily or seasonal temperature changes. 7:15 Oceans go 'anaerobic'. I guess that means they are no longer on the planet, since the air is here. Or is it the air that leaves? In any case, somehow the oceans start producing a lot of hydrogen sulfide (otherwise known as 'rotten egg' gas). 9:33 Everyone is dead in 2036, done in by a 12 deg F temperature change and tremendous amounts of hydrogen sulfide. All this based on a prediction made from random numbers and bad math. 11:29 Here's an interesting statement. "Prediction is not conjecture, it is history." WTF??? 11:50 Oh HERE's a great solution! Save the Earth by blowing up supervolcanoes with nukes! 15:47 Now the real conspiracy tin foil hat stuff starts coming out. A call made by the secret government to all the chemtrail pilots to fly over the poles more to mitigate the effects of HAARP, which basically shut down operations in 2014; instead of flying over everywhere else like they do now. 'Chemtrails' are just jet exhaust, consisting mostly of water and carbon dioxide. They do not control your mind, they do not control the weather. According to this video, HAARP apparently causes pressure changes in the atmosphere just west of California (from Alaska???). This in turn causes global weather to go crazy, warm things up by 13 degrees F, and destroys the oceans. WTF??? At <10Mhz, this array puts out such a low frequency it mostly heats itself doing it. This is a very low energy frequency of light. Getting struck with high power radio at in this frequency range isn't even going to make you feel hot. He also claims that HAARP prevents the Sun from warming the oceans despite his earlier claim that it did. There is not even a consistent argument here. This dope is in paradox. The video also depends on an unstable system. Apparently this moron doesn't understand that unstable systems would have already occurred. We would already be dead. Apparently he doesn't realize that HAARP is not even turned on most of the time anymore. |
| 07-10-2017 02:03 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21597) |
Gaynor wrote: Hydrogen sulfide is not a 'greenhouse' gas. It is not capable of warming the Earth. Neither is methane. Neither is carbon dioxide. NONE of these gases are an energy source (unless you burn the hydrogen sulfide or methane). The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| RE: Doomsday202007-10-2017 02:06 | |
| Gaynor☆☆☆☆☆ (32) |
Ok check out Peter Carter who used to work for IPCC then - emergency climate crisis Sanchez report, also found on you tube. Maybe you will find this more credible then. |
| 07-10-2017 02:08 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21597) |
It is obvious that Gaynor is a conspiracy nut. Chemtrails, HAARP weather control, using nukes to detonate supervolcanes, the 'secret' illuminati like government, all there. |
| RE: Doomsday202007-10-2017 02:17 | |
| Gaynor☆☆☆☆☆ (32) |
I am well aware that hydrogen sulphide is not a greenhouse gas. If you took the time to research it in google along with permafrost you would see exactly what I mean. I have been trying to tell you that it is part of the process that comes along with global warming. You are looking in isolation, not the bigger picture of the whole potential process. Why don't you do some research friend. No I am not a nut or conspiracy theorists either. please don't be disrespectful, I thought we were grown ups in here. I happen to consider various sources of information. Why don't you check out Peter Carter on you tube - a former director of IPCC emergency climate crisis Sanchez report. Maybe he's a nut too huh? If you feel something is incorrect then present your argument, don'T be abusive, it's childish. |
| RE: Parrot07-10-2017 02:25 | |
| Gaynor☆☆☆☆☆ (32) |
Please may I refer you to Peter Carter's emergency climate crisis Sanchez report on you tube. I am sure you are aware of who he is, if not he is a former director of IPCC so a very credible source. You are obviously not understanding what I am talking about when I refer to methane etc. Maybe he will make it clearer for you. I would also Google permafrost and hydrogen sulphide too and maybe you will get an understanding of what I am talking about. |
| 07-10-2017 11:48 | |
| Tim the plumber★★★★☆ (1356) |
Gaynor wrote: Given you have no clue as to what you are talking about I won't bother. It is plain when somebody with no science understanding posts. |
| 07-10-2017 16:09 | |
| Gaynor☆☆☆☆☆ (32) |
Tim, I am disappointed that you find the need to be rude. Why don't you explain your understanding of it. You are right, I'm not great at science but at least I have manners. At least I give it a go and try to understand and research stuff. Maybe it would be more constructive if you tried to provide your knowledge on the subject rather than sarcastic comments. I am new to researching this so try and understand those that aren't quite as intelligent as you so clearly see yourself to be. Global warming is generally associated with increased fossil-fuel burning and consequent rises in levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. But is that the only climate problem we face? No it is not. We also have the issue of methane. Russian scientists who have investigated waters off their coast have detected more and more plumes of methane bubbling up from the seabed. The reason this is happening is closely connected with the warming of the planet and the shrinking of the Arctic icecaps. Until around 2005, even in summer, you still had sea ice near the coast. Then it started to disappear, so that for three or four months a year warm water reached the shallow waters around the shores where there had been permafrost ground since the last ice age. It has started to melt with dangerous consequences. Underneath the permafrost there are sediments full of methane hydrates. When the permafrost goes, you release the pressure on top of these hydrates and the methane comes out of solution. "The mechanism which is causing the observed mass of rising methane plumes in the East Siberian Sea is itself unprecedented and hence it is not surprising that various climate scientists, none of them Arctic specialists, failed to spot it. What is actually happening is that the summer sea ice now retreats so far, and for so long each summer, that there is a substantial ice-free season over the Siberian shelf, sufficient for solar irradiance to warm the surface water by a significant amount – up to 7C according to satellite data. That warming extends the 50 m or so to the seabed because we are dealing with only a polar surface water layer here (over the shelves the Arctic Ocean structure is one-layer rather than three layers) and the surface warming is mixed down by wave-induced mixing because the extensive open water permits large fetches. So long as some ice persisted on the shelf, the water mass was held to about 0C in summer because any further heat content in the water column was used for melting the ice underside. But once the ice disappears, as it has done, the temperature of the water can rise significantly, and the heat content reaching the seabed can melt the frozen sediments at a rate that was never before possible. The authors who so confidently dismiss the idea of extensive methane release are simply not aware of the new mechanism that is causing it." Edited on 07-10-2017 16:22 |
| 07-10-2017 18:03 | |
| Tim the plumber★★★★☆ (1356) |
Gaynor, I will try to pull back on the attacks. The trouble you will find is that I have had a long exposure to people who preach at me that the whole world should drastically change the economy who have no clue about what they are talking about and no care as to the vast numbers of people currently being killed by this bad science. The process of permafrost etc melting will release methane. But only where it melts. That is the edge of the permafrost zone not all of it. We have had warm periods before. The Holcene optimal during the early bronze age was called that because it was considered to be the optimal climate for humans. It was warmer than now, the Sahara was a region of forrest and grassland with lakes bigger than England in it. If the surface water of the arctic ocean is warmed by 7c in places that would be the very top of the water. The stuff 50m down will not be so warm. It would take many years to get such temperatures down there. Each winter would reset it. It would also only be true of some sheltered spots where the curreent from the Pacific does not flow quickly. The general thing of the arctic ocean is that it is fed by a cold current through the bearing straights and water flows out into the North Atlantic. If as you say you are, new and questioning, then will you be open to the idea of this all being 97% bullshit of doom? If I can demonstrate to you that there is nothing to worry about will you be able to change your mind? |
| RE: Catastrphic global warming07-10-2017 20:09 | |
| Gaynor☆☆☆☆☆ (32) |
Thank you, I appreciate that. I am very open to learning indeed. I currently can only go by what a vast majority of the scientific community seem to be. I also look at the obvious changes in the weather and flooding that we are experiencing. However, I always keep an open mind regardless and I am more than willing to listen to others opinions. I do very much hope you are right. With regards to the permafrost, is there not huge amounts that could potentially release a significant amount of methane to raise temp's far higher than the recommended levels? Did you check out Peter Carter link in Hydrogen Sulphide response? (I do believe Peter Carter states that The Paris Agreement recommendations were not recommendations from the scientific community. I may be mistaken on this but I'm sure that's what I recall him saying. BTW, this was in a different video to the link I posted). So why are the scientific community so worried? Why are people like Peter Carter so concerned? He was a former director of IPCC I believe. This is what I found on mid-Holocene. I have yet to do some research around this.......In summary it says, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. More over, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years. I need to research the other stuff. Thanks for taking the time to answer me, I really appreciate it. There is such a mind field of info out there and conflicting views. I am open to new opinions so if you don't mind continuing to give me alternative views and research I would be grateful. If you get bored just let me know and I won't take offense. |
| 07-10-2017 20:51 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21597) |
Gaynor wrote: I know what you are talking about. You're a conspiracy nut. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 07-10-2017 21:10 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21597) |
Gaynor wrote: He has. He has better things to do then research conspiracy theories like yours. Gaynor wrote: I don't blame him for the sarcastic comments. You're a conspiracy nut. Gaynor wrote: Really? It's taken you some time to acquire this level of conspiracy theory. Gaynor wrote: Fossils don't burn. We use hydroelectric, nuclear, oil, gas, coal, tides, wind, and direct sunlight conversion. No fossils involved in any of it. Gaynor wrote: What's wrong with carbon dioxide? Earth certainly has had greater concentrations of it before. Gaynor wrote: Carbon dioxide concentration is not climate. Temperature is not climate either. Gaynor wrote: Probably released due to the volcanic activity under there. Meh. Gaynor wrote: We still do. Perhaps you had better be more specific about what coast you are referring to. Gaynor wrote: It still is permafrost ground. Perhaps you had better look up what permafrost IS. Gaynor wrote: Great! An endless supply of energy for frigid Alaska! Gaynor wrote: Methane hydrate is not a solution. Gaynor wrote: Argument from randU. It is not possible to measure the temperature of ocean water by satellite. Only sticking a thermometer in the ocean can measure the temperature of ocean water, and only at the location of the thermometer itself. Satellites measure light, not temperature. Gaynor wrote: Try presenting your OWN argument, instead of depending on Holy Quotes and Links. Using someone else's argument as your own is a sign of lazy thinking. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 08-10-2017 01:19 | |
| Gaynor☆☆☆☆☆ (32) |
Parrot, you really are not a very likeable character. If you don't have anything constructive to say I suggest you do not respond to my posts if they annoy you. It is up to Tim to respond so why don't you mind your business. I am far from a lazy thinker. How I choose to put across info is up to me. I have M.E. thus get exhausted really easily and my memory retention is affected so I don't, or can't always write so I adapt to my illness. I had mentioned to Tim that I had used this method in a previous post so it would come as no surprise to him. I am still learning stuff. Go away and pick an argument with someone who is interested in arguing. I do not have the inclination to get into arguments with people. This is a forum for everyone, novices included. I didn't see any rules on only experts on my way in, guess I must have missed that meeting or post. Those who don't want to respond don't have to, quite simple really. If you feel you are far superior in intellegience then solve climate change for us all why don't you. Please refrain from looking at my threads in future, no one is forcing you. |
| 08-10-2017 02:01 | |
| GasGuzzler★★★★★ (2933) |
Gaynor wrote: Have you ever met him? Can't imagine he's too big an A-hole. If you don't have anything constructive to say I suggest you do not respond to my posts if they annoy you. Parrot Killer is always constructive....except when killing parrots. Do you know what he considers a parrot? It is up to Tim to respond so why don't you mind your business. Public forum for everyone to see....everybody's business who wishes to be involved. Want privacy? Send a private message. I am far from a lazy thinker. You made your first impressions when you posted 18 times and not a single post was a thought of your own. It was wall to wall copy and paste. We have another here that does that and is not respected from either side of any issue. Name is Litebeer. We want to know YOUR thoughts. We've got Google. How I choose to put across info is up to me. Sure, and it will determine the responses you'll get too. I have M.E. thus get exhausted really easily and my memory retention is affected so I don't, or can't always write so I adapt to my illness. Truly sorry to here that. I had mentioned to Tim that I had used this method in a previous post so it would come as no surprise to him. I am still learning stuff. Nothing wrong with learning, most of us are. Go away and pick an argument with someone who is interested in arguing. This is a "climate debate" forum. Another word for debate is argument. Are you looking for a global warming discussion group? Not here. I do not have the inclination to get into arguments with people. May not want to hang out here..... This is a forum for everyone, novices included. I didn't see any rules on only experts on my way in, guess I must have missed that meeting or post. No rule like that. All we ask is for YOUR explanation of things. Be ready to cite your sources if you didn't do so...Oh, and U-Tube will generally be quickly rejected as a credible source. Those who don't want to respond don't have to, quite simple really. You are forced respond here just the same as people are forced to work at Wal Mart with no health insurance. If you feel you are far superior in intelligence then solve climate change for us all why don't you. Nothing to solve. If YOU feel the earth is actually warming, then please present YOUR evidence. Compilation charts and graphs from NASA and NOAA are generally rejected too as they have been caught cherry picking data to prove their point and progress their agenda. Please refrain from looking at my threads in future, no one is forcing you. You post. We peek Edited on 08-10-2017 02:10 |
| 08-10-2017 02:15 | |
| Gaynor☆☆☆☆☆ (32) |
Wow. Guess you guys know it all and we should just leave it all to you then. I bow down in awe.
Edited on 08-10-2017 02:16 |
| 08-10-2017 02:51 | |
| GasGuzzler★★★★★ (2933) |
Gaynor wrote: I'm am 1st, second AND 3rd in line to say I don't know the 1/2 of it. NO one knows it ALL. Anyone that says they do is rejected immediately. You have posted up a lot of doomsday stuff. I do not apologies for calling it hooey. The guy made the video in 2014. He said most humans would be dead in 10 years. It's nearing 4 years since the statement and not one human is in danger of dying from "global warming". Doesn't that raise a red flag with you? |
| 08-10-2017 03:37 | |
| litesong★★★★★ (2297) |
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzzed & guzzzling" gushed: I'm am 1st, second AND 3rd in line..... I'm 1st, second AND 3rd in line to say that "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzzed & guzzzling" is an old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner. |
| 08-10-2017 13:46 | |
| Gaynor☆☆☆☆☆ (32) |
Ok I did a bit more reading last night and now I am intrigued to know the other side of the argument. When I looked at your response again it did start to ring bells. As did some stuff I read about. Anyone care to enlighten me a little more. I'm not one for throwing insults at people though. So enlighten me guys. |
| 08-10-2017 16:48 | |
| Tim the plumber★★★★☆ (1356) |
Gaynor wrote: The thing is that hydrogen sulfide is a very powerful cooler of climate. If there is a large release it will get colder. There are large deposits of methane, well half rotted vegitation that would relaease methane if it were to melt, but only the tiny bits around the edge can be melted. Methane, whilst it is a greenhous gas, only stays around in the air for a short time before it reacts and is gone. So unless this vast melting happens in a single year, which is simply not possible, wew are OK. To start the process of questioning; The average snowfall over Greenland is 821mm/year. That's water equivalent, when you melt the snow. The surface area of Greenland is 2.166 million km2. So that's 1778 km3 worth of water/snow. Any melting has to happen in the 4 weeks of summer that almost all Greenland gets. The Mississippi river flows at 16790 m3/s. That's 1.45 km3 a day. To break even on ice mass Greenland's rivers and glaciers have to be as strong as 43Mississippi's. OK, you can argue that they flow all year, which they do, but they are very small and if you wish to argue that it's the higher temperatures causing melting then it can only happen during the time when it's above zero c. If you cannot find, using google earth, anything like the 43 Mississippi's then clearly Greenland is gain ice. I recon 0.25 or so. If Greenland is gaining ice then it cannot cause sea levels to rise. The same argument is true for Antarctica but there even the warmists say it is gaining ice. NASA says that Greenland is losing 300 Km3 per year. Either you can believe your own eyes and ability to do basic maths or you can choose to believe NASA in everything. Your choice. |
| 08-10-2017 19:54 | |
| Wake★★★★★ (4034) |
Gaynor wrote: Let me give you an outline of the problems here: Here is the absorption spectra of methane: http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/jres/041/jresv41n6p615_A1b.pdf Most of this is described in Table 2. As you can see even with unlimited energy in the correct band the levels of absorption are rather limited. Under the most severe case the levels of methane and other such gases in the atmosphere would never exceed about 10 parts per million. More importantly is: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Water_infrared_absorption_coefficient_large.gif Water vapor as a global average is some 4% of the atmosphere and absorbs almost the entire energy available in the bands that methane would absorb in. And liquid water is commonly in the atmosphere which is even more absorbent. So the so-called greenhouse gases are not and could never be honestly considered to be so as they are totally blanked out by water vapor on a water planet. But you have to remember that in the troposphere the molecules of ALL gases are packed together so tightly that thermal energy is not transferred by radiation (which therefore makes absorption bands rather useless) but by direct actions of conduction and convection. And all gases have nearly identical specific heat capacities or in other words: it doesn't make any difference whatsoever what sort of gas it is. Therefore radiation transference in the troposphere is irrelevant and in the stratosphere is desirable since most of this energy is released into space. We could discuss the actions in the stratosphere that releases energy into space by radiation but it is rather complex and would deserve its own posting. |
| 08-10-2017 21:24 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21597) |
Gaynor wrote: Heh. Depends on what you like. Gaynor wrote: I support my arguments with theories of science, the use of mathematics, the use of logic, and the use of philosophy. I try to give my reasoning in as clear a form as I can manage. I am not always successful. Remember that you have walked into the middle of a debate of global warming and climate change. The reasoning for terms and the science used here can be lengthy. Repeating them for every individual that shows up here means effectively writing a book over and over. There are two ways to go from here. You can debate with the rest of us, and glean the explanations as they come, or you can go get some books on physics and mathematics and study it yourself. You can even do both. You can take studying the material through books at your own pace. Here, the pace is set by the debaters. I can seem rough at times. Gaynor wrote: This is a forum. Anyone can respond and usually does. This is not a private message service (although that is provided here as well). Gaynor wrote: Then show it. Avoid depending on copy and paste. I want to see your arguments, not the arguments of someone else that isn't even here. Gaynor wrote: The info I want to see is your arguments. Show me your reasoning. I dislike debating people that aren't here. Gaynor wrote: You can adjust for this. Debating pace is set by the debaters here. I note that you have this problem, I will try to adjust for it. Good basic physics books and math books can be studied at your own pace. Gaynor wrote: You did. Gaynor wrote: If you are, then you can learn stuff here, but the pace may seem fast or rough for you. It takes work on your part to learn here. It takes asking questions on points of confusion. Gaynor wrote: This is a debate forum. Everything anyone presents here is an argument or a fallacy. Gaynor wrote: Then perhaps you should study the material in books. Gaynor wrote: It is. Gaynor wrote: I do not reject those willing to learn. I reject those who spam, or who follow religions and are unwilling to learn because of them. This is not to say I reject religion, but that it must be recognized as such. Gaynor wrote: This is an open forum. Anyone can and probably will respond. Gaynor wrote: Nothing to solve. My position is that the concept of global warming and climate change aren't even definable except in terms of themselves. My position is that we don't have the ability to determine the temperature of the Earth to any useful degree of accuracy. This is a mathematical problem (statistical math, a branch that few here really understand), and not a science problem. We just don't have sufficient instrumentation to measure the Earth's temperature. That temperature is determined by the output from our Sun and Earth's ability to absorb it. Whatever it absorbs, it radiates again. Earth is literally just a rock in the way of the solar energy radiating away into space. Sol, our Sun, puts out energy at a relatively constant rate for a star of this size. The only thing that can change Earth's temperature is changing the output of the Sun. Therefore, my position is that while we can't measure the temperature of the Earth, it is staying as constant as the Sun's output and the Earth's distance from it. That output and even the distance does vary, but overall it IS rather constant. Gaynor wrote: Not going to happen. No one has the power to censor anyone on this forum save the forum owner. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 08-10-2017 21:56 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21597) |
Gaynor wrote: Here is my starting position to anyone wanting to discuss 'global warming' or 'climate change': All theories start out as circular arguments. They may be inspired by an observation, noting something in an equation that someone hasn't seen before, or even watching an episode of Sponge Bob. Alfred Nobel, for example, came up with most of his theories while dreaming. He kept a notepad on his bedside table to record them. A scientific theory, however, is not a circular argument. There is some difference between the initial theory, and the point where it becomes a scientific theory. This is one of the questions that philosophy discusses. Current philosophy defines science this way: Science is nothing more than a set of theories that are falsifiable that describe nature. What is this 'falsifiability'? For every theory, there is a hypothesis called the null hypothesis. It basically answers the question, "How can I show this theory is wrong?". To be a scientific theory, that null hypothesis must be able to describe a test that is specific, and also one that produces a specific result. If such is available (there often is more than one!), and the theory has survived at least one test, it is automatically considered part of the body of science. No peer review group, no association, no government agency, no university, no group of any kind gets to vote on it. No one owns science. Scientific theories remain theories until they are destroyed. No theory of science is ever proven true. By surviving a test of falsifiability, a scientific theory is no longer a simple circular argument. It has a basis for its existence that is no longer circular. The more tests against a theory that a theory survives, the more the theory is respected. It is never proven however. Science does not use supporting evidence at all. It is only interested in conflicting evidence. It is only interesting in destroying existing theories. Theories can exist outside the realm of science. There are many such theories. Because they have not been tested or are not testable, they remain the circular arguments they are. The circular argument is not itself a fallacy. Only failing to recognize one for what it is becomes the fallacy. The other word for the circular argument is 'faith'. It takes faith to take an initial theory and take it through the testing process to make it a scientific theory. All religions are based on some initial circular argument. For Christianity, for example, it is the circular argument that Jesus Christ existed and he is who he said he is. I don't use 'was' because Jesus Christ is resurrected, according to this same faith. Now to my initial position: Defining 'global warming' and 'climate change'. Both of these phrases refer to a noun (basically the Earth), and an action ('warming' or 'change'). The trouble is, these actions are not quantifiable. They can't be measured without establishing a starting point of absolute measurements and an ending point where measurement stops. That starting and ending point are not specified. They are flexible and change for the convenience of the one making a particular argument. In other words, you can't define them in any way but themselves. They are circular arguments. You cannot take them out of the realm of the circular argument because there is no way to specify the interval of 'change' that is consistent and quantifiable. A specific test is not available for them. This particular form of the circular argument involving a definition forms a logical fallacy known as the void argument. No theory, scientific or otherwise, can be formed on the basis of a fallacy. Oddly enough, however, a religion can. This is why I consider those that believe in such terms as some kind of science are actually a religious group. They are basing their entire structure on this initial circular argument. I call this religious group the Church of Global Warming. Whenever you see me refer to a church of any kind, it is because it is based on a circular argument. To escape the void argument, the Church of Global Warming MUST define 'global warming' or 'climate change' in terms other then themselves. The use of 'greenhouse gas' is no good because that definition refers directly back to 'global warming'. Thus, the Church of Global Warming remains locked in a circular argument. It has so far presented no way of escape. It is not science, since it is not even a valid theory to begin with. It is based on the fallacy of the void argument. If the Church of Global Warming wants to get anywhere, they MUST first define these terms. It MUST begin here. All the data quoted, all the theories based on this initial view, ALL of it means nothing in the face of this lack of definition. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 08-10-2017 22:02 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21597) |
Wake wrote:Gaynor wrote: Absorption does not a 'greenhouse gas' make. That is only conversion of electromagnetic energy into thermal energy. Wake wrote: This is ignoring the effects of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The surface radiates the most energy, followed by the troposphere, followed by thinner layers of the atmosphere. Wake wrote: There is no magick trigger in the stratosphere that allows radiance. ALL substances on Earth (and above it) radiate energy. Wake wrote: It is only complex to you because you deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
Join the debate Catastrophic global warming:
Related content
| Threads | Replies | Last post |
| What Makes a Catastrophic Flood? And Is Climate Change Causing More of Them? | 3 | 24-03-2019 16:58 |