Remember me
▼ Content

Does the bad a$$ Dr. Pierrer Latour blow IPCC away?


Does the bad a$$ Dr. Pierrer Latour blow IPCC away?10-01-2016 05:57
Tai Hai Chen
★★★☆☆
(517)
This man knows what he's talking about


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ55koi7vaA
Edited on 10-01-2016 05:57
10-01-2016 08:35
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
No. He doesn't.

He's a clueless Sky Dragon Slayer gibbering pseudoscience and pretending it's science.

It's so hopeless it's embarrassing.

He's 'Not Even Wrong' *



(*The phrase implies that not only is someone not making a valid point in a discussion, but they don't even understand the nature of the discussion itself, or the things that need to be understood in order to participate.)
Edited on 10-01-2016 08:47
10-01-2016 15:14
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Ceist wrote: No. He doesn't.

The presumption is that you agree with him completely since you cannot specify any point with which you disagree.

The presumption is that you believe he is 100% correct since you cannot specify a single point on which he is incorrect.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
10-01-2016 16:41
Tai Hai Chen
★★★☆☆
(517)
The positive feedback in the greenhouse effect theory is particularly troubling. If CO2 up there heats the ground, then the ground heats up the CO2 up there more, the CO2 up there then heats the ground more, then the ground heats up the CO2 up there more, the CO2 up there heats the ground more, then ground heats up the CO2 up there more, the CO2 up there then heats the ground more, and so on and so forth. This is indeed generation of energy out of nothing, a perpetual machine of the second kind, which is not allowed.
10-01-2016 17:32
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
The positive feedback in the greenhouse effect theory is particularly troubling. If CO2 up there heats the ground, then the ground heats up the CO2 up there more, the CO2 up there then heats the ground more, then the ground heats up the CO2 up there more, the CO2 up there heats the ground more, then ground heats up the CO2 up there more, the CO2 up there then heats the ground more, and so on and so forth. This is indeed generation of energy out of nothing, a perpetual machine of the second kind, which is not allowed.

Yes, every worshiper's personal "greenhouse effect" belief violates physics in some way. Those involving "feedback loops" believe that they can get around the 1st LoT by imagining that two or more things can contnually feed each other to create additional energy and they believe they can get around the 2nd LoT by imagining that this continuous self-feeding can go on forever.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-01-2016 08:57
arthur18
☆☆☆☆☆
(42)
Hi IBdaMann & Tai Hai Chen.

Any chance of either or both of you posting on the attached thread.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/12082013/Global-warming-normal-weather-is-a-thing-of-the-past-claims-scientist.html

There are some hard core alarmists there.
11-01-2016 13:41
Tai Hai Chen
★★★☆☆
(517)
arthur18 wrote:
Hi IBdaMann & Tai Hai Chen.

Any chance of either or both of you posting on the attached thread.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/12082013/Global-warming-normal-weather-is-a-thing-of-the-past-claims-scientist.html

There are some hard core alarmists there.


Normal weather? Never heard of it.
11-01-2016 14:53
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
arthur18 wrote:
Hi IBdaMann & Tai Hai Chen.

Any chance of either or both of you posting on the attached thread.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/12082013/Global-warming-normal-weather-is-a-thing-of-the-past-claims-scientist.html

There are some hard core alarmists there.


Yes I feel quite 'alarmist' about the ideologically induced stupidity of the climate science deniers on that thread. Nah, not really. It's rather entertaining. Especially the exchanges between HandofGod (HOG) and Matt where HOG hogtied Matt and had him flat out on the mat and Matt just digs himself deeper and pretends he is winning the discussion. Kind of like watching Monte Python's Black Knight.

Seems to be only one "greenhouse effect doesn't exist because it violates the 2nd LOT" nutter on that thread (Lincoln Rhyme), so maybe IBdaMann and Tai could help him out and provide some more entertainment.



Edited on 11-01-2016 14:59
19-01-2016 14:16
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Ceist wrote: ...so maybe IBdaMann and Tai could help him out and provide some more entertainment.

Is there any chance we can get a cheesy ad hominem that involves both the word "petard" and the quip "two short plancks"?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist




Join the debate Does the bad a$$ Dr. Pierrer Latour blow IPCC away?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
In Your Face - the IPCC and Fraud904-01-2018 00:14
Edinburgh University - Dr Richard Milne - Final Nail For Climate Change Disinformation505-12-2017 17:02
Possible the IPCC corrupted data ?4207-10-2017 00:09
Is the IPCC Biased?13312-07-2017 18:37
CO2, The Ozone Layer, The Chapman Cycle, The IPCC and NOAA2424-06-2017 20:37
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact