Remember me
▼ Content

Why deny global warming



Page 1 of 4123>>>
Why deny global warming13-02-2016 20:15
spot
★★★★☆
(1001)
Not my work but posted by tammio on his open mind blog I thought that it would add to the debate;


https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/02/12/why-deny-global-warming/#comments

Why Deny Global Warming?
Posted on February 12, 2016 | 12 Comments
Ted Cruz has recently been asked, by voters no less, why he denies global warming. His response has been to double down — nay, triple and quadruple down — on denial. His standard answer is a litany of idiotic denier memes, moronic talking points that are so easily refuted they can't possibly appeal to anyone with half a brain and a smidgen of actual knowledge. If you're in denial yourself, Ted Cruz sounds great; confident, fast-talking, all the right buzzwords, insults for your most reviled targets. But if you know the least bit of the truth about global warming, it's far too obvious how full of baloney he is.

It raises a fascinating question: why is Ted Cruz (like so many others) in such extreme denial, and more to the point, why does he not only admit it, but flaunt it? Why not do like Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush, play the "I'm not a scientist" card and fall back on that other zombie lie — the "ruin the economy" lie, the one that isn't just false, it's the opposite of true?


Here's a hypothesis.

Cruz and his ilk might actually be smarter than Rubio and his ilk. He's figured out that the "ruin the economy" lie will never work once people figure out that man-made climate change is real. When the public is convinced, all the empty talk about it being "too expensive" to stop screwing mother nature will only bring ridicule.

People know, in their gut, that you shouldn't screw with mother nature. They know that doing so costs big. Sea level rise is already costing big in coastal cities like Miami, even on a clear day, and when there is a storm the surge and flooding is worse than it would have been. Drought is already costing big, not because it's caused by global warming but because it's made so much worse. Heat waves are already killing people by the thousands, even by the tens of thousands, and even if you dismiss the cost of human life with a wave of your hand, you can't ignore the cost to the economy.

So they have to maintain some semblance of doubt. Doubt is their product.

As long as they can keep up a veneer of doubt about the reality of man-made climate, even those who believe it's real will have lingering doubts about its severity. If you believe but you're not certain, maybe you can make yourself believe it won't be that bad.

But when doubt about its reality is gone, the danger will hit people like a ton of bricks. They'll know that unless we act now, and act dramatically, to change our ways, if we let global warming continue unchecked, then "ruin the economy" will be the result of not acting.

Even die-hard religious fundamentalists won't buy the "too expensive to do anything" lie. They'll start talking — some already have — about how what we're doing now is an affront to God himself. They'll be angry, they'll ask how we can justify not only failing to take care of God's garden, but actively wrecking it.

The whole "maybe it's real but it's too expensive to do anything" strategy is a loser. Whether you're a passionate environmentalist or a passion-play evangelical, you know how wrong it is to screw mother nature.

So Ted Cruz and his ilk will toe the "not happening" line. Without doubt about reality, there won't be any doubt about consequences.



Comments, thoughts?

We are past the state of whether it's happening or not we have to start working out what the consequences are and how do we deal with them.
Edited by branner on 27-11-2016 11:59
13-02-2016 20:53
Tai Hai Chen
★★★☆☆
(517)
It's like, why don't people believe in God? The Bible clearly says there is God. Well? It's because seeing is believing.
Edited on 13-02-2016 20:55
13-02-2016 21:57
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
spot wrote:Comments, thoughts?

This article is a great illuminator of the religious nature of the warmizombie mindset. Everything rests on already believing in the religion. All arguments rely on Global Warming being assumed. Everything depends on actual science not being permitted to enter the narrative.

If Global Warming is simply assumed then it is easy to label those who are asking for the science as "deniers" and as being "in denial." Of course this requires preachers of Global Warming to EVADE all science at all cost.

One of the most popular techniques to accomplish this is to simply declare that we are somehow "past all discussion of whether it is happening or not."

spot wrote:We are past the state of whether it's happening or not


Wait! I read somewhere that we aren't yet past discussion of whether Global Warming is even real; that the church still hasn't worked out all the violations of physics from their dogma.

Apparently the Global Warming faith lost ground at the revelation that all their supporting data over the previous decades has been fudged, fabricated or otherwise rendered invalid. Today, the only ones left still believing in Global Warming dogma are gullible, scientifically illiterate dupes who are only in it for the fashion. The faith is not projected to remain significant for much longer.

spot wrote: we have to start working out what the consequences are and how do we deal with them.

Let's speculate. What are the most likely consequences of a widespread revelation that "greenhouse effect" is a religious myth that violates science?


.


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
14-02-2016 02:47
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
New Scientist has had some interesting perspectives on denialism over the past couple of years, especially climate, evolution, smoking and vaccine denial. If you're a subscriber, this is worth a read:

Special report: Living in denial

Here's an excerpt:

How to be a denialist

Martin McKee, an epidemiologist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine who also studies denial, has identified six tactics that all denialist movements use. "I'm not suggesting there is a manual somewhere, but one can see these elements, to varying degrees, in many settings," he says (The European Journal of Public Health, vol 19, p 2).

1. Allege that there's a conspiracy. Claim that scientific consensus has arisen through collusion rather than the accumulation of evidence.
2. Use fake experts to support your story. "Denial always starts with a cadre of pseudo-experts with some credentials that create a facade of credibility," says Seth Kalichman of the University of Connecticut.
3. Cherry-pick the evidence: trumpet whatever appears to support your case and ignore or rubbish the rest. Carry on trotting out supportive evidence even after it has been discredited.
4. Create impossible standards for your opponents. Claim that the existing evidence is not good enough and demand more. If your opponent comes up with evidence you have demanded, move the goalposts.
5. Use logical fallacies. Hitler opposed smoking, so anti-smoking measures are Nazi. Deliberately misrepresent the scientific consensus and then knock down your straw man.
6. Manufacture doubt. Falsely portray scientists as so divided that basing policy on their advice would be premature. Insist "both sides" must be heard and cry censorship when "dissenting" arguments or experts are rejected.


And a bit on why people become denialists:

Kalichman, however, feels that everyday reasoning alone is not enough to make someone a denialist. "There is some fragility in their thinking that draws them to believe people who are easily exposed as frauds," he says. "Most of us don't believe what they say, even if we want to. Understanding why some do may help us find solutions."

He believes the instigators of denialist movements have more serious psychological problems than most of their followers. "They display all the features of paranoid personality disorder", he says, including anger, intolerance of criticism, and what psychiatrists call a grandiose sense of their own importance. "Ultimately, their denialism is a mental health problem. That is why these movements all have the same features, especially the underlying conspiracy theory."

Neither the ringleaders nor rank-and-file denialists are lying in the conventional sense, Kalichman says: they are trapped in what classic studies of neurosis call "suspicious thinking". "The cognitive style of the denialist represents a warped sense of reality, which is why arguing with them gets you nowhere," he says. "All people fit the world into their own sense of reality, but the suspicious person distorts reality with uncommon rigidity."

Edited on 14-02-2016 02:53
14-02-2016 02:55
Tai Hai Chen
★★★☆☆
(517)
Let's see here. Hmm, only liberals in North America and western European countries and Australia believe in global warming. NOBODY else do. Not Arabs. Not Russians. Not Turks. Not Indians. Not Chinese. Not Japanese. Not Koreans. Not Mexicans. Not Brazilians. Not Africans.

People who believe in global warming are a small minority of the world's population.
14-02-2016 03:13
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Clearly you're talking complete bollocks as usual. Any chance of an insight for the rest of us into why you feel the need to do so?

14-02-2016 03:49
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Surface Detail posted: 1. Allege that there's a conspiracy.

Assume the existence of the nonexistent and presume that those who are trying to discuss science are agents of some oil company conspiracy.

Surface Detail posted:Claim that scientific consensus has arisen through collusion rather than the accumulation of evidence.

Claim that science is determined by subjective opinion and then appeal to the authority of countless invisible, imaginary "scientists."

Surface Detail posted:2. Use fake experts to support your story.

Reference "climate scientists."

Surface Detail posted: 3. Cherry-pick the evidence:

Fail to recognize that the scientific method is based on cherry-picked falsifying evidence and tailored experiments that have the best possible chance of rendering a theory false...and then claim that everything that threatens the fantasy is "cherry-picked. "

Surface Detail posted:4. Create impossible standards for your opponents.

For example, claim that Global Warming can only be falsified by showing thirty years of monotone decreasing temperatures from every thermometer on the earth's surface.

Surface Detail posted:Claim that the existing evidence is not good enough and demand more.

Claim that twenty years of warming hiatus is not good enough while placing complete faith in every single bogus claim that every month/season/year is absolutely the warmest globally of the instrument record.

Surface Detail posted:5. Use logical fallacies.

..such as shifting the burden of proof, special pleading and appealing to authority...then begin with the violations of physics.

Surface Detail posted: 6. Manufacture doubt.

Copy and paste advanced math directly into your post, use lots of unnecessary technical jargon and convolute the discussion until only mathematicians can know that what you're writing is complete crap. Confuse them into submission.


.


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
14-02-2016 03:54
Tai Hai Chen
★★★☆☆
(517)
Surface Detail wrote:
Clearly you're talking complete bollocks as usual. Any chance of an insight for the rest of us into why you feel the need to do so?



That's a BS poll. I'm from China myself and I KNOW for a fact nobody in China believes global warming.
Edited on 14-02-2016 03:54
14-02-2016 03:58
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Copy and paste advanced math directly into your post, use lots of unnecessary technical jargon and convolute the discussion until only mathematicians can know that what you're writing is complete crap. Confuse them into submission.

Ha ha. Is this some sort of admission that you're not very good at math? That's OK! As I said before, your rhetoric is great. We can't all be smart at everything. You'd be a good politician, but I'd leave science to the numerate if I were you.
14-02-2016 04:00
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
That's a BS poll. I'm from China myself and I KNOW for a fact nobody in China believes global warming.

Really. Interviewed all of 1.2 billion of them in person, have you? Or is it some sort of psychic connection?
14-02-2016 11:06
Buildreps
★☆☆☆☆
(100)
Earth's temperatures are still bouncing up from the last glaciation. CO2 is the effect, no the cause. It wouldn't be the first time that scientists aren't able to separate cause and effect from eachother.

Air pollution is the serious problem here. That global warming would be caused by mankind is just a joke.
14-02-2016 11:51
spot
★★★★☆
(1001)
Surface Detail wrote:
"They display all the features of paranoid personality disorder", he says, including anger, intolerance of criticism, and what psychiatrists call a grandiose sense of their own importance. "Ultimately, their denialism is a mental health problem.


Te he who do we know like that?
14-02-2016 11:58
spot
★★★★☆
(1001)
Buildreps wrote:
Earth's temperatures are still bouncing up from the last glaciation. CO2 is the effect, no the cause. It wouldn't be the first time that scientists aren't able to separate cause and effect from eachother.

Air pollution is the serious problem here. That global warming would be caused by mankind is just a joke.


Who are you trying to kid? and more to do with the subject of the thread why? Anybody who is interested enough to read a pamphlet on the subject will know that what you said is complete codswallop.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
14-02-2016 14:26
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Surface Detail wrote:
Ha ha. Is this some sort of admission that you're not very good at math?


Read it again.

I accuse warmizombie science deniers of posting technobabble that requires someone like me to explain why its complete crap.

I'm not among the warmizombies ' target audience of scientifically illiterate dupes but I can read the posts intended for them and explain those posts in layman's terms.

You don't like that I do that, do you?


.


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
14-02-2016 14:30
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Surface Detail wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
That's a BS poll. I'm from China myself and I KNOW for a fact nobody in China believes global warming.

Really. Interviewed all of 1.2 billion of them in person, have you? Or is it some sort of psychic connection?


Really? You interviewed everyone on the planet to validate the "poll" and to ensure it wasn't fabricated by some warmizomies freshman in a dorm looking to get extra credit in a sociology class?


.


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
14-02-2016 14:40
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
spot wrote: Who are you trying to kid?

Oooh, I sense religious sensitivities flaring!


spot wrote: ?Anybody who is interested enough to read a pamphlet on the subject will know that what you said is complete codswallop.

Anyone gullible enough to believe a pamphlet on that codswallop will certainly be annoyed at being forced to understand "cause - effect."


.


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
14-02-2016 14:40
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
spot wrote: Who are you trying to kid?

Oooh, I sense religious sensitivities flaring!


spot wrote: ?Anybody who is interested enough to read a pamphlet on the subject will know that what you said is complete codswallop.

Anyone gullible enough to believe a pamphlet on that codswallop will certainly be annoyed at being forced to understand "cause - effect."


.


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
14-02-2016 14:59
Buildreps
★☆☆☆☆
(100)
spot wrote:
Buildreps wrote:
Earth's temperatures are still bouncing up from the last glaciation. CO2 is the effect, no the cause. It wouldn't be the first time that scientists aren't able to separate cause and effect from eachother.

Air pollution is the serious problem here. That global warming would be caused by mankind is just a joke.


Who are you trying to kid? and more to do with the subject of the thread why? Anybody who is interested enough to read a pamphlet on the subject will know that what you said is complete codswallop.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/


You never really studied the issue yourself, or did you? If you would have we would have another debate here. Posting a link with the 'start here' button? What a joke. You just parrot the global warming 'churches' like medieval people.

You as most other 'churchgoers' cannot think for themselves.
Edited on 14-02-2016 15:00
14-02-2016 15:57
Paul O
☆☆☆☆☆
(2)
The answer is simple. The world always has climate change for one reason or another. We go from Ice age to warmer climate then back to ice age again. Who knows where it stops/changes/what causes it?.
The scientists have state that the temperature has remained constant for the last 14 years? Are they right or wrong? Does it matter?
The ice caps at the north and south pole are increasing in size? Why if we have global warming is this taking place.

Man would be better off learning how to live with the change if it really exists that to think they can control nature and the climate.
14-02-2016 17:32
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Ha ha. Is this some sort of admission that you're not very good at math?


Read it again.

I accuse warmizombie science deniers of posting technobabble that requires someone like me to explain why its complete crap.

I'm not among the warmizombies ' target audience of scientifically illiterate dupes but I can read the posts intended for them and explain those posts in layman's terms.

You don't like that I do that, do you?

On the contrary, I find it most entertaining when you make one of your occasional feeble attempts to actually address the science, because it illustrates very well just how limited your grasp of maths and physics is. You'd be well advised to steer clear of numbers and stick to your usual rhetoric and abuse!
14-02-2016 21:33
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5741)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Copy and paste advanced math directly into your post, use lots of unnecessary technical jargon and convolute the discussion until only mathematicians can know that what you're writing is complete crap. Confuse them into submission.

Ha ha. Is this some sort of admission that you're not very good at math? That's OK! As I said before, your rhetoric is great. We can't all be smart at everything. You'd be a good politician, but I'd leave science to the numerate if I were you.


Huh??? You DO copy and paste math to convolute your argument. The math often does not even apply, or is horribly misused. It is BECAUSE IBdaMann is good at math that sees through your bullshit, as do I.


The Parrot Killer
14-02-2016 21:38
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Copy and paste advanced math directly into your post, use lots of unnecessary technical jargon and convolute the discussion until only mathematicians can know that what you're writing is complete crap. Confuse them into submission.

Ha ha. Is this some sort of admission that you're not very good at math? That's OK! As I said before, your rhetoric is great. We can't all be smart at everything. You'd be a good politician, but I'd leave science to the numerate if I were you.


Huh??? You DO copy and paste math to convolute your argument. The math often does not even apply, or is horribly misused. It is BECAUSE IBdaMann is good at math that sees through your bullshit, as do I.

Huh??? What math have I copied and pasted?
14-02-2016 22:30
spot
★★★★☆
(1001)
Paul O wrote:
The answer is simple. The world always has climate change for one reason or another. We go from Ice age to warmer climate then back to ice age again. Who knows where it stops/changes/what causes it?.
The scientists have state that the temperature has remained constant for the last 14 years? Are they right or wrong? Does it matter?
The ice caps at the north and south pole are increasing in size? Why if we have global warming is this taking place.

Man would be better off learning how to live with the change if it really exists that to think they can control nature and the climate.


I suggest googling Milankovitch cycles before you start telling people what we know and don't know.
14-02-2016 22:35
spot
★★★★☆
(1001)
Buildreps wrote:
spot wrote:
Buildreps wrote:
Earth's temperatures are still bouncing up from the last glaciation. CO2 is the effect, no the cause. It wouldn't be the first time that scientists aren't able to separate cause and effect from eachother.

Air pollution is the serious problem here. That global warming would be caused by mankind is just a joke.


Who are you trying to kid? and more to do with the subject of the thread why? Anybody who is interested enough to read a pamphlet on the subject will know that what you said is complete codswallop.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/


You never really studied the issue yourself, or did you? If you would have we would have another debate here. Posting a link with the 'start here' button? What a joke. You just parrot the global warming 'churches' like medieval people.

You as most other 'churchgoers' cannot think for themselves.


I'm interested in and looked into it that's how I know that the idea that studying pyramids will help understand the future of climate is silly.
15-02-2016 01:13
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
... and explain those posts in layman's terms.

You don't like that I do that, do you?

On the contrary, I find it most entertaining when you ...blah, blah, blah...


The correct answer is no, of course you don't like it when I undo your work to create confusion.

..and you are trying to do it here by implying that I somehow don't understand the crap you shovel. Unfortunately for you I don't think anyone actually believes you anymore.

You may make other people's learning curve steeper with your BS but they do eventually understand and learn.

Shall we demonstrate again? Yes, let's.

Surface Detail, without worrying about dumbing it down for anyone, in physics how does "greenhouse gas" increase temperature without additional energy?


.


.


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
15-02-2016 10:29
arthur18
☆☆☆☆☆
(42)
Hi guys,

I wasn't sure whether to start a new topic or just find an appropriate one to post something on, so I just chose the latter.
Has anyone been on the website below and what are your thoughts?

http://www.climate-change-theory.com/
15-02-2016 10:50
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
arthur18 wrote:
Hi guys,

I wasn't sure whether to start a new topic or just find an appropriate one to post something on, so I just chose the latter.
Has anyone been on the website below and what are your thoughts?

http://www.climate-change-theory.com/

Doug Cotton is an Australian crackpot. He does the rounds of a lot of blogs making a nuisance of himself trying to sell his self-published pseudoscience book. Even the so called 'skeptic' blogs think he's bonkers. He usually ends up getting banned. He has a very flawed understanding of atmospheric physics and thermodynamics, makes some very basic blunders in his claims, and sadly, is probably mentally ill. (He'd probably feel right at home with the greenhouse effect denying Sky Dragon Slayer crackpots on this forum. Maybe someone should invite him here? Could be a laugh?
)


eg:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/doug-cotton-is-banned-admin/

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/the-fullness-of-time-doug-cotton-comments-unveiled/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/10/critical-mass-of-cotton/



Edited on 15-02-2016 11:31
15-02-2016 12:35
spot
★★★★☆
(1001)
arthur18 wrote:
Hi guys,

I wasn't sure whether to start a new topic or just find an appropriate one to post something on, so I just chose the latter.
Has anyone been on the website below and what are your thoughts?

http://www.climate-change-theory.com/


It seems to another "the greenhouse gas theory that kids learn about in school violates the laws of physics" website. I thought the graph in the top that seems to be new and not consistant with anything that I have seen before I wonder what evidence the maker of the graph used, a ouji board perhaps?

Another thing it seems to identify James Hanson as the founder of the greenhouse theory whereas anyone who follows this subject knows that it was known about from the 1840s at least, It's a large error and undermines the sites crediblity.

What do you think about it you linked it?
15-02-2016 12:41
spot
★★★★☆
(1001)
IBdaMann wrote:

The correct answer is no, of course you don't like it when I undo your work to create confusion.

..and you are trying to do it here by implying that I somehow don't understand the crap you shovel. Unfortunately for you I don't think anyone actually believes you anymore.

You may make other people's learning curve steeper with your BS but they do eventually understand and learn.

Shall we demonstrate again? Yes, let's.

Surface Detail, without worrying about dumbing it down for anyone, in physics how does "greenhouse gas" increase temperature without additional energy?


.


.


If people want to discuss pataphyisics with you they have ample oportunity, its not all about you.
15-02-2016 15:13
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
spot wrote:If people want to discuss pataphyisics with you they have ample oportunity, its not all about you.

Excuse me but there are other people besides you who would like to use this forum.


.


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
15-02-2016 15:45
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
arthur18 wrote:
Hi guys,

I wasn't sure whether to start a new topic or just find an appropriate one to post something on, so I just chose the latter.
Has anyone been on the website below and what are your thoughts?

http://www.climate-change-theory.com/

This website is advertising a non-mainstream Global Warming religious denomination, or "sect." If you search for posts from trafn on this forum, he was selling another particularly WACKY one as well.

All successful religions generate competing denominations or sects as they grow. You don't think all Christian denominations are of one mind and always political allies, do you? It reminds me of the Protestant denominations that decry the Pope as being Satan.

This website is trying to discredit the sacred dogma of mainstream Global Warming, i.e. It's not the CO2. If you have have ever heard/read one religious denomination attack another then you know it's all about whose unfalsifiable dogma is the truth and whose is "heresy," "blasphemy," "misinformation" and "lies."

Every now and then Earthling (Earthling-1) brings his anti-catastrophist crusade to this forum. It's hilarious how he attacks mainstream Global Warming as being completely bogus while he staunchly believes all the standard Global Warming dogma and EVADES science with the best of them.

This website seeks to achieve the same religious "high" as mainstream Global Warming but without having to pay homage to the same deity(deities).


.


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
15-02-2016 17:33
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
Into the Night wrote: It is BECAUSE IBdaMann is good at math ....
You really should drop the back slapping, he'll end up with serious bruising.


"We have a vested interest in creating panic, because then money will flow to climate science." John Christy
15-02-2016 17:35
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
Surface Detail wrote:Huh??? What math have I copied and pasted?
He's probably confused.
Ö¿Ö


"We have a vested interest in creating panic, because then money will flow to climate science." John Christy
15-02-2016 18:50
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail, without worrying about dumbing it down for anyone, in physics how does "greenhouse gas" increase temperature without additional energy?

It seems to me that you're struggling with two different conceptual difficulties:

1) You don't understand how adding insulation can change temperature.
2) You don't understand how CO2 can act as an insulator.

Now, if you can understand and accept each of these facts, then it is, I hope, obvious that adding CO2 can change temperature. Perhaps we can discuss each concept in turn.

How are you with (1)? Is it correct that you don't think it is possible to change temperature merely by adding insulation to a system?
15-02-2016 19:08
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Surface Detail wrote:It seems to me that you're struggling with two different conceptual difficulties:

Your way of tipping your king is to claim that I just don't have the divine insight into reality that you have...then you pursue new angles in violations of physics.

Surface Detail wrote: 1) You don't understand how adding insulation can change temperature.

Incorrect. I understand insulation.

It is you who continues to gibber under a misunderstanding between thermal convection/conduction and thermal radiation. Until you learn the difference between those two you will be forever confused about insulation.


Surface Detail wrote:2) You don't understand how CO2 can act as an insulator.

It is you who doesn't understand how CO2 cannot be an insulator for thermal radiation. Again, you don't know the difference between thermal convection/conduction and thermal radiation so I don't expect you to understand the science involved.

Surface Detail wrote:How are you with (1)? Is it correct that you don't think it is possible to change temperature merely by adding insulation to a system?

A better question, and one that is more applicable, do you believe that insulation can increase a rock's temperature if there is no other energy source?


.


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
15-02-2016 19:11
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Earthling wrote:
Into the Night wrote: It is BECAUSE IBdaMann is good at math ....
You really should drop the back slapping, he'll end up with serious bruising.

So, how do you know the earth isn't cooling right now?


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
15-02-2016 20:57
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:It seems to me that you're struggling with two different conceptual difficulties:

Your way of tipping your king is to claim that I just don't have the divine insight into reality that you have...then you pursue new angles in violations of physics.

Surface Detail wrote: 1) You don't understand how adding insulation can change temperature.

Incorrect. I understand insulation.

It is you who continues to gibber under a misunderstanding between thermal convection/conduction and thermal radiation. Until you learn the difference between those two you will be forever confused about insulation.


Surface Detail wrote:2) You don't understand how CO2 can act as an insulator.

It is you who doesn't understand how CO2 cannot be an insulator for thermal radiation. Again, you don't know the difference between thermal convection/conduction and thermal radiation so I don't expect you to understand the science involved.

Surface Detail wrote:How are you with (1)? Is it correct that you don't think it is possible to change temperature merely by adding insulation to a system?

A better question, and one that is more applicable, do you believe that insulation can increase a rock's temperature if there is no other energy source?

If you were to add transparent insulation (bubble wrap, say) to a rock that is lying in the sun, then its temperature should indeed rise. It would be an interesting experiment to try. You could also change the temperature of the rock by painting it either black or white. But we're getting ahead of ourselves here.

So, let's keep going one step at a time. You do actually agree, then, that adding insulation to a system that is constantly being supplied with energy will cause the temperature of that system to rise. Is it clear to you why the temperature of that system will rise?
15-02-2016 21:33
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5741)
Surface Detail wrote:
If you were to add transparent insulation (bubble wrap, say) to a rock that is lying in the sun, then its temperature should indeed rise.
But not as high as the rock without the bubble wrap on it.
Surface Detail wrote:
It would be an interesting experiment to try.
Go try it.
Surface Detail wrote:
You could also change the temperature of the rock by painting it either black or white.
Which only changes the amount absorbed during the day. Both black and white rocks will be the same temperature at dawn the next day, because the black rock also LOST more energy than the white one.
Surface Detail wrote:
But we're getting ahead of ourselves here.
You're definitely getting ahead of yourself. You keep tripping up.
Surface Detail wrote:
So, let's keep going one step at a time. You do actually agree, then, that adding insulation to a system that is constantly being supplied with energy will cause the temperature of that system to rise. Is it clear to you why the temperature of that system will rise?

Is it clear to you why you're using a false equivalence here?


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 15-02-2016 21:34
15-02-2016 21:36
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Surface Detail wrote:If you were to add transparent insulation (bubble wrap, say) to a rock that is lying in the sun,

You changed the scenario. I specified no energy source.


Surface Detail wrote: So, let's keep going one step at a time.

That's what I'm trying to do. Let's work together to arrive at the conclusion that energy sources increase temperature, not insulation.

If you were to place a rock in space with no star or any other significant source of energy, and you were to wrap the rock in a thick layer of the most advanced insulation known to chemical engineering (that was the same temperature as the rock).

1. would the rock increase in temperature?

2. would the rock nonetheless decrease in temperature?


Let's lock down this concept before we tackle the difference between thermal convection/conduction and thermal radiation.


.


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
15-02-2016 22:02
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:If you were to add transparent insulation (bubble wrap, say) to a rock that is lying in the sun,

You changed the scenario. I specified no energy source.


Surface Detail wrote: So, let's keep going one step at a time.

That's what I'm trying to do. Let's work together to arrive at the conclusion that energy sources increase temperature, not insulation.

If you were to place a rock in space with no star or any other significant source of energy, and you were to wrap the rock in a thick layer of the most advanced insulation known to chemical engineering (that was the same temperature as the rock).

1. would the rock increase in temperature?

2. would the rock nonetheless decrease in temperature?


Let's lock down this concept before we tackle the difference between thermal convection/conduction and thermal radiation.

It depends how hot the rock is to start with. But I don't see the relevance of this scenario. The Earth and everything on it is being continuously supplied with energy by the sun.

The first thing we need to get clear is that changes in insulation can give rise to temperature changes when there is a constant supply of external energy. I'd have thought this should be fairly obvious, but better to be sure.
Edited on 15-02-2016 22:06
Page 1 of 4123>>>





Join the debate Why deny global warming:

Remember me

▲ 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