3 phases to CC

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > 3 phases to CC

Page 1 of 3

3 phases to CC28-08-2020 09:20
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	I have considered this that there are 3 phases to the alledged AGW/CC .1 there has to be more CO2 than before .2 The extra CO2 must make the planet warmer .3 The warming must be detrimental to the planet In my mind if any of these 3 factors do not work the whole theory breaks down duncan61
28-08-2020 17:18
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	duncan61 wrote: I have considered this that there are 3 phases to the alledged AGW/CC .1 there has to be more CO2 than before And just a few of the many problems with this CC claim is that "before" is not unambiguously defined, and we don't have any CO2 readings from [insert a very high number of years ago] to compare to. There's also the issue that a reading in one location is not a global reading (and we don't have enough sensors to measure global CO2 to any usable accuracy). duncan61 wrote: .2 The extra CO2 must make the planet warmer And a problem with this CC claim is that it is not possible for CO2 to warm the planet. It is not possible for heat to flow from cold to hot. It is not possible to make coffee hotter via ice cubes. We also cannot measure global temperature to any usable accuracy. duncan61 wrote: .3 The warming must be detrimental to the planet ... and unfortunately for them, there are plenty of areas in this planet that experience ~80-100deg F temperature swings in as little as a six month time period (or less) and yet we still live to tell the tale. duncan61 wrote: In my mind if any of these 3 factors do not work the whole theory breaks down What if ALL of them do not work?? Edited on 28-08-2020 17:21
28-08-2020 17:56
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	The main point though, is that the predicted environmental changes aren't happening, as stated they would, and could be hundreds of years, if they ever get bad enough to snuff out all life on the planet. There is plenty of time to move, or adapt. For a major Cat 4 Hurricane, it dropped back to a tropical storm pretty quick, after making landfall, like most of them do anymore. Tropical storms still are pretty powerful, and can do a lot of damage, flooding, spawn tornadoes. After 2004-2005 was about the time when these major stores started the rapid decline after landfall. At Cat 4 or 5, would cross Florida as a Cat 3. Still be a hurricane as it crossed into Georgia.
28-08-2020 19:37
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	gfm7175 wrote: What if ALL of them do not work?? Wouldn't that be what you would expect just before being told that the solution is ... [ drumroll please ] ... an economic system that has never worked levying taxation that has never fixed anything? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles 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
28-08-2020 19:43
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	duncan61 wrote: I have considered this that there are 3 phases to the alledged AGW/CC .1 there has to be more CO2 than before .2 The extra CO2 must make the planet warmer .3 The warming must be detrimental to the planet In my mind if any of these 3 factors do not work the whole theory breaks down Ozone depletion is AGW.

28-08-2020 20:01
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	James___ wrote: duncan61 wrote: I have considered this that there are 3 phases to the alledged AGW/CC .1 there has to be more CO2 than before .2 The extra CO2 must make the planet warmer .3 The warming must be detrimental to the planet In my mind if any of these 3 factors do not work the whole theory breaks down Ozone depletion is AGW. There is no "ozone depletion". As long as there is sunlight and oxygen, there is ozone.
28-08-2020 20:02
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote: What if ALL of them do not work?? Wouldn't that be what you would expect just before being told that the solution is ... [ drumroll please ] ... an economic system that has never worked levying taxation that has never fixed anything? . DING DING DING I'm ready to donate to the CCLA to fund their Carbon Pricing policy!!!
28-08-2020 21:10
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	I watched the Dan Miller clip on politiplex and found it amazing.That guy should be selling AMWAY.Apparently if you tax the companies creating CO2 they will stop doing it.Interesting
29-08-2020 01:19
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	duncan61 wrote: I watched the Dan Miller clip on politiplex and found it amazing.That guy should be selling AMWAY.Apparently if you tax the companies creating CO2 they will stop doing it.Interesting Yep, eventually, they can no longer make a profit, or pay the bills, and close down for good...
29-08-2020 02:45
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	gfm7175 wrote: James___ wrote: duncan61 wrote: I have considered this that there are 3 phases to the alledged AGW/CC .1 there has to be more CO2 than before .2 The extra CO2 must make the planet warmer .3 The warming must be detrimental to the planet In my mind if any of these 3 factors do not work the whole theory breaks down Ozone depletion is AGW. There is no "ozone depletion". As long as there is sunlight and oxygen, there is ozone. I'd expect such a reply from a child. They don't know any better.
29-08-2020 06:08
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	James___ wrote: gfm7175 wrote: James___ wrote: duncan61 wrote: I have considered this that there are 3 phases to the alledged AGW/CC .1 there has to be more CO2 than before .2 The extra CO2 must make the planet warmer .3 The warming must be detrimental to the planet In my mind if any of these 3 factors do not work the whole theory breaks down Ozone depletion is AGW. There is no "ozone depletion". As long as there is sunlight and oxygen, there is ozone. I'd expect such a reply from a child. They don't know any better. They just need to stop selling those spray-cans of graffiti paint those BLM protesters use to paint vulgarities, and obscene images of reproductive organs...
29-08-2020 21:10
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	James___ wrote: gfm7175 wrote: James___ wrote: duncan61 wrote: I have considered this that there are 3 phases to the alledged AGW/CC .1 there has to be more CO2 than before .2 The extra CO2 must make the planet warmer .3 The warming must be detrimental to the planet In my mind if any of these 3 factors do not work the whole theory breaks down Ozone depletion is AGW. There is no "ozone depletion". As long as there is sunlight and oxygen, there is ozone. Insult fallacy. There is no 'ozone depletion'. I'd expect such a reply from a child. They don't know any better. 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
29-08-2020 21:36
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Into the Night wrote: James___ wrote: gfm7175 wrote: James___ wrote: duncan61 wrote: I have considered this that there are 3 phases to the alledged AGW/CC .1 there has to be more CO2 than before .2 The extra CO2 must make the planet warmer .3 The warming must be detrimental to the planet In my mind if any of these 3 factors do not work the whole theory breaks down Ozone depletion is AGW. There is no "ozone depletion". As long as there is sunlight and oxygen, there is ozone. Insult fallacy. There is no 'ozone depletion'. I'd expect such a reply from a child. They don't know any better. Did James__ leave you speechless? Direct Link to Ozone Depletion Debunked . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles 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
30-08-2020 00:38
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	Mostly, I don't drink enough, to interpret some of his posts. Usually, he is just looking for a reason to get into drama rants. I don't think there ever was an ozone issue. The holes were always there, and fluctuate naturally, as needed. We just happened to discover them in the 70s, so they had to have a meaning, specially since they didn't 'exist', until we happened to create the tools to see them.
30-08-2020 02:52
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: James___ wrote: gfm7175 wrote: James___ wrote: duncan61 wrote: I have considered this that there are 3 phases to the alledged AGW/CC .1 there has to be more CO2 than before .2 The extra CO2 must make the planet warmer .3 The warming must be detrimental to the planet In my mind if any of these 3 factors do not work the whole theory breaks down Ozone depletion is AGW. There is no "ozone depletion". As long as there is sunlight and oxygen, there is ozone. Insult fallacy. There is no 'ozone depletion'. I'd expect such a reply from a child. They don't know any better. Did James__ leave you speechless? Direct Link to Ozone Depletion Debunked . If you're wondering, the main issue might be the threat to the food chain. If incoming solar IR increases around Antarctica then there could be problems. These guys might not know that phytoplankton is the basis of marine life because it's the initial food supply. In farming, no seeds to sow? Then no crops. With the marine ecosystem, phytoplankton are "seeds".

30-08-2020 03:42
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	James___ wrote: If you're wondering, the main issue might be the threat to the food chain. If incoming solar IR increases around Antarctica then there could be problems. James__ ... why would solar IR increase? Ozone absorbs UV. James___ wrote: These guys might not know that phytoplankton is the basis of marine life because it's the initial food supply. James__, why would that be threatened by additional IR around Antarctica? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles 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
30-08-2020 04:09
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	James___ wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: James___ wrote: gfm7175 wrote: James___ wrote: duncan61 wrote: I have considered this that there are 3 phases to the alledged AGW/CC .1 there has to be more CO2 than before .2 The extra CO2 must make the planet warmer .3 The warming must be detrimental to the planet In my mind if any of these 3 factors do not work the whole theory breaks down Ozone depletion is AGW. There is no "ozone depletion". As long as there is sunlight and oxygen, there is ozone. Insult fallacy. There is no 'ozone depletion'. I'd expect such a reply from a child. They don't know any better. Did James__ leave you speechless? Direct Link to Ozone Depletion Debunked . If you're wondering, the main issue might be the threat to the food chain. If incoming solar IR increases around Antarctica then there could be problems. These guys might not know that phytoplankton is the basis of marine life because it's the initial food supply. In farming, no seeds to sow? Then no crops. With the marine ecosystem, phytoplankton are "seeds". What are Phytoplankton? - NASA Earth Observatoryearthobservatory.nasa.gov › features › Phytoplankton Derived from the Greek words phyto (plant) and plankton (made to wander or drift), phytoplankton are microscopic organisms that live in watery environments, both salty and fresh. Some phytoplankton are bacteria, some are protists, and most are single-celled plants. Phytoplankton is found all over the world, not just the Norwegian Sea. True, lot of sea creatures eat the stuff, but they also can feed on other things. Most sea critters don't seem to be picky eaters either. Did you ever consider there is a reason, a purpose for ozone holes, which perform a much needed function? All we know about the holes, are that they shrink, and they grow, no real reason why. We don't know how long the holes have existed, beyond when we developed tools to observe them in the first place, back in the 70s. Solar energy, is solar energy, it's all we get in a day. Your alternator goes bad in your car, how long before your car stops running? Regardless of wavelength, there is probably something that makes use of that energy. If I liked a frozen wasteland environment, I'd move to Norway. I like a warm climate, and find it offensive that some people want to cool the planet down. Do you know which wavelengths of light Phytoplankton prefer, which are deadly?
30-08-2020 05:51
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	HarveyH55 wrote: James___ wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: James___ wrote: gfm7175 wrote: James___ wrote: duncan61 wrote: I have considered this that there are 3 phases to the alledged AGW/CC .1 there has to be more CO2 than before .2 The extra CO2 must make the planet warmer .3 The warming must be detrimental to the planet In my mind if any of these 3 factors do not work the whole theory breaks down Ozone depletion is AGW. There is no "ozone depletion". As long as there is sunlight and oxygen, there is ozone. Insult fallacy. There is no 'ozone depletion'. I'd expect such a reply from a child. They don't know any better. Did James__ leave you speechless? Direct Link to Ozone Depletion Debunked . If you're wondering, the main issue might be the threat to the food chain. If incoming solar IR increases around Antarctica then there could be problems. These guys might not know that phytoplankton is the basis of marine life because it's the initial food supply. In farming, no seeds to sow? Then no crops. With the marine ecosystem, phytoplankton are "seeds". What are Phytoplankton? - NASA Earth Observatoryearthobservatory.nasa.gov › features › Phytoplankton Derived from the Greek words phyto (plant) and plankton (made to wander or drift), phytoplankton are microscopic organisms that live in watery environments, both salty and fresh. Some phytoplankton are bacteria, some are protists, and most are single-celled plants. Phytoplankton is found all over the world, not just the Norwegian Sea. True, lot of sea creatures eat the stuff, but they also can feed on other things. Most sea critters don't seem to be picky eaters either. Did you ever consider there is a reason, a purpose for ozone holes, which perform a much needed function? All we know about the holes, are that they shrink, and they grow, no real reason why. We don't know how long the holes have existed, beyond when we developed tools to observe them in the first place, back in the 70s. Solar energy, is solar energy, it's all we get in a day. Your alternator goes bad in your car, how long before your car stops running? Regardless of wavelength, there is probably something that makes use of that energy. If I liked a frozen wasteland environment, I'd move to Norway. I like a warm climate, and find it offensive that some people want to cool the planet down. Do you know which wavelengths of light Phytoplankton prefer, which are deadly? This is for you Harvey; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQv7Tr8HbGE
30-08-2020 20:23
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	HarveyH55 wrote: James___ wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: James___ wrote: gfm7175 wrote: James___ wrote: duncan61 wrote: I have considered this that there are 3 phases to the alledged AGW/CC .1 there has to be more CO2 than before .2 The extra CO2 must make the planet warmer .3 The warming must be detrimental to the planet In my mind if any of these 3 factors do not work the whole theory breaks down Ozone depletion is AGW. There is no "ozone depletion". As long as there is sunlight and oxygen, there is ozone. Insult fallacy. There is no 'ozone depletion'. I'd expect such a reply from a child. They don't know any better. Did James__ leave you speechless? Direct Link to Ozone Depletion Debunked . If you're wondering, the main issue might be the threat to the food chain. If incoming solar IR increases around Antarctica then there could be problems. These guys might not know that phytoplankton is the basis of marine life because it's the initial food supply. In farming, no seeds to sow? Then no crops. With the marine ecosystem, phytoplankton are "seeds". What are Phytoplankton? - NASA Earth Observatoryearthobservatory.nasa.gov › features › Phytoplankton Derived from the Greek words phyto (plant) and plankton (made to wander or drift), phytoplankton are microscopic organisms that live in watery environments, both salty and fresh. Some phytoplankton are bacteria, some are protists, and most are single-celled plants. Phytoplankton is found all over the world, not just the Norwegian Sea. True, lot of sea creatures eat the stuff, but they also can feed on other things. Most sea critters don't seem to be picky eaters either. Did you ever consider there is a reason, a purpose for ozone holes, which perform a much needed function? All we know about the holes, are that they shrink, and they grow, no real reason why. We don't know how long the holes have existed, beyond when we developed tools to observe them in the first place, back in the 70s. Solar energy, is solar energy, it's all we get in a day. Your alternator goes bad in your car, how long before your car stops running? Regardless of wavelength, there is probably something that makes use of that energy. If I liked a frozen wasteland environment, I'd move to Norway. I like a warm climate, and find it offensive that some people want to cool the planet down. Do you know which wavelengths of light Phytoplankton prefer, which are deadly? The Hole occurs in winter at that pole, when there is no sunlight. There is no IR. There is no UV. There is no anything. It's nighttime 24 hours there. As long as you have sunlight and oxygen, you WILL have ozone. You can't stop that. There is no sunlight at the pole during winter. 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
31-08-2020 09:42
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	duncan61 wrote:...3 phases...AGW/CC .1 ...more CO2 .2 ...warmer .3 ...detrimental... .4 is that the cause of more CO2 is human's burning fossil fuels. There is also a fundamental difference between finding that one of the four conditions is not met and finding that you simply don't know. HarveyH55 wrote:...the predicted environmental changes aren't happening, .... That is Harvey claiming he knows which would mean he has confidence in the fidelity and accuracy of the current ability to determine global temperature. gfm7175 wrote:...it is not possible for CO2 to warm the planet. An often repeated and never debated point by team denial here on the board. To correct you the Sun warms the planets. Only the Sun. I have never seen a theory advanced here or anywhere claiming otherwise. If you want to pretend the Venus doesn't have a higher temperature due to it's CO2 atmosphere's ability to retain more of that Sun warmth you are welcome to do so. Though I you'll have to decide if you know anything about Venus or not. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
31-08-2020 16:35
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: duncan61 wrote:...3 phases...AGW/CC .1 ...more CO2 .2 ...warmer .3 ...detrimental... .4 is that the cause of more CO2 is human's burning fossil fuels. The "more CO2" portion is RQAA The second portion is debunked... Debunked: Hydrocarbons are Fossil Fuels tmiddles wrote: There is also a fundamental difference between finding that one of the four conditions is not met and finding that you simply don't know. HarveyH55 wrote:...the predicted environmental changes aren't happening, .... That is Harvey claiming he knows which would mean he has confidence in the fidelity and accuracy of the current ability to determine global temperature. Already been explained to you ad nauseum... tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote:...it is not possible for CO2 to warm the planet. An often repeated and never debated point by team denial here on the board. Already been explained to you ad nauseum... tmiddles wrote: To correct you the Sun warms the planets. Only the Sun. I have never seen a theory advanced here or anywhere claiming otherwise. If you want to pretend the Venus doesn't have a higher temperature due to it's CO2 atmosphere's ability to retain more of that Sun warmth you are welcome to do so. Though I you'll have to decide if you know anything about Venus or not. Already been explained to you ad nauseum... Edited on 31-08-2020 16:36
31-08-2020 18:53
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	tmiddles wrote: duncan61 wrote:...3 phases...AGW/CC .1 ...more CO2 .2 ...warmer .3 ...detrimental... .4 is that the cause of more CO2 is human's burning fossil fuels. Mantra 20r4. Fossils don't burn. There is no such thing as fossil fuels. tmiddles wrote: There is also a fundamental difference between finding that one of the four conditions is not met and finding that you simply don't know.[quote]HarveyH55 wrote:...the predicted environmental changes aren't happening, .... That is Harvey claiming he knows which would mean he has confidence in the fidelity and accuracy of the current ability to determine global temperature. He is not claiming a determination of global temperature. He is not predicting anything. Mantra 16b. tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote:...it is not possible for CO2 to warm the planet. An often repeated and never debated point by team denial here on the board. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Mantras 25g...25c. tmiddles wrote: To correct you the Sun warms the planets. Only the Sun. I have never seen a theory advanced here or anywhere claiming otherwise. Liar. You have attempted to advance a planet warming because of a magick gas. Mantra 15c. tmiddles wrote: If you want to pretend the Venus doesn't have a higher temperature due to it's CO2 atmosphere's ability to retain more of that Sun warmth you are welcome to do so. Though I you'll have to decide if you know anything about Venus or not. It is not possible to measure the temperature of Venus either. Mantras 25g...25c...15a...15b... No argument presented. Repetition fallacies. Spamming. Answer the following questions already put to you: 1) What are the unambiguous definitions of Global Warming, Climate Change and Greenhouse Effect that neither violate nor deny physics? [Status: Unanswered] 2) Why should any rational adult believe in either Global Warming, Climate Change or Greenhouse Effect? [Status: Unanswered] 3) How can I unambiguously demonstrate to my children thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer? [Status: Unanswered] 4) How can I know the temperature of a large, unspecified volume, e.g. Denver, to within, say, 10degF with only one temperature measurement, e.g. the Denver airport? [Status: Unanswered] 5) What are the unambiguous definitions of "race," "negro," "black people," "white people," "brown people," "white supremacy," "white nationalsim," "white nationalist," "white supremacist," "black supremacist" and "racist"? [Status: Unanswered] 6) Is there an official list of races? [Status: Unanswered] - 6a) How do I determine my own race or that of my children? [Status: Unanswered] 7) Why should any rational adult believe that there is a problem of racism in the United States? [Status: Unanswered] 8) Why should law abiding citizens be rendered defenseless before rampant violent crime? [Status: Unanswered] 9) Where in the 1st Amendment is "hate" prohibited such that, if shown, a prosecutor can throw someone in jail for having had that emotion/thought? [Status: Unanswered] 10) Why do you claim that an atmosphere only makes a planet's or moon's solid surface hotter since you are fully aware that no place at the bottom of earth's atmosphere ever reaches anywhere close to the daytime temperatures of the moon's atmosphereless solid surface? [Status: Unanswered] 11) If we were to discover that Lisa Gherardini was actually a shitty person, would that justify Black Lives Matter storming the Louvre to destroy the Mona Lisa? [Status: Unanswered] 12) Why should we destroy artifacts and relics pertaining to history that we never want to forget or repeat? [Status: Unanswered] 13) The Aztecs committed genocide of many other tribes and practiced human sacrifice; should their artwork and artifacts be destroyed? [Status: Unanswered] 14) Why would you or anyone pretend to be a judge of what history is to be revised or destroyed? [Status: Unanswered] 15) In what substantive/meaningful way do the platforms of Black Lives Matter, ANTIFA, The National Organization of Women, the DNC, Communist Party USA and Socialist Party USA ... differ? [Status: Unanswered] 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
02-09-2020 03:33
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	gfm7175 wrote: The second portion is debunked... Debunked: Hydrocarbons are Fossil Fuels You are presenting everything linked above as your own argument? And you're prepared to debate it?
02-09-2020 05:59
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: The second portion is debunked... Debunked: Hydrocarbons are Fossil Fuels You are presenting everything linked above as your own argument? And you're prepared to debate it? When he's right, he's right. Go ahead and let him worry about debating his points and you just explain how hydrocarbons are fossils and how humans burn fossils for fuel. I'm sure you'll kick his ass. Get to it. I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles 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
02-09-2020 10:47
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote:Get to it. Are you going to defend what's written on the page linked to? (Your site) or just run from the debate as usual? I won't bother with your private website if no one here is going to defend it.
02-09-2020 15:06
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote: Are you going to defend what's written on the page linked to? It remains unchallenged. I can't "defend" when there is no challenge. Are you gloing to flee from the debate as usual? tmiddles wrote: I won't bother with your private website [as long as I remain unable to challenge any of the content]. Let me know when you are able to challenge something. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles 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
02-09-2020 18:19
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: The second portion is debunked... Debunked: Hydrocarbons are Fossil Fuels You are presenting everything linked above as your own argument? No (not my words), but I have fully read through and agree with the argumentation that is contained therein. tmiddles wrote: And you're prepared to debate it? Yes. Edited on 02-09-2020 18:19
02-09-2020 18:22
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: The second portion is debunked... Debunked: Hydrocarbons are Fossil Fuels You are presenting everything linked above as your own argument? And you're prepared to debate it? When he's right, he's right. Go ahead and let him worry about debating his points and you just explain how hydrocarbons are fossils and how humans burn fossils for fuel. I'm sure you'll kick his ass. Get to it. Let's just say that I'm not holding my breath...
02-09-2020 18:23
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:Get to it. Are you going to defend what's written on the page linked to? (Your site) or just run from the debate as usual? I won't bother with your private website if no one here is going to defend it. There is nothing to defend... You have yet to present ANY counterarguments to the arguments contained therein, let alone any VALID counterarguments...
02-09-2020 18:24
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: Let me know when you are able to challenge something. . Maybe he's too busy "retaining water" with his spaghetti strainer?

02-09-2020 19:03
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	gfm7175 wrote: IBdaMann wrote:Let me know when you are able to challenge something. Maybe he's too busy "retaining water" with his spaghetti strainer? ... or maybe he needs a swig of something to wake him up. . Attached image:
02-09-2020 19:59
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	hahahahahahahahahaha I love it!!!!
03-09-2020 00:07
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: The second portion is debunked... Debunked: Hydrocarbons are Fossil Fuels You are presenting everything linked above as your own argument? And you're prepared to debate it? RQAA. 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
03-09-2020 00:10
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:Get to it. Are you going to defend what's written on the page linked to? (Your site) or just run from the debate as usual? I won't bother with your private website if no one here is going to defend it. Mantras 5...38b...14... No argument presented. Bulverism. Argument of the stick fallacy. 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
03-09-2020 01:53
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: Are you going to defend what's written on the page linked to? It remains unchallenged. Yes or no? gfm7175 wrote: Yes. See IBD? Not so hard. IBDs post on his personal website here: https://politiplex.freeforums.net/thread/86/debunked-hydrocarbons-fossil-fuels States: "petroleum and natural gas, are produced deep in the earth's crust/upper mantle by natural geological processes" What are the "natural geological processes"? This is by far the most critical part of the very short posting and there is no follow up. We can all agree that oil and gas have chemical energy, that energy cannot be created out of nothing, so how, according to IBD's theory, does that happen? Let's try an equivalent statement with just as much to back it up: "petroleum and natural gas, are produced by ancient aliens" or "petroleum and natural gas, are produced by magnetism" I could go on. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN Edited on 03-09-2020 01:54
03-09-2020 02:08
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Nuclear fission creates a lot of energy.You are distorting the information Tmiddles.IBDM and ITN are trying to claim that you believe CO2 can create energy which is also a distortion.It has the ability to reflect radiation.It is the amount reflected I have issue with.Sunscreen is rated in UV.I am enjoying this forum.My life is so boring its all I have
03-09-2020 02:15
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	duncan61 wrote:You are distorting the information Tmiddles.IBDM and ITN are trying to claim that you believe CO2 ... No Duncan if you'll review the above post it's actually off topic. We were discussing what GFM had posted from IBDs site. That particular issue doesn't get into CO2 at all.
03-09-2020 05:20
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 16c... No argument presented. Denial of history. 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
03-09-2020 05:21
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	tmiddles wrote: duncan61 wrote:You are distorting the information Tmiddles.IBDM and ITN are trying to claim that you believe CO2 ... No Duncan if you'll review the above post it's actually off topic. We were discussing what GFM had posted from IBDs site. That particular issue doesn't get into CO2 at all. Off topic. 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
03-09-2020 19:26
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	tmiddles wrote: duncan61 wrote:You are distorting the information Tmiddles.IBDM and ITN are trying to claim that you believe CO2 ... No Duncan if you'll review the above post it's actually off topic. We were discussing what GFM had posted from IBDs site. That particular issue doesn't get into CO2 at all. No Twiddles, Duncan started the thread, so he Knows what topic we are discussing. If you want to go off topic, start your own thread. I do understand, that nobody every post in the threads yous start, but you never know, maybe James will.

Page 1 of 3

Join the debate 3 phases to CC:

Threads	Replies	Last post
CC and S	12	15-01-2020 04:13