|Argument against AGW science14-08-2019 18:34|
|From another site:|
"But I always remain hopeful that some Denialist (given enough rope) will one day come up with a decently valid point against AGW science.
But it hasn't happened yet !"
And it won't happen till somebody says exactly what AGW science is, other than HS touchy feely charts generalizations and jargon. And it won't happen on that site until they stop barring people whose questions they don't like. I was barred from further comments after my first post.
Try googling "AGW science."
Edited on 14-08-2019 18:41
|For the "greenhouse effect" in particular:|
What scientific principles are you using?
What is your model?
How are you applying the scientific principles to your model?
Note. Consensus is not a scientific principle.
olyz wrote:And it won't happen on that site until they stop barring people whose questions they don't like. I was barred from further comments after my first post.
That's a risk anytime you go to a religious forum and express that you aren't of that faith. Try going to Mecca while not being a Muslim. Back in a former life I was banned from a Christian site on my very first post because I asked forum posters which of the two Jesus Christs was their savior. On religious fora you always have to expect banning as a strong possibility.
olyz wrote: For the "greenhouse effect" in particular:
No answer is forthcoming. Greenhouse Effect is unfalsifiable religious dogma; science cannot apply.
olyz wrote:Note. Consensus is not a scientific principle.
Consensus is a principle of religious dogma.
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
|You'd think it would be fairly obvious, that something isn't quite right with global warming. They've been trying to sell it, and the urgency to act, for quite a few decades now, and not a whole lot of people taking it seriously. Lot of people like to talk about it, few people trying to make a few bucks off it, but the vast majority of people are really dragging their heels, when it comes down to make all those expensive changes, to fight the evil, man-made CO2 demon. It's a fun and trendy topic, since nobody really understands it, you pretend it make sense, just to make others appear stupid. I don't think a lot of the consensus climatologist understand it either, but it's a good paying research project, and better to not question, or risk being cast out, as a denier.|
|Objectivity of Environmental Science||1||09-08-2019 02:13|
|If you believe in the AGW concept and want change but you||81||22-07-2019 12:27|
|Still No Climate Change Science||11||11-07-2019 04:23|
|Trump Administration's Attempts to Limit Climate Change Science 'Like Designing Cars Without Seat||1||28-05-2019 20:13|
|Trump Administration Hardens Its Attack on Climate Science||0||28-05-2019 15:12|