Remember me
▼ Content

Basic dogma



Page 1 of 212>
Basic dogma06-05-2022 21:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
There has been much spamming about biogeochemistry BS, arguments about alligators and frogs, etc. But it does eventually come back to some basic arguments.

The entire debate about so-called 'climate change' (otherwise known as 'global warming') comes down to some very basic arguments, all of which ignore science and mathematics.

First, let's review the initial circular argument:

Earth is somehow warming.

ALL other arguments in this religion stem from this one. Typically these center around Man causing this warming:

1. Through the use of Magick Gas (take your pick, carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, etc), thermal energy is being created and thus raising the temperature of Earth.

The trouble is, you can't create energy out of nothing.
The 1st law of thermodynamics states: E(t+1) = E(t) - U where 'E' it energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work (or force over distance).

No gas or vapor is work, therefore the value of U they contribute is zero. This leaves the equation: E(t+1) = E(t) - 0. In other words, no new energy can possibly exist. Perpetual motion machines of the 1st order are not possible.


2. Through the use of Magick Gas, electromagnetic energy radiated from the surface of Earth (which cools it) is reflected back to the surface, making it warmer than it was before, even though the gas reflecting it back is colder than the surface. This leaves the upper atmosphere colder and the surface warmer.

The trouble is, that means you are decreasing entropy (the randomness of a system, that system being Earth itself (no surrounding heat sinks and sources are considered). In other words, the system is becoming more organized, not less.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics (which is applicable to any given system), states:
e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy, and 't' is time. In other words, for any given system, entropy can never decrease...ever. Indeed, this law defines what the word 'heat' means. It is the flow of thermal energy, not the thermal energy itself. Heat has no temperature.


3. Through the use of Magick Gas, electromagnetic energy is prevented from leaving the Earth, thus it builds up, raising the temperature.

The trouble is, ALL materials radiate electromagnetic energy (light). That includes the ground, the water, the air, any Magick Gas, everything.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law states:
r = C * e * t^4 where 'r' is light radiated per square area in watts (usually square meters is used), 'C' is a natural constant, serving to convert the relation to our units of measurement, 'e' is emissivity (a measured constant describing how well light is radiated or absorbed into the material) expressed as a percentage from 0% (ideal 'white' body), to 100% (ideal 'black' body), and 't' is temperature in deg K.

Emissivity is measured by comparing the radiated light at a precisely known temperature to an ideal black body of the same temperature. There are no ideal white or black bodies in nature. Everything is somewhere between, sometimes called a 'gray' body.

The key point here is that it is a measured constant. To measure it, you MUST precisely know the temperature of the emitting body to begin with.

This means it is not possible to use algebra to invert the equation to calculate temperature from a known measure of light coming from a body. It is unknown how much of that is reflected and how much is radiated due to temperature.

Note that the Stefan-Boltzmann law does NOT have a frequency component in it. ALL frequencies of light are considered at once as a combined total.

Now we get to the core circular argument itself, that Earth is somehow warming.

The trouble is, there is no way to measure the temperature of the Earth. This measurement, by it's very definition, is a statistical measurement. In other words, it is combining some number of thermometer readings into a statistical summary.

But statistical summaries require TWO values to be published, the average, and the margin of error value. It also requires the incoming data to be published and available for perusal. That data MUST be unbiased. It must be raw data. It cannot be cooked, since no statistical summary has been run yet, and one summary may differ from the next on the SAME DATASET.

The margin of error value is NOT calculated from the data, but from the possible variant of data. For Earth temperatures, that would result in how fast temperature changes per given distance, say, a mile.

Since temperature can vary as much as 20 deg F per mile quite easily (across weather fronts, mountain wave effects, different terrain features like lakes, forests, grasslands, bare soil, asphalt, concrete, class, metal, etc.) the end result is that the margin of error is greater than the highest and lowest temperatures ever recorded on Earth, so those become the margin of error. In other words, any such statistic is literally guessing.

Anyone that tries to tell you the temperature of the Earth, or that it's changing (requiring TWO measurements to measure the change), is ignoring statistical math and they are simply making up numbers. It does not matter if that is a government, a bunch of scientists, or an individual.

A similar problem lies with measuring global carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere. Further, there are very few stations (only one is consistently quoted by the Church of Global Warming, the Mauna Loa observatory on the Big Island of Hawaii), that are even capable of measuring CO2 at all. Again, the margin of error gets you again. The resulting summary is literally guessing.

Anyone telling you the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is making numbers up. It doesn't matter if it's a government agency, a bunch of scientists, or an individual.

Making numbers up and using them as 'data' like this is a fallacy, known as the argument from randU fallacy. A randU is a psuedo-random number that is made up in someone's head, or that came through an algorithm that came out of someone's head.

Note that 'climate prediction models' (or computer programs used to try to predict long term weather), are randU generators. They are no different from any cheap random number generator found in any computer that doesn't use actual random sources.

In other words, the entire set of scripture from the Church of Global Warming, which comes down to these simple arguments, ignores and denies science and mathematics.

It doesn't matter whether this preaching comes from a government agency, a bunch of scientists, or an individual.

Some of the various 'doomsday' scenarios are really coming from the Church of Green, discussed in another post.


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
06-05-2022 22:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
Now we address some of the 'doomsday' scenarios pushed by the Church of Green. These involve the push to electric vehicles, ocean 'acidification', rising ocean levels, the 'coal is bad' argument, the 'oil is bad' argument, etc.

First, I'll define The Problem (as best as can be defined, given the ignorance displayed by this religion):

We are running out of 'fossil fuels', burning them causes 'pollution', and we must therefore convert entirely to solar and wind (some exception are made for some sort of nuclear power). In other words, conversion solely to 'green energy', or politically correct energy sources. This should be done by government force (laws).

Here is the problem with The Problem:
'Pollution' is never defined, NO description of what the polluting substance is, or what it is polluting, or why it is considered a pollutant at all, is given. Oft times, it comes down to calling things like water a 'pollutant', or naturally occurring gases in the atmosphere a 'pollutant'. Frankly, it gets pretty ridiculous to argue this way.

No fuel comes from fossils. Fossils are images of animals or plants in stone. These stones are typically made of of deposits of calcium carbonate or calcium phosphate, neither of which are particularly flammable; or they are voids left in stone from these deposits (which don't burn at all, since they are a void).

Oil and natural gas are hydrocarbons that are renewable fuels. They can synthesized in a laboratory by using hydrogen, carbon dioxide (or carbon monoxide), and heat and pressure in the presence of an iron catalyst (usually just a screen of some type to pass the gasses through).

This process was discovered by the Germans during WW2. Running short of fuel for their tanks, the fantastic capability of the German chemists had a go at synthesizing oil to keep their vehicles rolling. They succeeded using this process, called the Fischer-Tropsche process (they used carbon monoxide as their carbon source).

These conditions are found naturally underground. High heat, high pressure, the presence of hydrogen, the presence of carbon dioxide, and the presence of iron. In other words, the Earth itself is a giant Fischer-Tropsche reactor. No matter where you drill, if you go deep enough, you WILL find oil. It comes closest to the surface near tectonic plate edges, particularly where spreading action is taking place.

This is why you find oil fields at such locations. The North slopes of Alaska. The North Sea off the UK, the Mideast, just offshore the SDTC (formerly known as California), the Gulf including all the way up into Texas and Oklahoma and even as far as Pennsylvania.

Are we running out? No. Wells pumped try and then capped are full of oil again just a few months later.
Why the high prices? Government interference. I'll get to that.

Burning hydrocarbons, of course, produces carbon dioxide and water. This now reverts to the Church of Global Warming, discussed above. Note that the line between these two religions is blurring quite a bit lately. There's a reason. I'll get to that too.

Gasoline has the highest BTU for given volume. Kerosene has the highest BTU for given weight.
Hydrogen has a very high BTU per mole, but because it is a gas at room temperature and pressure, the available total BTU for hydrogen in a given volume is very low. The same can be said for a given weight. Hydrogen must also be synthesized. It does not occur in usable fuel form without putting more energy into extracting it than you get by using it.

Oil is very cheap. Drill a hole, pump it out, ship to a refinery, which fractions it into various oil products like gasoline, adds a bit of additives to moderate the burn rate and maybe some detergents, and sells the final product at stations everywhere. Far from running out, the world is awash in oil.

So why high prices? Government. It is the only cause. Through taxes, regulations, and other interference, obtaining the oil is made more difficult, processing it is made more difficult, and even distributing the final product is made more difficult. Democrats, in particular, interfere with the energy market to push solar and wind power, what they refer to as 'green' power (note the way the Church of Green names stuff).

Joule for Joule, gasoline is extraordinarily cheap. One joule of gasoline requires 0.0000278 gallons, or a price of $0.000125 per joule (assuming $4.50/gal). A single gallon of gasoline contains about 120 million joules.

The push for electric vehicles is based, again, on government interference. This time in automotive markets.

Government manipulation of markets has a name: fascism. That is what fascism is.
Government ownership of markets also has a name: communism. That is what communism is.

Both are forms of socialism. Both are theft of wealth. Both must be implemented by oligarchies and dictatorships because people don't like their wealth being stolen.

So why the blurring of the Church of Green and the Church of Global Warming? They stem from the same source, that's why. They stem from the Church of Karl Marx. This is what liberals want. It is the whole root behind the tyranny, the discarding of the Constitution and State constitutions, the more and more oppressive attempts to silence any dissidents, and the general hatred for ANYTHING not 'one of us'.

It is why liberals push censorship, revert to throwing insults most of the time, attempt to divide people into little boxes and get them to fight each other, try to turn to the 'for the little guy' argument or the 'for the children' argument or 'save Mother Earth' argument. It is religious censorship. They are NOT for the 'little guy' (which they continually put down because he lives in 'flyover country'), or 'for the children' (which they murder for convenience through horrors like abortion), or 'Mother Earth', since they advocate the use of less efficient means of producing electrical power, open pit mining of rare resources on a massive scale, call water and air 'pollutants', produce cars that have little resale or recycle value, destroy the automotive recycling industry creating huge landfills of useless vehicles, destroy whole crops and farmlands and forests through poor water management practices, whine about wildfires they are largely responsible for, require the design and use of 'low water' toilets that can't flush properly wind up using far more water just to get the material in the sewer, dedicate many thousands of acres to growing food so they can burn it, and on...and on...and on.

It is the Democrats. It is the liberals. It is The Oligarchy. It is the very people that discard the Constitution of the United States and all State constitutions.

Their religions have but one purpose: to further their agenda. To expand their fascism and communism and all the tyranny that goes with it.
08-05-2022 21:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
I noticed that no one seems to disagree with any of this. Perhaps I should assume that the Church of Global Warming DOES understand everything here, and yet deny the science anyway. In that case, they are knowingly lying to themselves.
09-05-2022 00:09
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2175)
Into the Night wrote:
There has been much spamming about biogeochemistry BS, arguments about alligators and frogs, etc. But it does eventually come back to some basic arguments.

The entire debate about so-called 'climate change' (otherwise known as 'global warming') comes down to some very basic arguments, all of which ignore science and mathematics.

First, let's review the initial circular argument:

Earth is somehow warming.

ALL other arguments in this religion stem from this one. Typically these center around Man causing this warming:

1. Through the use of Magick Gas (take your pick, carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, etc), thermal energy is being created and thus raising the temperature of Earth.

The trouble is, you can't create energy out of nothing.
The 1st law of thermodynamics states: E(t+1) = E(t) - U where 'E' it energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work (or force over distance).

No gas or vapor is work, therefore the value of U they contribute is zero. This leaves the equation: E(t+1) = E(t) - 0. In other words, no new energy can possibly exist. Perpetual motion machines of the 1st order are not possible.


2. Through the use of Magick Gas, electromagnetic energy radiated from the surface of Earth (which cools it) is reflected back to the surface, making it warmer than it was before, even though the gas reflecting it back is colder than the surface. This leaves the upper atmosphere colder and the surface warmer.

The trouble is, that means you are decreasing entropy (the randomness of a system, that system being Earth itself (no surrounding heat sinks and sources are considered). In other words, the system is becoming more organized, not less.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics (which is applicable to any given system), states:
e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy, and 't' is time. In other words, for any given system, entropy can never decrease...ever. Indeed, this law defines what the word 'heat' means. It is the flow of thermal energy, not the thermal energy itself. Heat has no temperature.


3. Through the use of Magick Gas, electromagnetic energy is prevented from leaving the Earth, thus it builds up, raising the temperature.

The trouble is, ALL materials radiate electromagnetic energy (light). That includes the ground, the water, the air, any Magick Gas, everything.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law states:
r = C * e * t^4 where 'r' is light radiated per square area in watts (usually square meters is used), 'C' is a natural constant, serving to convert the relation to our units of measurement, 'e' is emissivity (a measured constant describing how well light is radiated or absorbed into the material) expressed as a percentage from 0% (ideal 'white' body), to 100% (ideal 'black' body), and 't' is temperature in deg K.

Emissivity is measured by comparing the radiated light at a precisely known temperature to an ideal black body of the same temperature. There are no ideal white or black bodies in nature. Everything is somewhere between, sometimes called a 'gray' body.

The key point here is that it is a measured constant. To measure it, you MUST precisely know the temperature of the emitting body to begin with.

This means it is not possible to use algebra to invert the equation to calculate temperature from a known measure of light coming from a body. It is unknown how much of that is reflected and how much is radiated due to temperature.

Note that the Stefan-Boltzmann law does NOT have a frequency component in it. ALL frequencies of light are considered at once as a combined total.

Now we get to the core circular argument itself, that Earth is somehow warming.

The trouble is, there is no way to measure the temperature of the Earth. This measurement, by it's very definition, is a statistical measurement. In other words, it is combining some number of thermometer readings into a statistical summary.

But statistical summaries require TWO values to be published, the average, and the margin of error value. It also requires the incoming data to be published and available for perusal. That data MUST be unbiased. It must be raw data. It cannot be cooked, since no statistical summary has been run yet, and one summary may differ from the next on the SAME DATASET.

The margin of error value is NOT calculated from the data, but from the possible variant of data. For Earth temperatures, that would result in how fast temperature changes per given distance, say, a mile.

Since temperature can vary as much as 20 deg F per mile quite easily (across weather fronts, mountain wave effects, different terrain features like lakes, forests, grasslands, bare soil, asphalt, concrete, class, metal, etc.) the end result is that the margin of error is greater than the highest and lowest temperatures ever recorded on Earth, so those become the margin of error. In other words, any such statistic is literally guessing.

Anyone that tries to tell you the temperature of the Earth, or that it's changing (requiring TWO measurements to measure the change), is ignoring statistical math and they are simply making up numbers. It does not matter if that is a government, a bunch of scientists, or an individual.

A similar problem lies with measuring global carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere. Further, there are very few stations (only one is consistently quoted by the Church of Global Warming, the Mauna Loa observatory on the Big Island of Hawaii), that are even capable of measuring CO2 at all. Again, the margin of error gets you again. The resulting summary is literally guessing.

Anyone telling you the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is making numbers up. It doesn't matter if it's a government agency, a bunch of scientists, or an individual.

Making numbers up and using them as 'data' like this is a fallacy, known as the argument from randU fallacy. A randU is a psuedo-random number that is made up in someone's head, or that came through an algorithm that came out of someone's head.

Note that 'climate prediction models' (or computer programs used to try to predict long term weather), are randU generators. They are no different from any cheap random number generator found in any computer that doesn't use actual random sources.

In other words, the entire set of scripture from the Church of Global Warming, which comes down to these simple arguments, ignores and denies science and mathematics.

It doesn't matter whether this preaching comes from a government agency, a bunch of scientists, or an individual.

Some of the various 'doomsday' scenarios are really coming from the Church of Green, discussed in another post.


The Earth is warming, has been since the ebb of the last ice age 20,000 years ago, you know this so why lie?
09-05-2022 01:07
James_
★★★★☆
(1099)
Let's get real Swan, okay? When the Old Kingdom in Egypt ended so might have the inter-glacial period started cooling. The cooling periods since then have become colder.
When the Old Kingdom ended it might have been the peak warming period for the current inter-glacial period.
As for the Shadow Warrior, hydrocarbons have been known to cause temperature inversions which increases the amount of heat near the Earth's surface. When hydrocarbons are less concentrated then would their obvious effect likewise be less concentrated?

With this example, it is cooler because it's cold winter waters that is being discussed. When it's not winter, warmer air is trapped. And this would be the lesser effect of hydrocarbon gasses in the atmosphere. Why a slight change in climate is less obvious.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-11-11/how-an-inversion-over-la-basin-acts-like-a-lid-on-a-pot

Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
There has been much spamming about biogeochemistry BS, arguments about alligators and frogs, etc. But it does eventually come back to some basic arguments.

The entire debate about so-called 'climate change' (otherwise known as 'global warming') comes down to some very basic arguments, all of which ignore science and mathematics.

First, let's review the initial circular argument:

Earth is somehow warming.

ALL other arguments in this religion stem from this one. Typically these center around Man causing this warming:



The Earth is warming, has been since the ebb of the last ice age 20,000 years ago, you know this so why lie?
09-05-2022 02:09
duncan61
★★★★★
(2003)
ITN your interpretation of the laws of physics is not the same as mine.The sun provides the energy and the Earth is a living changing thing.The Atmosphere plays a role in the conditions.If it changes everything changes.It is being greatly exaggerated to suit the agenda you mention.The go to comment of warmerzombies is I am not a scientist.I have run tests and have proven to myself that CO2 may radiate certain spectrums of light but it is zip on the big picture.Heat rises thats it
09-05-2022 02:26
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2175)
James_ wrote:
Let's get real Swan, okay? When the Old Kingdom in Egypt ended so might have the inter-glacial period started cooling. The cooling periods since then have become colder.
When the Old Kingdom ended it might have been the peak warming period for the current inter-glacial period.
As for the Shadow Warrior, hydrocarbons have been known to cause temperature inversions which increases the amount of heat near the Earth's surface. When hydrocarbons are less concentrated then would their obvious effect likewise be less concentrated?

With this example, it is cooler because it's cold winter waters that is being discussed. When it's not winter, warmer air is trapped. And this would be the lesser effect of hydrocarbon gasses in the atmosphere. Why a slight change in climate is less obvious.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-11-11/how-an-inversion-over-la-basin-acts-like-a-lid-on-a-pot

Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
There has been much spamming about biogeochemistry BS, arguments about alligators and frogs, etc. But it does eventually come back to some basic arguments.

The entire debate about so-called 'climate change' (otherwise known as 'global warming') comes down to some very basic arguments, all of which ignore science and mathematics.

First, let's review the initial circular argument:

Earth is somehow warming.

ALL other arguments in this religion stem from this one. Typically these center around Man causing this warming:



The Earth is warming, has been since the ebb of the last ice age 20,000 years ago, you know this so why lie?


90 percent of the glacial maximum glaciers had melted by 10,000 years ago so ancient Egypt was not effected though higher levels in the Nile was a clear benefit
09-05-2022 02:31
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12599)
duncan61 wrote:ITN your interpretation of the laws of physics is not the same as mine.

Invalid assertion.

Nobody gets to "interpret" the laws of physics. There is no interpreting.

Science is expressed unambiguously in falsifiable models. They speak for themselves.

duncan61 wrote:The sun provides the energy and the Earth is a living changing thing.

You first must show that the earth is alive. Then come up with a point.

duncan61 wrote:The Atmosphere plays a role in the conditions.

You win! ... the trophy for being totally vague. You have said nothing.

duncan61 wrote:The go to comment of warmerzombies is I am not a scientist.I have run tests and have proven to myself that CO2 may radiate certain spectrums of light but it is zip on the big picture.

wamizombies are morons, yes, and you believe practically everything they believe.


duncan61 wrote:Heat rises thats it

Heat flows in all directions equally. You have had ample time to learn what heat is.
09-05-2022 03:35
James_
★★★★☆
(1099)
Interesting thought. Yet the Sahara Desert started forming a little before the Old Kingdom ended. Depending on who you listen to, it was warmer 4,500 years ago.
This might suggest peak warming for the inter-glacial period that we're in. Climatologists often overlook when we'll start cycling towards cooler periods.


Swan wrote:
James_ wrote:
Let's get real Swan, okay? When the Old Kingdom in Egypt ended so might have the inter-glacial period started cooling. The cooling periods since then have become colder.
When the Old Kingdom ended it might have been the peak warming period for the current inter-glacial period.
As for the Shadow Warrior, hydrocarbons have been known to cause temperature inversions which increases the amount of heat near the Earth's surface. When hydrocarbons are less concentrated then would their obvious effect likewise be less concentrated?

With this example, it is cooler because it's cold winter waters that is being discussed. When it's not winter, warmer air is trapped. And this would be the lesser effect of hydrocarbon gasses in the atmosphere. Why a slight change in climate is less obvious.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-11-11/how-an-inversion-over-la-basin-acts-like-a-lid-on-a-pot

Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
There has been much spamming about biogeochemistry BS, arguments about alligators and frogs, etc. But it does eventually come back to some basic arguments.

The entire debate about so-called 'climate change' (otherwise known as 'global warming') comes down to some very basic arguments, all of which ignore science and mathematics.

First, let's review the initial circular argument:

Earth is somehow warming.

ALL other arguments in this religion stem from this one. Typically these center around Man causing this warming:



The Earth is warming, has been since the ebb of the last ice age 20,000 years ago, you know this so why lie?


90 percent of the glacial maximum glaciers had melted by 10,000 years ago so ancient Egypt was not effected though higher levels in the Nile was a clear benefit
09-05-2022 03:57
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2175)
James_ wrote:
Interesting thought. Yet the Sahara Desert started forming a little before the Old Kingdom ended. Depending on who you listen to, it was warmer 4,500 years ago.
This might suggest peak warming for the inter-glacial period that we're in. Climatologists often overlook when we'll start cycling towards cooler periods.


Swan wrote:
James_ wrote:
Let's get real Swan, okay? When the Old Kingdom in Egypt ended so might have the inter-glacial period started cooling. The cooling periods since then have become colder.
When the Old Kingdom ended it might have been the peak warming period for the current inter-glacial period.
As for the Shadow Warrior, hydrocarbons have been known to cause temperature inversions which increases the amount of heat near the Earth's surface. When hydrocarbons are less concentrated then would their obvious effect likewise be less concentrated?

With this example, it is cooler because it's cold winter waters that is being discussed. When it's not winter, warmer air is trapped. And this would be the lesser effect of hydrocarbon gasses in the atmosphere. Why a slight change in climate is less obvious.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-11-11/how-an-inversion-over-la-basin-acts-like-a-lid-on-a-pot

Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
There has been much spamming about biogeochemistry BS, arguments about alligators and frogs, etc. But it does eventually come back to some basic arguments.

The entire debate about so-called 'climate change' (otherwise known as 'global warming') comes down to some very basic arguments, all of which ignore science and mathematics.

First, let's review the initial circular argument:

Earth is somehow warming.

ALL other arguments in this religion stem from this one. Typically these center around Man causing this warming:



The Earth is warming, has been since the ebb of the last ice age 20,000 years ago, you know this so why lie?


90 percent of the glacial maximum glaciers had melted by 10,000 years ago so ancient Egypt was not effected though higher levels in the Nile was a clear benefit


What old kingdom?
09-05-2022 04:05
James_
★★★★☆
(1099)
Swan wrote:

What old kingdom?



The Old Kingdom ended with the reigns of both Pepi I and his son Pepi II.
With Pharaohs like Ramses and Ra-Ramses (his son) this happened in more recent times.
The Old Kingdom built the pyramids. Egypt's time of greatest wealth was with Ramses and his son. This leads into the rise of Rome and the fall of Mesopotamia.
The world's climate change influenced civilizations. When Rome had its greatest influence, that was during a warming period just as what Egypt experienced.
It is kind of surprising that no one has written a book about how the changing climate has influenced the rise and fall of empires.

p.s., an FYI. There was a 100 year mega-drought that is associated with the
fall of the Old Kingdom and might be when the Sahara Desert went from grasslands to desert.
Edited on 09-05-2022 04:09
09-05-2022 07:23
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12599)
James_ wrote:Egypt's time of greatest wealth was with Ramses and his son.

This marks the beginning of capitalism and wealth and the beginning of Climate Change due to human activity driven by GREED. It all started in Egypt under Ramses and his son.

James_ wrote:This leads into the rise of Rome and the fall of Mesopotamia.

This is correct. The Roman Empire could not have happened without human activity having had its catalyst under Ramses.

James_ wrote: The world's climate change influenced civilizations.

Unfortunately, this was only the dawn of human activity and marked the earth's Climate Minimum. It wasn't until the Industrial Revolution that Climate began accelerating, forcing history's greatest philosophers like Karl Marx, Giovanni Gentile and Amelia Dyer, to provide sweeping sustainable solutions to save the planet. Unfortunately, it might have already been too late.

James_ wrote:When Rome had its greatest influence, that was during a warming period just as what Egypt experienced.

The Data shows that Rome and the planet was cooling at 0.07C per year at that point, specifically due to latent human activity from prior Egyptian civilizations.

James_ wrote: It is kind of surprising that no one has written a book about how the changing climate has influenced the rise and fall of empires.

The UN is trying to keep that information hidden. Authors have been assassinated trying to write about it. The UN understands that if that knowledge were to come to light, the world at large would understand that governments cannot combat Climate Change, but that Climate Change is in full control of governments. The complete powerlessness of governments would be exposed to the world, fear and panic in the world would generally decrease and taxation would suffer.

James_ wrote:p.s., an FYI. There was a 100 year mega-drought that is associated with the fall of the Old Kingdom and might be when the Sahara Desert went from grasslands to desert.

That was the result of the failure of the Timbuktu Pipeline that was intended to transport high-alkaline sea water across Africa to irrigate Saharan apple orchards. Politics got involved, funding was suspended and eventually cancelled.

.
09-05-2022 09:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12599)
Into the Night wrote:
There has been much spamming about biogeochemistry BS, arguments about alligators and frogs, etc. But it does eventually come back to some basic arguments.

The entire debate about so-called 'climate change' (otherwise known as 'global warming') comes down to some very basic arguments, all of which ignore science and mathematics.


I have posted this and the subsequent thread on Politiplex as responses to the 12 Commandments page, each with links back to these original posts.

Please review.

https://politiplex.freeforums.net/thread/125/12-commandments-liberals
09-05-2022 10:41
duncan61
★★★★★
(2003)
IBdaMann wrote:
duncan61 wrote:ITN your interpretation of the laws of physics is not the same as mine.

Invalid assertion.

Nobody gets to "interpret" the laws of physics. There is no interpreting.

Science is expressed unambiguously in falsifiable models. They speak for themselves.

duncan61 wrote:The sun provides the energy and the Earth is a living changing thing.

You first must show that the earth is alive. Then come up with a point.

duncan61 wrote:The Atmosphere plays a role in the conditions.

You win! ... the trophy for being totally vague. You have said nothing.

duncan61 wrote:The go to comment of warmerzombies is I am not a scientist.I have run tests and have proven to myself that CO2 may radiate certain spectrums of light but it is zip on the big picture.

wamizombies are morons, yes, and you believe practically everything they believe.


duncan61 wrote:Heat rises thats it

Heat flows in all directions equally. You have had ample time to learn what heat is.


The Earth is living.Trees and plants grow.Animals and people are born and die.Humans have burned stuff and increased the CO2.I do not believe the alarmists.Its a culture.They wish to believe we are all going to die.Its a cop out to give up.In 10 years everything will be the same and a new horror will be created.The suns energy varies.the Earth is moving in and out.It gets warmer and it gets cooler.There is no problem.The laws of physics do not apply to a chaotic weather system.Heat always rises and denser cold air sinks.Today on the freeway my jeep was going very smooth as the colder air is denser and I have cut a hole in my bonnet and fitted a pod air filter directly on the manifold and it is in the airstream under a scoop.I can feel the boost at 100Km/h.It is you that deny stuff ya Trumpazoid


duncan61
09-05-2022 17:10
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(3184)
Into the Night wrote:
I noticed that no one seems to disagree with any of this. Perhaps I should assume that the Church of Global Warming DOES understand everything here, and yet deny the science anyway. In that case, they are knowingly lying to themselves.

That's precisely why I didn't respond to it. I agreed with it and I didn't have anything to add. It is, as your thread title indicates, a very good summation of the basic dogma.
09-05-2022 17:11
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12599)
duncan61 wrote:Copy and paste out of Applying geoscience to Australia's most important challenges

You really should copy and paste from Duncan.

duncan61 wrote:Coal is a fossil fuel

Are they correct or are they pushing a political agenda?

duncan61 wrote:Each year Geoscience Australia estimates the coal resources in Australia

What about hydrocarbons? Do you and Geoscience Australia believe that they don't exist?

duncan61 wrote:Pick the weevils out of that butt holes

Tell me how you believe that heat rises instead of flowing in all directions equally.

duncan61 wrote:The Earth is living.Trees and plants grow.Animals and people are born and die.

Trees and animals and plants and people are living, yes ... the planet is not. Again, were you attempting to speak poetically?

duncan61 wrote:Humans have burned stuff and increased the CO2.

Plants have consumed the CO2 and reduced the CO2. ... or didn't you ever learn this?

duncan61 wrote:I do not believe the alarmists.Its a culture.They wish to believe we are all going to die.

You believe all the same crap EXCEPT for the "WE ARE ARE GOING TO DIE!" part. All the same crap. I don't see you as being any different from a warmizombie.

duncan61 wrote:The laws of physics do not apply to a chaotic weather system.

Yes, the laws of physics apply to all of nature, always, everywhere ... this includes all weather systems, by the way.

duncan61 wrote:Heat always rises

When you get a chance, do this little parlor trick that will amaze your friends.
Put a frying pan over a fire and get it really hot, preferably red hot. Make sure you are standing straight upright and place the frying pan to rest on top of your bare head. When your friends wonder in amazement why your head isn't getting burned, tell them that heat only rises.

duncan61 wrote:It is you that deny stuff ya Trumpazoid

I await the video of your parlor trick.
09-05-2022 17:12
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(3184)
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
There has been much spamming about biogeochemistry BS, arguments about alligators and frogs, etc. But it does eventually come back to some basic arguments.


The Earth is warming, has been since the ebb of the last ice age 20,000 years ago, you know this so why lie?

Is that "what we know" by any chance?? Better take good care of your moraine farms...
09-05-2022 17:12
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(3184)
James_ wrote:
Let's get real Swan, okay?

It is at this point that you are already asking too much of him.
09-05-2022 17:13
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(3184)
James_ wrote:
Let's get real Swan, okay?

It is at this point that you are already asking too much of him.
09-05-2022 17:22
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(3184)
duncan61 wrote:
ITN your interpretation of the laws of physics is not the same as mine.

He is not interpreting anything; he is merely quoting them as they are.

duncan61 wrote:
The sun provides the energy

Indeed. So is the sun where the additional energy required to warm Earth is coming from? If so, why should I believe that?

duncan61 wrote:
and the Earth is a living changing thing.

The Earth is alive?? Why should I believe that?

duncan61 wrote:
The Atmosphere plays a role in the conditions.

What is "the conditions"?

duncan61 wrote:
Heat rises thats it

Heat flows in all directions.
09-05-2022 17:59
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2175)
James_ wrote:
Swan wrote:

What old kingdom?



The Old Kingdom ended with the reigns of both Pepi I and his son Pepi II.
With Pharaohs like Ramses and Ra-Ramses (his son) this happened in more recent times.
The Old Kingdom built the pyramids. Egypt's time of greatest wealth was with Ramses and his son. This leads into the rise of Rome and the fall of Mesopotamia.
The world's climate change influenced civilizations. When Rome had its greatest influence, that was during a warming period just as what Egypt experienced.
It is kind of surprising that no one has written a book about how the changing climate has influenced the rise and fall of empires.

p.s., an FYI. There was a 100 year mega-drought that is associated with the
fall of the Old Kingdom and might be when the Sahara Desert went from grasslands to desert.


That is all nonsense because the egyptians did not have a true written language to write. If they did then they would have written down how to build a pyramid and they could not do this. So try again
09-05-2022 18:09
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12599)
Swan wrote:That is all nonsense because the egyptians did not have a true written language to write.

... but each one could walk like an Egyptian.

Swan wrote: If they did then they would have written down how to build a pyramid and they could not do this. So try again

Space aliens built the pyramids. Space aliens build pyramids in their own image, which is how we know how space aliens appear.
10-05-2022 01:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
James_ wrote:
Swan wrote:

What old kingdom?



The Old Kingdom ended with the reigns of both Pepi I and his son Pepi II.
With Pharaohs like Ramses and Ra-Ramses (his son) this happened in more recent times.
The Old Kingdom built the pyramids. Egypt's time of greatest wealth was with Ramses and his son. This leads into the rise of Rome and the fall of Mesopotamia.
The world's climate change influenced civilizations. When Rome had its greatest influence, that was during a warming period just as what Egypt experienced.
It is kind of surprising that no one has written a book about how the changing climate has influenced the rise and fall of empires.

p.s., an FYI. There was a 100 year mega-drought that is associated with the
fall of the Old Kingdom and might be when the Sahara Desert went from grasslands to desert.

Climate has no value associated with it. What has changed?


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
10-05-2022 01:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
There has been much spamming about biogeochemistry BS, arguments about alligators and frogs, etc. But it does eventually come back to some basic arguments.

The entire debate about so-called 'climate change' (otherwise known as 'global warming') comes down to some very basic arguments, all of which ignore science and mathematics.


I have posted this and the subsequent thread on Politiplex as responses to the 12 Commandments page, each with links back to these original posts.

Please review.

https://politiplex.freeforums.net/thread/125/12-commandments-liberals

Thank you.


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
10-05-2022 01:26
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2175)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:That is all nonsense because the egyptians did not have a true written language to write.

... but each one could walk like an Egyptian.

Swan wrote: If they did then they would have written down how to build a pyramid and they could not do this. So try again

Space aliens built the pyramids. Space aliens build pyramids in their own image, which is how we know how space aliens appear.


Dumb jews pushing rocks built the pyramids
10-05-2022 01:36
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12599)
Swan wrote:Dumb jews pushing rocks built the pyramids

The smart ones simply rolled the rocks along. Much easier.
10-05-2022 01:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
duncan61 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
duncan61 wrote:ITN your interpretation of the laws of physics is not the same as mine.

Invalid assertion.

Nobody gets to "interpret" the laws of physics. There is no interpreting.

Science is expressed unambiguously in falsifiable models. They speak for themselves.

duncan61 wrote:The sun provides the energy and the Earth is a living changing thing.

You first must show that the earth is alive. Then come up with a point.

duncan61 wrote:The Atmosphere plays a role in the conditions.

You win! ... the trophy for being totally vague. You have said nothing.

duncan61 wrote:The go to comment of warmerzombies is I am not a scientist.I have run tests and have proven to myself that CO2 may radiate certain spectrums of light but it is zip on the big picture.

wamizombies are morons, yes, and you believe practically everything they believe.


duncan61 wrote:Heat rises thats it

Heat flows in all directions equally. You have had ample time to learn what heat is.


The Earth is living.

So...you believe in the noosphere?
duncan61 wrote:
Trees and plants grow.
Animals and people are born and die.

So?
duncan61 wrote:
Humans have burned stuff and increased the CO2.

So?
duncan61 wrote:
do not believe the alarmists.Its a culture.They wish to believe we are all going to die.Its a cop out to give up.In 10 years everything will be the same and a new horror will be created.The suns energy varies.

So? What do you intend to do about it?
duncan61 wrote:
the Earth is moving in and out.

I assume you mean the very slight elliptical orbit that Earth has. This does not change the temperature of the Earth except on a yearly cycle.
duncan61 wrote:
It gets warmer and it gets cooler.There is no problem.

Obviously not. No problem.
duncan61 wrote:
The laws of physics do not apply to a chaotic weather system.

Actually, they do.
duncan61 wrote:
Heat always rises and denser cold air sinks.

So...putting the infrared lights over the burgers doesn't keep them warm, eh? So sunlight overhead doesn't warm the ground, eh?
duncan61 wrote:
Today on the freeway my jeep was going very smooth as the colder air is denser and I have cut a hole in my bonnet and fitted a pod air filter directly on the manifold and it is in the airstream under a scoop.I can feel the boost at 100Km/h.It is you that deny stuff ya Trumpazoid

Nah. It is you. You just denied radiant and conductive heat.


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
10-05-2022 01:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
There has been much spamming about biogeochemistry BS, arguments about alligators and frogs, etc. But it does eventually come back to some basic arguments.

The entire debate about so-called 'climate change' (otherwise known as 'global warming') comes down to some very basic arguments, all of which ignore science and mathematics.

First, let's review the initial circular argument:

Earth is somehow warming.

ALL other arguments in this religion stem from this one. Typically these center around Man causing this warming:

1. Through the use of Magick Gas (take your pick, carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, etc), thermal energy is being created and thus raising the temperature of Earth.

The trouble is, you can't create energy out of nothing.
The 1st law of thermodynamics states: E(t+1) = E(t) - U where 'E' it energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work (or force over distance).

No gas or vapor is work, therefore the value of U they contribute is zero. This leaves the equation: E(t+1) = E(t) - 0. In other words, no new energy can possibly exist. Perpetual motion machines of the 1st order are not possible.


2. Through the use of Magick Gas, electromagnetic energy radiated from the surface of Earth (which cools it) is reflected back to the surface, making it warmer than it was before, even though the gas reflecting it back is colder than the surface. This leaves the upper atmosphere colder and the surface warmer.

The trouble is, that means you are decreasing entropy (the randomness of a system, that system being Earth itself (no surrounding heat sinks and sources are considered). In other words, the system is becoming more organized, not less.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics (which is applicable to any given system), states:
e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy, and 't' is time. In other words, for any given system, entropy can never decrease...ever. Indeed, this law defines what the word 'heat' means. It is the flow of thermal energy, not the thermal energy itself. Heat has no temperature.


3. Through the use of Magick Gas, electromagnetic energy is prevented from leaving the Earth, thus it builds up, raising the temperature.

The trouble is, ALL materials radiate electromagnetic energy (light). That includes the ground, the water, the air, any Magick Gas, everything.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law states:
r = C * e * t^4 where 'r' is light radiated per square area in watts (usually square meters is used), 'C' is a natural constant, serving to convert the relation to our units of measurement, 'e' is emissivity (a measured constant describing how well light is radiated or absorbed into the material) expressed as a percentage from 0% (ideal 'white' body), to 100% (ideal 'black' body), and 't' is temperature in deg K.

Emissivity is measured by comparing the radiated light at a precisely known temperature to an ideal black body of the same temperature. There are no ideal white or black bodies in nature. Everything is somewhere between, sometimes called a 'gray' body.

The key point here is that it is a measured constant. To measure it, you MUST precisely know the temperature of the emitting body to begin with.

This means it is not possible to use algebra to invert the equation to calculate temperature from a known measure of light coming from a body. It is unknown how much of that is reflected and how much is radiated due to temperature.

Note that the Stefan-Boltzmann law does NOT have a frequency component in it. ALL frequencies of light are considered at once as a combined total.

Now we get to the core circular argument itself, that Earth is somehow warming.

The trouble is, there is no way to measure the temperature of the Earth. This measurement, by it's very definition, is a statistical measurement. In other words, it is combining some number of thermometer readings into a statistical summary.

But statistical summaries require TWO values to be published, the average, and the margin of error value. It also requires the incoming data to be published and available for perusal. That data MUST be unbiased. It must be raw data. It cannot be cooked, since no statistical summary has been run yet, and one summary may differ from the next on the SAME DATASET.

The margin of error value is NOT calculated from the data, but from the possible variant of data. For Earth temperatures, that would result in how fast temperature changes per given distance, say, a mile.

Since temperature can vary as much as 20 deg F per mile quite easily (across weather fronts, mountain wave effects, different terrain features like lakes, forests, grasslands, bare soil, asphalt, concrete, class, metal, etc.) the end result is that the margin of error is greater than the highest and lowest temperatures ever recorded on Earth, so those become the margin of error. In other words, any such statistic is literally guessing.

Anyone that tries to tell you the temperature of the Earth, or that it's changing (requiring TWO measurements to measure the change), is ignoring statistical math and they are simply making up numbers. It does not matter if that is a government, a bunch of scientists, or an individual.

A similar problem lies with measuring global carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere. Further, there are very few stations (only one is consistently quoted by the Church of Global Warming, the Mauna Loa observatory on the Big Island of Hawaii), that are even capable of measuring CO2 at all. Again, the margin of error gets you again. The resulting summary is literally guessing.

Anyone telling you the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is making numbers up. It doesn't matter if it's a government agency, a bunch of scientists, or an individual.

Making numbers up and using them as 'data' like this is a fallacy, known as the argument from randU fallacy. A randU is a psuedo-random number that is made up in someone's head, or that came through an algorithm that came out of someone's head.

Note that 'climate prediction models' (or computer programs used to try to predict long term weather), are randU generators. They are no different from any cheap random number generator found in any computer that doesn't use actual random sources.

In other words, the entire set of scripture from the Church of Global Warming, which comes down to these simple arguments, ignores and denies science and mathematics.

It doesn't matter whether this preaching comes from a government agency, a bunch of scientists, or an individual.

Some of the various 'doomsday' scenarios are really coming from the Church of Green, discussed in another post.


The Earth is warming, has been since the ebb of the last ice age 20,000 years ago, you know this so why lie?

I don't know this. Neither do you. Why are you assuming this is true?


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
10-05-2022 01:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
duncan61 wrote:
ITN your interpretation of the laws of physics is not the same as mine.

There is no interpretation for the laws of physics. They simply are what they are. You are just denying them.
duncan61 wrote:
The sun provides the energy

Where is the additional energy coming from that is required to raise the temperature of Earth? How are you measuring the temperature of the Earth?
duncan61 wrote:
and the Earth is a living changing thing.

Meaningless.
duncan61 wrote:
The Atmosphere plays a role in the conditions.

None. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
duncan61 wrote:
If it changes everything changes.

No. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.
duncan61 wrote:
It is being greatly exaggerated to suit the agenda you mention.

Irrelevant. Zero is zero. NO gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
duncan61 wrote:
The go to comment of warmerzombies is I am not a scientist.

So, you say you are not a scientists. Fine.
duncan61 wrote:
I have run tests and have proven to myself that CO2 may radiate certain spectrums of light but it is zip on the big picture.

Light has no temperature.
duncan61 wrote:
Heat rises thats it

WRONG. Heat can travel in any direction, just so long as it is from hot to cold (concentrated energy to a relative void of energy). You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-05-2022 01:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
Swan wrote:
James_ wrote:
Swan wrote:

What old kingdom?



The Old Kingdom ended with the reigns of both Pepi I and his son Pepi II.
With Pharaohs like Ramses and Ra-Ramses (his son) this happened in more recent times.
The Old Kingdom built the pyramids. Egypt's time of greatest wealth was with Ramses and his son. This leads into the rise of Rome and the fall of Mesopotamia.
The world's climate change influenced civilizations. When Rome had its greatest influence, that was during a warming period just as what Egypt experienced.
It is kind of surprising that no one has written a book about how the changing climate has influenced the rise and fall of empires.

p.s., an FYI. There was a 100 year mega-drought that is associated with the
fall of the Old Kingdom and might be when the Sahara Desert went from grasslands to desert.


That is all nonsense because the egyptians did not have a true written language to write.

They did. You can see some of this writing on the walls of the tombs in their pyramids.
Swan wrote:
If they did then they would have written down how to build a pyramid and they could not do this. So try again

The did...enough to build better pyramids each time. None of those writings has survived the ages, as far as we know.


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
10-05-2022 01:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:That is all nonsense because the egyptians did not have a true written language to write.

... but each one could walk like an Egyptian.

Swan wrote: If they did then they would have written down how to build a pyramid and they could not do this. So try again

Space aliens built the pyramids. Space aliens build pyramids in their own image, which is how we know how space aliens appear.


Dumb jews pushing rocks built the pyramids


So you immediately think that slaves are dumb???? Bigotry.


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
10-05-2022 13:26
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2175)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Dumb jews pushing rocks built the pyramids

The smart ones simply rolled the rocks along. Much easier.

So you are saying that the slave jews that built the pyramids for their captors were smart?

Not logical in any way
10-05-2022 19:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Dumb jews pushing rocks built the pyramids

The smart ones simply rolled the rocks along. Much easier.

So you are saying that the slave jews that built the pyramids for their captors were smart?

Not logical in any way

So you immediately think that slaves are dumb???? Bigotry.


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
11-05-2022 04:03
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2175)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Dumb jews pushing rocks built the pyramids

The smart ones simply rolled the rocks along. Much easier.

So you are saying that the slave jews that built the pyramids for their captors were smart?

Not logical in any way

So you immediately think that slaves are dumb???? Bigotry.


Intelligence overcomes all obstacles and shackles, all the time. Einstein was intelligent and used this intelligence to leave.
11-05-2022 06:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Dumb jews pushing rocks built the pyramids

The smart ones simply rolled the rocks along. Much easier.

So you are saying that the slave jews that built the pyramids for their captors were smart?

Not logical in any way

So you immediately think that slaves are dumb???? Bigotry.


Intelligence overcomes all obstacles and shackles, all the time. Einstein was intelligent and used this intelligence to leave.


Random phrases. No apparent coherency. No argument presented.


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
11-05-2022 20:33
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2175)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Dumb jews pushing rocks built the pyramids

The smart ones simply rolled the rocks along. Much easier.

So you are saying that the slave jews that built the pyramids for their captors were smart?

Not logical in any way

So you immediately think that slaves are dumb???? Bigotry.


Intelligence overcomes all obstacles and shackles, all the time. Einstein was intelligent and used this intelligence to leave.


Random phrases. No apparent coherency. No argument presented.


Says a certified bird brain
12-05-2022 00:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
I find it interesting that NO one has produced a counter-argument to the OP. The thread quickly derailed and turned people throwing insults.

I guess no one from the Church of Global Warming even wants to deal with the issues brought up in the OP at all...a blatant denial of the laws of science I put there.
12-05-2022 00:31
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(3184)
Into the Night wrote:
I find it interesting that NO one has produced a counter-argument to the OP. The thread quickly derailed and turned people throwing insults.

I guess no one from the Church of Global Warming even wants to deal with the issues brought up in the OP at all...a blatant denial of the laws of science I put there.

I noticed that as well. They don't wish to discuss the science it seems.
12-05-2022 01:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19346)
gfm7175 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
I find it interesting that NO one has produced a counter-argument to the OP. The thread quickly derailed and turned people throwing insults.

I guess no one from the Church of Global Warming even wants to deal with the issues brought up in the OP at all...a blatant denial of the laws of science I put there.

I noticed that as well. They don't wish to discuss the science it seems.

It's because they deny and discard it. They can't cope with it.


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
12-05-2022 01:59
duncan61
★★★★★
(2003)
If you heat air it rises as it becomes less dense.The speed at which the air rises can be altered by the density of the air.It does not come back down or hide in the ocean
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Basic dogma:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Basic Physics509-05-2021 03:37
All Governments & Organizations Are Making A Critical Basic Mistake About Climate Change Global Warmi11806-02-2020 02:09
Forget New Green Deal, Let's make BIS(Basic Infrastructure And Service) Free.1215-01-2020 20:30
Just For A Laugh (The Dogma Quiz)630-09-2016 14:32
Basic arithmetic13424-09-2016 11:43
▲ 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 © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact