Remember me
▼ Content

Freeman Dyson



Page 1 of 212>
Freeman Dyson23-02-2020 04:29
duncan61
★★☆☆☆
(367)
This guy has it wired.I will try to list it correctly
.The climate modeling helps understand but can not predict anything correctly
.CO2 is good for the plant growth of the world and we need that for food
.CO2 does increase the planet temperature a tiny amount so what
.The sun activity is the biggest influence on Earths climate
he does agree there is more CO2 and the Earth has a warmed a little but the benefits outweigh the losses.I joined Skeptical science and asked about sea level and was moderated.Them dudes are fanatical.I went down the port again if the sea has risen 8 inches areas would be flooding .It aint happening people the high tide at bullcreek is still the same as it was when I was a child 50+ years ago its NASA trying to get more funding for their programs.In the 70s they were just about cut off
23-02-2020 04:46
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7059)
duncan61 wrote: This guy has it wired.I will try to list it correctly

Nope. He is mistaken and I'd love the opportunity to pick him apart if you could talk him into coming here to Climate-Debate.

duncan61 wrote: The climate modeling helps understand but can not predict anything correctly

There are no "Climate" models. Nobody has ever unambiguously defined "Climate" such that it can be modeled. Ergo, he is clearly a fraud. Did I mention that I'd love to have a go at him if you could bring him here to this site?

duncan61 wrote:CO2 does increase the planet temperature a tiny amount so what

Only the scientifically illiterate make this assertion. Those who are science savvy know that there is no science supporting that assertion and therefore do not make that claim.

duncan61 wrote:.The sun activity is the biggest influence on Earths climate

It's the ONLY one of any non-negligible effect.


duncan61 wrote: I joined Skeptical science and asked about sea level and was moderated.

That was your mistake. Skeptikal science is a collection of scientifically illiterate wannabees who form a big support group for morons.

You, on the other hand, are correct about sea level rise. There are many easy, simple, straightforward things that any rational adult can do to convince oneself that the ocean simply is not rising to any perceptible extent.


.


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
23-02-2020 05:19
duncan61
★★☆☆☆
(367)
Thank you for responding IBDM.have you seen his Interview.I got a lot out of it.I have to ask do you agree there is more CO2 because we burn fossil fuel.His and others point is it is a good thing.Climate models were being developed in the 60s the point is they are unreliable for anything except learning about climate.Nothing can predict the suns activity.Why do you disagree with everything.Can you share what you agree to regarding the climate.Bullet point would be nice if you just keep shooting every comment down its hard to follow your logic.Watch Freeman Dysons interview then point out what you disagree with regards Duncan
23-02-2020 06:38
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7059)
duncan61 wrote: Thank you for responding IBDM.have you seen his Interview.

I have. I am disappointed that he has decided to take advantage of people who are scientifically illiterate and trusting. He is a scheister.

duncan61 wrote: I have to ask do you agree there is more CO2 because we burn fossil fuel.

Please do not lose sight of the forest for the trees. If you are asking about beliefs then you are not discussing science.

Also, if you are using the term "fossil fuels" then you are advertising that you are a gullible tool. I tell you that with all due respect. Fossils don't burn. Nobody uses fossils as fuel. The term is used by Marxists to perpetuate fear that we will somehow run out ... and soon ... because there are no more dinosaurs. Marxists are trying to destroy capitalism and so they will always be trying to kill Big Energy.

The correct term for petroleum and natural gas is "hydrocarbons" and the earth makes them naturally from the abundance of carbon in the earth's crust and mantle, utilizing the heat and pressure therein to create them. We can synthesize hydrocarbons in a lab, but it is expensive to generate the required heat and pressure that the earth has in sufficient abundance to produce hydrocarbons in vast quantities. Our only difficulty is in knowing where the wells are being produced.

Regarding your question, I cannot find a single biologist that considers our current level of atmospheric CO2 to be anything other than dangerously low. Any rational adult can observe how plants thrive by high levels of additional CO2 being provided in greenhouses. There is no reason to believe that there is CO2 that we are putting into the atmosphere that isn't somehow being greedily absorbed by earth's plant-covered surface.

duncan61 wrote: His and others point is it is a good thing.

Additional CO2 is a very good thing for planetary plant life. Atmospheric CO2 does not alter earth's temperature.

duncan61 wrote:Climate models were being developed in the 60s

Nope. There has never been a Climate model because there has never been an unambiguous definition of Climate to model.

Yes, there have been computer PROGRAMS that have been called "climate models" and gullible people simply accept this without question, never demanding to see the underlying model that is supposedly being implemented by the computer program.

Take a moment to reflect and realize that you have never demanded to see any "climate model" and that you simply accept "results" and "conclusions" that you are handed based on the claim that they come from "a climate model."

I can tell you from personal experience the sheer disappointment you will feel the moment you start demanding to see the supposed "climate models" being used as the basis for any discussion. What I cannot do is adequately prepare you for the lameness of the excuses you will be handed should you ever decide to demand to see any such "climate models."

duncan61 wrote:Can you share what you agree to regarding the climate.

It is a WACKY religion. Are you smart enough to recognize a religion when it is right in front of you? What if that particular congregation assures you that their WACKY faith-based dogma is actually "settled science"? Would you be fooled?

duncan61 wrote: if you just keep shooting every comment down its hard to follow your logic.

I write clearly. If you cannot follow along then you need to work on your reading comprehension.

Global Warming, Climate Change and Greenhouse Effect are religious faiths and have nothing to do with science. You can expect me to shoot down EVERY claim of religion being science. Every single one. There is no "following along" that is required. You should be able to anticipate what I am going to write in each and every case.



.


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
23-02-2020 07:42
duncan61
★★☆☆☆
(367)
Cool answers brother may the force be with you.I feel all warm and fuzzy now.
23-02-2020 07:45
duncan61
★★☆☆☆
(367)
Rather than ask I looked up the meaning of Climate and found this.The weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.Its always changing
23-02-2020 07:54
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7059)
duncan61 wrote:
Rather than ask I looked up the meaning of Climate and found this.The weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.Its always changing


Does anything about that "meaning" cause any "bullshit!" flags to be raised in your mind?

Does anything about that insult your intelligence?



.


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
24-02-2020 03:55
duncan61
★★☆☆☆
(367)
Not at all I found it a good description I live in suburban Perth Western Australia and the weather here is wonderful we are moving into Autumn where we get sunny days in the 20s the wind stops howling and the sun loses the harsh bite of Summer.Even the winter is not that cold.Could you share what you disagree with the Freeman Mason interview
24-02-2020 03:56
duncan61
★★☆☆☆
(367)
Not at all I found it a good description I live in suburban Perth Western Australia and the weather here is wonderful we are moving into Autumn where we get sunny days in the 20s the wind stops howling and the sun loses the harsh bite of Summer.Even the winter is not that cold.Could you share what you disagree with the Freeman Mason interview
24-02-2020 05:45
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2062)
duncan61 wrote:
This guy has it wired.I will try to list it correctly
.The climate modeling helps understand but can not predict anything correctly
.CO2 is good for the plant growth of the world and we need that for food
.CO2 does increase the planet temperature a tiny amount so what
.The sun activity is the biggest influence on Earths climate
he does agree there is more CO2 and the Earth has a warmed a little but the benefits outweigh the losses.I joined Skeptical science and asked about sea level and was moderated.Them dudes are fanatical.I went down the port again if the sea has risen 8 inches areas would be flooding .It aint happening people the high tide at bullcreek is still the same as it was when I was a child 50+ years ago its NASA trying to get more funding for their programs.In the 70s they were just about cut off


President Obama ended the space shuttle program, and decide to award his friends, the Russians, millions of dollars, to be taxi service, everytime we send people to the space station. Cut NASA's budget substantially, since he had not plans of us sending up our own rockets. I'm sure the election meddling is part of that deal as well. Since Obama took NASA off space, he got them into climate change, since he could create a new agency without congressional approval. Fortunately, Trump re-funded NASA, and we are focused on space missions again. NASA should be slipping away from the climate BS, and doing, what they were intended to do.

Weather patterns change all the time, and there is plenty of historical records to back it up. Anything climate change, requires a computer program to show warming, or any other catastrophic effects. The computers only spit out what you instruct them to produce. Really bad science, not supported with physical data.

Aside from the economic impact, and messing with our energy use. I'm not a fan of them selecting CO2 to demonize. We desperately need CO2 to exist, as do all living things. Life is based on carbon molecules, every protein, enzyme, amino acid, contain carbon. We only get carbon from the foods we eat. Nothing eats coal, or drinks oil, to provide food. Plants are the only food, that actually pulls carbon out of the environment, and only from CO2. More CO2, makes for better plant growth, which is needed to feed a growing population, of all species on the planet. CO2 is just a trace gas, only makes up about 0.04% of the atmosphere, but it's crucial to life. Our adding to the CO2 is a good thing. Climate science doesn't want us to just stop, but the want to capture CO2, an sequester it. Basically reduce CO2, which is already not the plentiful.
24-02-2020 06:21
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7059)
Climate: The weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.Its always changing

I find it hard to believe that you read this didn't have several major problems.


duncan61 wrote: Not at all I found it a good description


Unfortunate. This definition encapsulates several contradictions that any eighth-grader should clue-in on immediately.

A climate is a subjective human characterization of local conditions, bounded by a time frame. For example, the summer, daytime (bounding timeframe) climate of Phoenix (locality) is very hot and arid (subjective human characterization).

... however, going by your definition, what is the prevailing global weather? You cannot have a global local. Also, there is no such thing as long-term weather. It's absurd to even include those words. Weather is random and weather is always changing, ergo there is no place for the phrase "long term."

.


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
24-02-2020 06:39
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7059)
duncan61 wrote: Could you share what you disagree with the Freeman Mason interview

Which one? YouTube has many and I have seen three.


Actually, I don't have a lot of time to just dedicate to watching videos. Could you summarize the main points and I'll give you problems therein.


Just remember this one thing: Scientists can be religious. Being so does not transform their religions into science.

If you are adopting Freeman Dyson's beliefs just because he is a scientist then the error is on your end.


.


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
24-02-2020 07:02
duncan61
★★☆☆☆
(367)
we can go one at a time is there more CO2 and is it more beneficial
24-02-2020 16:56
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(140)
IBdaMann wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
CO2 does increase the planet temperature a tiny amount so what


Only the scientifically illiterate make this assertion. Those who are science savvy know that there is no science supporting that assertion and therefore do not make that claim.


There's thousands upon thousands of Scientists who assert that CO2 in the atmosphere increases temperature. I agree with you that science is not consensual. However that's all the information I find from the foremost authorities who don't support the premise of AGW/CC.

I have been trying to do my homework to find others, besides yourself, that share the application of scientific principles in the same way that you have. However I have not been successful. Will you assist me by directing me to the writings of other scientists who have expressed the same scientific conclusion about the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere that you have?

Thank you.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
24-02-2020 18:40
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7059)
Harry C wrote: There's thousands upon thousands of Scientists who assert that CO2 in the atmosphere increases temperature.

Harry, this is a fallacy, one which apparently appeals strongly to you.

Scientists can be religious. Take a moment and let that soak in. When a scientist makes a religious claim, his is not using science as a basis for that claim but rather he is using his religious dogma. Take a moment and let that soak in as well.

It does not matter how many religious scientists claim that CO2 violates the laws of physics, they know that there is no science supporting their violations of science. They are merely professing their faith.

To date, despite all your research you have not discovered any science supporting Global Warming, Climate Change or Greenhouse Effect. None whatsoever. And you know you aren't going to find any because you well know that this is all religion.

Never in your life have you seen The Greenhouse Effect Formula, The Global Warming Equation or The Climate Function ... which you absolutely need in order to have science in these areas. I have explained to you in detail the contradictions and the science violations that underpin the beliefs expressed by warmizombies.

Harry C wrote: I agree with you that science is not consensual. However that's all the information I find from the foremost authorities who don't support the premise of AGW/CC.

Who are the supposed "foremost authorities" in this religion that makes their beliefs seem like science to you?

To this date I have not seen one single instance of you demanding ANY science whatsoever from ANYONE, yet every one of your posts assumes that magickal greenhouse gas can somehow generate energy in violation of thermodynamics. If you truly want to understand better then you need to get ahold of yourself and start demanding science instead of meekly begging for more religious dogma from believers.

Harry C wrote: However I have not been successful. Will you assist me by directing me to the writings of other scientists who have expressed the same scientific conclusion about the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere that you have?

No. I will not refer you to the opinions of anyone. Science is not subjective and is not determined by democratic vote.

I can't give you references to science that does not exist. There is no science supporting any of the above-mentioned religious faiths. This is why you are supposed to be demanding the science that scheisters claim form the basis for their beliefs. When they call you a "denier" just for asking, that should be all the answer you need. If they give you gibber-babble, bring it here and I'll either explain it to you or I will debunk it, whatever is appropriate.

Only science matters. Subjective opinions and beliefs walk.

.


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
24-02-2020 20:21
keepit
★★★★☆
(1523)
Harry C,
You ask who are the foremost authorities? Well, if any of them are here, let them tell us!
Edited on 24-02-2020 21:14
24-02-2020 21:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12785)
duncan61 wrote:
This guy has it wired.I will try to list it correctly

No, he doesn't. He denies science and mathematics. Specifically, he denies the 1st law of thermodynamics, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and the Stefan-Boltzmann law; and he denies statistical mathematics.
duncan61 wrote:
.The climate modeling helps understand but can not predict anything correctly

Climate has no 'model'. Climate is a subjective word that has no quantity associated with it, such as 'desert climate', or 'marine climate'.
duncan61 wrote:
.CO2 is good for the plant growth of the world and we need that for food

Works for me!

duncan61 wrote:
.CO2 does increase the planet temperature a tiny amount so what

Not possible. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing.
duncan61 wrote:
.The sun activity is the biggest influence on Earths climate

Correct.
duncan61 wrote:
he does agree there is more CO2 and the Earth has a warmed a little

Not possible. You can't create energy out of nothing.
duncan61 wrote:
but the benefits outweigh the losses.I joined Skeptical science and asked about sea level and was moderated.Them dudes are fanatical.I went down the port again if the sea has risen 8 inches areas would be flooding .It aint happening people the high tide at bullcreek is still the same as it was when I was a child 50+ years ago its NASA trying to get more funding for their programs.In the 70s they were just about cut off

It is not possible to measure the global sea level. There is no valid reference point. Land moves, you see.


The Parrot Killer
24-02-2020 21:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12785)
duncan61 wrote:
Thank you for responding IBDM.have you seen his Interview.I got a lot out of it.I have to ask do you agree there is more CO2 because we burn fossil fuel.

We don't burn fossils for fuel. Fossils don't burn. Burning carbon based fuels does result in CO2. Not a problem.
duncan61 wrote:
His and others point is it is a good thing.

Especially if you like plants.
duncan61 wrote:
Climate models were being developed in the 60s the point is they are unreliable for anything except learning about climate.

Not possible. Climate has no quantity. It is subjective word. There is nothing to model.
duncan61 wrote:
Nothing can predict the suns activity.

We can predict its overall future. We know around when it will probably die and how, for example. We cannot predict any detail. It has, however, been a remarkably stable star.
duncan61 wrote:
Why do you disagree with everything.

He doesn't. Neither do I. For example, we all agree that CO2 is useful for plant life.
duncan61 wrote:
Can you share what you agree to regarding the climate.

Nothing much to share. There are descriptions like 'desert climate', 'mountaintop climate', 'marine climate', 'profitable climate', 'impoverished climate', 'arctic climate', etc. Climate has no quantity associated with it, not even for a 'hot climate'.
duncan61 wrote:
Bullet point would be nice if you just keep shooting every comment down its hard to follow your logic.

It really comes down to three theories of science. In equation form, they are:

E(t)=E(t+1)+U (1st law of thermodynamics)
'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work. Essentially, it shows that energy cannot be created or destroyed. (work is force * distance).

e(t+1)>=e(t) (2nd law of thermodynamics)
'e' is entropy (the randomness of something, or in this case the dispersion of energy) and 't' is time. This equation applies to any closed system (you choose the boundaries of that system, but they must remain consistent). A common error here is to compare two different systems as if they were the same system. Yes, the entire observable universe is a closed system.

r = C*e*t^4 (Stefan-Boltzmann law)
'r' is radiance per given surface area (usually watts/square meter),
'C' is a natural constant (essentially converting the relation to our units of measurement),
'e' is emissivity, or how well a surface radiates light at a given temperature, compared to an ideal black body of the same temperature. All frequencies of light are considered. This is a measured constant.
't' is temperature, in deg K.

To warm the Earth, a source of energy is needed. We have the sun, but assuming it puts out a constant stream of energy, Earth will reach a certain temperature and stay there. At that point absorbed energy = radiated energy. The only way to warm Earth is to increase the energy. CO2 is not a source of energy. No gas or vapor is a source of energy (unless you burn it!).

* CO2 cannot increase the temperature of the Earth by creating the additional energy required.
* CO2 cannot increase the temperature at the surface by making the upper atmosphere colder. You cannot decrease entropy in any system.
* CO2 cannot prevent light from being radiated from Earth. If, for some reason, Earth is warmer, radiance (the amount of energy lost from Earth) MUST go up.

CO2 cannot warm the Earth, not even by a tiny bit. It is simply not possible according to the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

duncan61 wrote:
Watch Freeman Dysons interview then point out what you disagree with regards Duncan

We don't bother to argue against people that aren't here. I will point out, however, that the arguments you are bringing here (from whatever source) can be dealt with here.


The Parrot Killer
24-02-2020 21:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12785)
duncan61 wrote:
Rather than ask I looked up the meaning of Climate and found this.The weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.Its always changing


No quantity listed here. What is changing?

If a desert becomes a sea, is that a desert climate changing to a marine climate? No. There is still a desert climate, and there is still a marine climate. All that's changed is the desert itself. Climate hasn't changed, since there is no quantity to change.


The Parrot Killer
24-02-2020 22:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12785)
duncan61 wrote:
we can go one at a time is there more CO2 and is it more beneficial


To a point. If there is no free oxygen, we will definitely have problems.

Plants use CO2 and water to make carbohydrates...plant food (and food for us too!). The reaction releases free oxygen, destroying both the water and the CO2.

We inhale oxygen and exhale CO2. So do other animals. You might say it's a symbiotic relationship between animals and plants.

Then there is fire.

Fire can be beneficial, or can be devastating. If it is the oxidation of a carbon based fuel, the result is CO2. Many carbon based fuels also have hydrogen (such as a hydrocarbon). If we burn those, we also get water.

The extra CO2 and water is beneficial for plants.


The Parrot Killer
25-02-2020 00:49
duncan61
★★☆☆☆
(367)
Thanks ITN that has cleared up a lot of my concerns which is why I came to this site.
25-02-2020 01:01
duncan61
★★☆☆☆
(367)
This was the definition I found [the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period].The changing part was my own.Is there a better description out there.I am interested.It is quite surprising how many people ask my view on this topic and it is good to have some knowledge
25-02-2020 02:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12785)
duncan61 wrote:
Thanks ITN that has cleared up a lot of my concerns which is why I came to this site.

Excellent. Glad I could help.



The Parrot Killer
25-02-2020 03:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12785)
duncan61 wrote:
This was the definition I found [the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period].The changing part was my own.Is there a better description out there.I am interested.It is quite surprising how many people ask my view on this topic and it is good to have some knowledge


There are several dictionaries that tend to use this example of the meaning of the word. Of course, no dictionary owns any word and is not the authoritative reference of any word, but I have seen this example of use in several dictionaries.

It kind of fits. A desert climate, for example, describes a prevailing dry weather pattern in the area, though not necessarily a hot one. A marine climate describes a prevailing weather pattern influenced by a nearby sea or ocean.

There is, however, no quantity associated with any such descriptions. So there is nothing that changes. A desert climate is still a desert climate, a marine climate is still a marine climate, even though actual deserts may come and go and seas may change or dry up.

There is no such thing as a global climate, since there is no such thing as a global weather.

When people use the buzzword 'climate change', they are generally trying to describe 'global warming', which is also an undefined buzzword. At least temperature is a quantity, but what is undefined is the starting and ending points of the 'warming', why those two points in time are significant, and why no other two points in time are significant.

Even worse, it is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. We simply don't have enough thermometers. Temperatures on the surface can vary as much as 20 deg F per mile.


The Parrot Killer
25-02-2020 03:21
duncan61
★★☆☆☆
(367)
I feel like a light has come on now I need to find out why we are being duped.
25-02-2020 04:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12785)
duncan61 wrote:
I feel like a light has come on now I need to find out why we are being duped.

Congratulations! You have stepped into the freedom of realizing something is wrong with the whole 'climate change' religion.


Now to why:

There are two economic systems in conflict with each other today. One system is simply the freedom (and responsibility) of going out and producing your own goods, creating your own inventions, and providing products and services for your own customers that you have to find. It is this system that created civilization out of the jungle. It is called 'capitalism'. It is the only system that creates wealth. It is, for example, what created the computer, then took the computer out of the giant machine room and put it on your desk. It is the invention of the Arduino and the Raspberry PI, and the entire 'maker' hobby. It is what created the Roomba, the Alexa service, and Linux, and Windows, and the Mac. It created the automobile, and turned it into the modern computerized machine that it is today. It is what created the modern electric car.

The other system steals wealth and gives it to 'others' (themselves) by use of government power. This is called 'socialism'. It comes in two major forms:

In the early form: government dictates what a company can sell, who it can sell it to, how much they can charge, where they have to buy their raw materials from, what they must buy, and in general are operated by the government either partially or fully, despite it being a private company. This form is called 'fascism'.

In the later form: government owns the companies outright. They just come out and take what you created from you in outright theft. This is called 'communism'. Both forms of socialism can only exist under an oligarchy or dictatorship, since people naturally resist the theft of their wealth.

Socialism is alive and well. Elements of it exist in the United States, Canada, the UK, France, Germany, etc. In the United States, each place it exists violates the Constitution of the United States.

Karl Marx was a socialist. He wanted to put down business owners and give it to the oppressed masses. He saw the business owners as inherently evil, even though they were coming up with cheaper products, better products, and new products that never existed before.

Marxism is alive and well today. There is even a religion worshiping the guy and his views. They are called 'Marxists'. I call it the Church of Karl Marx. You can see this man's views in the Communist Manifesto. Today, you can see this same line of thought among the Democratic Parties contenders for the presidency.

The Church of Global Warming is designed to put down big corporate. It is designed to look like a major panic to hasten the goal. Everything about it is to attack corporations and businesses and the energy they use.

The Church of Global Warming stems from the Church of Green (the eco-wacko stuff designed to punish businesses and corporations the same way).

The Church of Green stems from the Church of Karl Marx. That stem took place in the 60's and spread through the college campuses. It is the humanities departments in these universities that keep the flame of Marxism alive.

Thus, the Church of Global Warming's goal is to place government control on all businesses and corporations, shutting down their ability to produce. It is to punish the businessman.

This religion is also fundamentalist in nature. Despite existing theories of science against it, an despite the mathematics against it, the religion just pushes the same dogma over and over. It's goals have not changed.

Today, Democratic candidates for the presidency advocate:
* the confiscation of all guns. The banning of all guns. Only the 'elite' will be allowed to have guns.
* the confiscation, in the name of religion, the energy required to run businesses.
* absolute control over your health by nationalizing the health care system. Remember, these are the same people that can't figure out who won in Iowa.
* the absolute control over businesses (for the 'betterment of all').
* the imprisoning of dissident opinions and groups.
* racism.
* bigotry.
* confiscation of your wealth to pay for their 'free' programs such as 'free' medical care, 'free' college tuition, a chicken in every pot, etc. That confiscation will come in the form of inflating the dollar (cheapening what you own with it), or in direct taxes, depending on the candidate.
* open borders, essentially discarding the identity of the United States as a nation.
* bigger government, and socialism.
* hatred of capitalism or anything to do with it, such as Trump.

The 'green revolution' advocated by these people is the institution of the Church of Global Warming and the Church of Green as the state religions (thus implementing the Church of Karl Marx as a state religion along with it).

This is the reason behind it all.

On the one hand, choice. Choice to become what you want, to build a business that you want, to bring the about your own destiny by your own hand.

On the other, compulsion. No choice. A prison without bars, without cells, and without locks. A prison made up of the 'impoverished masses', controlled absolutely by the government, with guards (some in secret, you don't know who they are!), watching every aspect of your life.

It's a battle that has gone on through the millennia. Each generation must fight it. The United States is at a crossroads. Which way will it turn? Will it abandon a federated republic form of government and its constitutions, or will it move back towards them?


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 25-02-2020 04:14
25-02-2020 04:14
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2062)
duncan61 wrote:
I feel like a light has come on now I need to find out why we are being duped.


Money, power, control. Cheap and plentiful energy comes out of the ground, ready to use, with little processing. Cheap and easy to store and transport. None of the alternatives or 'renewables' come anywhere close to competing. Most of our machinery is based on cheap, plentiful energy.

We are a world dependent on energy the days, and those that control it, control pretty much everything else. Solar panels and windmill aren't that useful, and limited life span 10-20 years, at best, and need backup generation. Coal and oil will still be cheap and plentiful, but the carbon-tax will make it costly. Least, that's the dream. Fortunately, most people resist the carbon-tax, and most countries are having a tough time selling it. People already are getting stuck paying too much tax, and aren't willing to give up anymore, specially not a huge tax.
25-02-2020 05:29
keepit
★★★★☆
(1523)
ITN,
I took out my ruler and tried to measure the veracity of all those claims and couldn't get any accurate measurements.
A couple of facts i want to relate. I would say that virtually all of the medicare users in this country are happy with their plan and wouldn't want to change it. Also, the govt pays for at least 52% of medical costs in the US and that figure came about before Obamacare came about Pretty sure the number now is higher than 52%.

Secret guards watching every aspect of our life. Hmmm. That's a lot of guards. I don't think they can keep up. That would be 3 guards for every person if they each worked 8 hr shift 7 days a week. That's a lot more guards than people. And who would guard the guards?
Get real. (Just a suggestion, not an ORDER).
Edited on 25-02-2020 05:37
25-02-2020 07:54
duncan61
★★☆☆☆
(367)
All the information ITN shared and you are hung up on secret guards and medicare.Can you weigh in with any thing else
25-02-2020 07:57
keepit
★★★★☆
(1523)
No. I don't want to be too obnoxious. ITN knows so much science and technology it just surprises me when he says things that don't make sense.
25-02-2020 10:38
duncan61
★★☆☆☆
(367)
On the other, compulsion. No choice. A prison without bars, without cells, and without locks. A prison made up of the 'impoverished masses', controlled absolutely by the government, with guards (some in secret, you don't know who they are!), watching every aspect of your life.

I met a very pleasant lady who lived in East Germany after the war[DDR] and it was just like that .The other sicko place I have been was Brunei where we were stuck for half a day.The staff look over their shoulder when talking to you and they are not allowed to drink coke or go dancing because the Sultan said so.
25-02-2020 18:08
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(140)
IBdaMann wrote:
Harry C wrote: There's thousands upon thousands of Scientists who assert that CO2 in the atmosphere increases temperature.

Harry, this is a fallacy, one which apparently appeals strongly to you.

Scientists can be religious. Take a moment and let that soak in. When a scientist makes a religious claim, his is not using science as a basis for that claim but rather he is using his religious dogma. Take a moment and let that soak in as well.

It does not matter how many religious scientists claim that CO2 violates the laws of physics, they know that there is no science supporting their violations of science. They are merely professing their faith.

To date, despite all your research you have not discovered any science supporting Global Warming, Climate Change or Greenhouse Effect. None whatsoever. And you know you aren't going to find any because you well know that this is all religion.

Never in your life have you seen The Greenhouse Effect Formula, The Global Warming Equation or The Climate Function ... which you absolutely need in order to have science in these areas. I have explained to you in detail the contradictions and the science violations that underpin the beliefs expressed by warmizombies.

Harry C wrote: I agree with you that science is not consensual. However that's all the information I find from the foremost authorities who don't support the premise of AGW/CC.

Who are the supposed "foremost authorities" in this religion that makes their beliefs seem like science to you?

To this date I have not seen one single instance of you demanding ANY science whatsoever from ANYONE, yet every one of your posts assumes that magickal greenhouse gas can somehow generate energy in violation of thermodynamics. If you truly want to understand better then you need to get ahold of yourself and start demanding science instead of meekly begging for more religious dogma from believers.

Harry C wrote: However I have not been successful. Will you assist me by directing me to the writings of other scientists who have expressed the same scientific conclusion about the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere that you have?

No. I will not refer you to the opinions of anyone. Science is not subjective and is not determined by democratic vote.

I can't give you references to science that does not exist. There is no science supporting any of the above-mentioned religious faiths. This is why you are supposed to be demanding the science that scheisters claim form the basis for their beliefs. When they call you a "denier" just for asking, that should be all the answer you need. If they give you gibber-babble, bring it here and I'll either explain it to you or I will debunk it, whatever is appropriate.

Only science matters. Subjective opinions and beliefs walk.

.


I did not post anything affirmative about CO2's "magikal" abilities. I was agreeable to your known stated position about consensus. I was polite and sincere in my question. I made no assertion to science being subjective. I didn't ask for an "opinion". And I have asked repeatedly about the science.

I want to read any mainstream scientist that shares your view of the scientific conclusion. It is so earth-shatteringly simple that I can not for the life of me understand why the debate continues. I don't know why you have to get your knickers twisted about providing a resource, unless you don't know or can't produce it.

As much as I want to understand what you write is true and agree, I can't and won't just take your word for it. There must be some other factor at play in this equation. Something does not add up if you think you are the only person in the world that holds the answer. So, I'll keep searching...

I enjoy the writings and videos of:
Fred Singer
Roy Spencer
Richard Linzen
Tim Ball
Judith Curry
Freeman Dyson
Bill Gray
Patrick Moore
William Happer

So, in my quest I found and read through this: https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/E&E_21_4_2010_08-miskolczi.pdf from Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi. He refers to a "greenhouse constant" which is the total infrared optical thickness of the atmosphere, and its theoretical value is 1.87.

If there has been global warming due to any cause, its possible correlation with infrared absorption properties of the atmosphere will be directly apparent from accurate observations assessed by calculations of the absorption properties. The present results show an apparent warming associated with no apparent change in the absorption properties. Change in absorption properties cannot have been the cause of the warming.


The significance of his report to me was that he was using empirical data to reconcile temperature change as construed by the alarmists.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
25-02-2020 18:58
keepit
★★★★☆
(1523)
Harry C,
How can there be no change in the"absorbtion properties"?
I didn't read the article but from what you said there are absorbtion properties. If the CO2 has gone up (we've burned a lot of fossil fuels) how can that not change the total absorbtion of infrared.
25-02-2020 20:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12785)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
...deleted Mantras 23...10 (fact<->universal Truth)...
I would say that virtually all of the medicare users in this country are happy with their plan and wouldn't want to change it....deleted Mantras 25e...

Irrelevant. Medicare is unconstitutional. Obamacare is unconstitutional. Nothing in the Constitution of the United States authorizes the creation of either of these programs.
keepit wrote:
Secret guards watching every aspect of our life. Hmmm. That's a lot of guards. I don't think they can keep up. That would be 3 guards for every person if they each worked 8 hr shift 7 days a week. That's a lot more guards than people. And who would guard the guards?
Get real. (Just a suggestion, not an ORDER).

Which is part of why such dictatorships eventually fail. The other reason is they run out of people to steal from.


The Parrot Killer
25-02-2020 20:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12785)
keepit wrote:
No. I don't want to be too obnoxious. ITN knows so much science and technology it just surprises me when he says things that don't make sense.

You are not making sense. You are also being obnoxious.


The Parrot Killer
25-02-2020 20:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12785)
duncan61 wrote:
On the other, compulsion. No choice. A prison without bars, without cells, and without locks. A prison made up of the 'impoverished masses', controlled absolutely by the government, with guards (some in secret, you don't know who they are!), watching every aspect of your life.

I met a very pleasant lady who lived in East Germany after the war[DDR] and it was just like that .The other sicko place I have been was Brunei where we were stuck for half a day.The staff look over their shoulder when talking to you and they are not allowed to drink coke or go dancing because the Sultan said so.


To a certain degree, they have this problem in Mexico as well. It's the corruption and the drug cartels that run things there. It's no wonder Mexicans want to get into the United States so badly.


The Parrot Killer
25-02-2020 20:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12785)
Harry C wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Harry C wrote: There's thousands upon thousands of Scientists who assert that CO2 in the atmosphere increases temperature.

Harry, this is a fallacy, one which apparently appeals strongly to you.

Scientists can be religious. Take a moment and let that soak in. When a scientist makes a religious claim, his is not using science as a basis for that claim but rather he is using his religious dogma. Take a moment and let that soak in as well.

It does not matter how many religious scientists claim that CO2 violates the laws of physics, they know that there is no science supporting their violations of science. They are merely professing their faith.

To date, despite all your research you have not discovered any science supporting Global Warming, Climate Change or Greenhouse Effect. None whatsoever. And you know you aren't going to find any because you well know that this is all religion.

Never in your life have you seen The Greenhouse Effect Formula, The Global Warming Equation or The Climate Function ... which you absolutely need in order to have science in these areas. I have explained to you in detail the contradictions and the science violations that underpin the beliefs expressed by warmizombies.

Harry C wrote: I agree with you that science is not consensual. However that's all the information I find from the foremost authorities who don't support the premise of AGW/CC.

Who are the supposed "foremost authorities" in this religion that makes their beliefs seem like science to you?

To this date I have not seen one single instance of you demanding ANY science whatsoever from ANYONE, yet every one of your posts assumes that magickal greenhouse gas can somehow generate energy in violation of thermodynamics. If you truly want to understand better then you need to get ahold of yourself and start demanding science instead of meekly begging for more religious dogma from believers.

Harry C wrote: However I have not been successful. Will you assist me by directing me to the writings of other scientists who have expressed the same scientific conclusion about the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere that you have?

No. I will not refer you to the opinions of anyone. Science is not subjective and is not determined by democratic vote.

I can't give you references to science that does not exist. There is no science supporting any of the above-mentioned religious faiths. This is why you are supposed to be demanding the science that scheisters claim form the basis for their beliefs. When they call you a "denier" just for asking, that should be all the answer you need. If they give you gibber-babble, bring it here and I'll either explain it to you or I will debunk it, whatever is appropriate.

Only science matters. Subjective opinions and beliefs walk.

.


I did not post anything affirmative about CO2's "magikal" abilities. I was agreeable to your known stated position about consensus. I was polite and sincere in my question. I made no assertion to science being subjective. I didn't ask for an "opinion". And I have asked repeatedly about the science.

I want to read any mainstream scientist that shares your view of the scientific conclusion. It is so earth-shatteringly simple that I can not for the life of me understand why the debate continues. I don't know why you have to get your knickers twisted about providing a resource, unless you don't know or can't produce it.

As much as I want to understand what you write is true and agree, I can't and won't just take your word for it. There must be some other factor at play in this equation. Something does not add up if you think you are the only person in the world that holds the answer. So, I'll keep searching...

I enjoy the writings and videos of:
Fred Singer
Roy Spencer
Richard Linzen
Tim Ball
Judith Curry
Freeman Dyson
Bill Gray
Patrick Moore
William Happer

So, in my quest I found and read through this: https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/E&E_21_4_2010_08-miskolczi.pdf from Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi. He refers to a "greenhouse constant" which is the total infrared optical thickness of the atmosphere, and its theoretical value is 1.87.

If there has been global warming due to any cause, its possible correlation with infrared absorption properties of the atmosphere will be directly apparent from accurate observations assessed by calculations of the absorption properties. The present results show an apparent warming associated with no apparent change in the absorption properties. Change in absorption properties cannot have been the cause of the warming.


The significance of his report to me was that he was using empirical data to reconcile temperature change as construed by the alarmists.


It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Anyone that tells you they know the temperature of the Earth is lying. There is no empirical data.

It's not about what someone wrote. It's about the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and about the mathematics.

* It is not possible for any gas or vapor to warm the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing.
* It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, the global sea level, the total amount of ice and snow on Earth, the global atmospheric CO2 content, the amount of sunlight absorbed by Earth, the amount of sunlight converted to thermal energy, the amount of vegetation on Earth, the total population of polar bears, or the source of any CO2. Anyone that tells you they have any of these values is ignoring the demands of statistical mathematics. They are giving you literally random numbers.


The Parrot Killer
25-02-2020 20:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12785)
keepit wrote:
Harry C,
How can there be no change in the"absorbtion properties"?
I didn't read the article but from what you said there are absorbtion properties. If the CO2 has gone up (we've burned a lot of fossil fuels) how can that not change the total absorbtion of infrared.


Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel. No gas or vapor can warm the Earth.


The Parrot Killer
25-02-2020 23:27
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7059)
Harry C wrote: And I have asked repeatedly about the science.

You are not fooling me. You have been indoctinated and you are pursuing a justification for your beliefs ... which you don't want to come right out and state.

One giveaway is in your quote above. It's just one small word but it is very revealing. Science is science ... but when you talk about "The Science" then you are not talking about any science but only about the religious dogma you are pursuing.

Harry C wrote: I want to read any mainstream scientist that shares your view of the scientific conclusion.

Once again, science is science. The modifier "mainstream" applies to religions. Obviously there is no such thing as "mainstream" science ... there is only science. Ergo, you give yourself away.

Harry C wrote: I don't know why you have to get your knickers twisted about providing a resource, unless you don't know or can't produce it.

I could respond in one of two ways:

1) You are an absolutely clueless moron; how does one provide a reference for something that doesn't exist?

... or ...

2) Sure, right after you provide me a peer-reviewed reference from any PhD of your choice explaining why the jixiilinythemis' wibbis never chisslets over the zellevince. Surely you won't get your knickers twisted at such a simple request, right?

Harry C wrote: As much as I want to understand what you write is true and agree, I can't and won't just take your word for it.

Here is where you reveal your true dumbass nature. I haven't stated any position for you to accept. I have offered no position. I have made no claims. I have nothing to defend or to support. What position do you think I have beyond ... well, ... science? ... math perhaps?

You are the one preaching your stupid religion, under the guise of "just trying to do some research." You have been pushing your violations of physics under the pretense that you are of the "skeptic" denomination ... but you are a warmizombie through and through. Cut the facade. You are not looking for any science. You are looking for validation of your beliefs.

... and you are dishonest. You're not fooling me.

Harry C wrote: There must be some other factor at play in this equation. Something does not add up if you think you are the only person in the world that holds the answer. So, I'll keep searching...

At least you admit to turning to religion for answers to your spiritual questions, although I do appreciate the tmiddles'-style assignment of a bogus position to me.

Anyway, you're a dishonest dumbass and from now on I'm going to just have fun with your posts.

Harry C wrote:
I enjoy the writings and videos of:
Fred Singer
Roy Spencer
Richard Linzen
Tim Ball
Judith Curry
Freeman Dyson
Bill Gray
Patrick Moore
William Happer

The cult of personality, those who tell you what you want to hear.

Harry C wrote: which is the total infrared optical thickness of the atmosphere, and its theoretical value is 1.87.

Total? For the entire atmosphere? Is this "what we know"? I notice that you didn't include any margin of error so I presume that you are declaring omniscience. In any event, did you bother to ask what knowing this number gets you? ... or is this just holy sacred dogma that you are expected to preach but is otherwise of no practical value?

Harry C quoted:If there has been global warming due to any cause, its possible correlation with infrared absorption properties of the atmosphere will be directly apparent from accurate observations assessed by calculations of the absorption properties. The present results show an apparent warming associated with no apparent change in the absorption properties. Change in absorption properties cannot have been the cause of the warming.

Great. Tell me what this means. Does this make you smarter?

... *OR* is this pure drivel-babble targetting the absolutely stupid who will eagerly embrace it and regurgitate it on Climate-Debate and other sites because they are mesmerized by what they hope is something profound?

Harry C wrote:The significance of his report to me was that he was using empirical data to reconcile temperature change as construed by the alarmists.

Of course you demanded to see the raw empirical data, yes? ... so you could post it on Climate-Debate and get the input from others, yes?


.


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
26-02-2020 06:09
Harry CProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(140)
IBdaMann wrote:
Harry C wrote: And I have asked repeatedly about the science.

You are not fooling me. You have been indoctinated and you are pursuing a justification for your beliefs ... which you don't want to come right out and state.

One giveaway is in your quote above. It's just one small word but it is very revealing. Science is science ... but when you talk about "The Science" then you are not talking about any science but only about the religious dogma you are pursuing.

Harry C wrote: I want to read any mainstream scientist that shares your view of the scientific conclusion.

Once again, science is science. The modifier "mainstream" applies to religions. Obviously there is no such thing as "mainstream" science ... there is only science. Ergo, you give yourself away.

Harry C wrote: I don't know why you have to get your knickers twisted about providing a resource, unless you don't know or can't produce it.

I could respond in one of two ways:

1) You are an absolutely clueless moron; how does one provide a reference for something that doesn't exist?

... or ...

2) Sure, right after you provide me a peer-reviewed reference from any PhD of your choice explaining why the jixiilinythemis' wibbis never chisslets over the zellevince. Surely you won't get your knickers twisted at such a simple request, right?

Harry C wrote: As much as I want to understand what you write is true and agree, I can't and won't just take your word for it.

Here is where you reveal your true dumbass nature. I haven't stated any position for you to accept. I have offered no position. I have made no claims. I have nothing to defend or to support. What position do you think I have beyond ... well, ... science? ... math perhaps?

You are the one preaching your stupid religion, under the guise of "just trying to do some research." You have been pushing your violations of physics under the pretense that you are of the "skeptic" denomination ... but you are a warmizombie through and through. Cut the facade. You are not looking for any science. You are looking for validation of your beliefs.

... and you are dishonest. You're not fooling me.

Harry C wrote: There must be some other factor at play in this equation. Something does not add up if you think you are the only person in the world that holds the answer. So, I'll keep searching...

At least you admit to turning to religion for answers to your spiritual questions, although I do appreciate the tmiddles'-style assignment of a bogus position to me.

Anyway, you're a dishonest dumbass and from now on I'm going to just have fun with your posts.

Harry C wrote:
I enjoy the writings and videos of:
Fred Singer
Roy Spencer
Richard Linzen
Tim Ball
Judith Curry
Freeman Dyson
Bill Gray
Patrick Moore
William Happer

The cult of personality, those who tell you what you want to hear.

Harry C wrote: which is the total infrared optical thickness of the atmosphere, and its theoretical value is 1.87.

Total? For the entire atmosphere? Is this "what we know"? I notice that you didn't include any margin of error so I presume that you are declaring omniscience. In any event, did you bother to ask what knowing this number gets you? ... or is this just holy sacred dogma that you are expected to preach but is otherwise of no practical value?

Harry C quoted:If there has been global warming due to any cause, its possible correlation with infrared absorption properties of the atmosphere will be directly apparent from accurate observations assessed by calculations of the absorption properties. The present results show an apparent warming associated with no apparent change in the absorption properties. Change in absorption properties cannot have been the cause of the warming.

Great. Tell me what this means. Does this make you smarter?

... *OR* is this pure drivel-babble targetting the absolutely stupid who will eagerly embrace it and regurgitate it on Climate-Debate and other sites because they are mesmerized by what they hope is something profound?

Harry C wrote:The significance of his report to me was that he was using empirical data to reconcile temperature change as construed by the alarmists.

Of course you demanded to see the raw empirical data, yes? ... so you could post it on Climate-Debate and get the input from others, yes?


.


You've got some paranoid tendencies. You don't know who or what I am. However I have been transparent and totally sincere. I have respected you because of your knowledge but you have done nothing but ridicule me. Why don't you put yourself out and give some space without trying to guess what I am and where I'm going?

As to my word choice in the first quote, it was in direct response to what you wrote. You wrote "science" and I replied with the same word. There's no Russian in my response.

Second quote I said "mainstream scientist". I did not say "mainstream science" which is what you ridiculed.

Talk about dishonest, I can't believe you have the audacity to state:
I haven't stated any position for you to accept. I have offered no position. I have made no claims.
. You have stated positions and claims. I don't doubt the science. It's the full application of scientific principles and exclusion of other science that I object to. You cannot say with certainty that there is no other "science" applicable. Science is without prejudice and you are not. I'm not fooling you because I'm not trying to but don't really care what you think about me. I'm trying to answer a question in terms that I can repeat.

You cannot cite one post of mine where I have assigned any allegiance to the Church of Global Warming.

You go right ahead and have your fun with my posts. I'll just ignore you as a legitimate source of information in the future. I've got no rep to protect here. I can disappear as easily as anyone else you have run off of this board. It's a damn shame for the owner to let you squat here and quell what could be good discussions.

The peak of your dishonesty is to attribute quotes to me that I had quoted from other people to ridicule me. I can't answer those question and you know or should have known that.

I don't know who you are performing for but it is sad. I suggest you just ignore me since it upsets you so badly.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
Edited on 26-02-2020 06:13
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Freeman Dyson:

Remember me

▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact