Remember me
▼ Content

Hilarious Strawmen by the Deniers



Page 1 of 3123>
Hilarious Strawmen by the Deniers19-09-2016 06:05
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IB: "The warmizombies have a truly murderous/suicidal dogma that mandates that CO2, essential for life, is an evil pollution and poison and should be removed from all environments.

What morons."


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
19-09-2016 21:50
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Just to clarify;

There is just the one denier. Ibedadenier.

There are some skeptics of various levels of scientific understanding.

Edited on 19-09-2016 21:50
20-09-2016 00:29
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
I will agree that you're better than IB, though that does not in itself say much. It's like saying that President Richardson is better than Hitler.

I realize that IB speaks for no one but himself.
Edited on 20-09-2016 00:30
27-09-2016 16:56
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
jwoodward48 wrote: I will agree that you're better than IB,

That is too funny!

jwoodward48 wrote: I realize that IB speaks for no one but himself.

I appreciate that acknowledgement.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
27-09-2016 19:54
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Okay, the Hitler reference was uncalled for. But that is one hell of a Strawman.
30-09-2016 00:21
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Okay, the Hitler reference was uncalled for. But that is one hell of a Strawman.

One of these days we should discuss what you mean by "straw man."


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
30-09-2016 02:35
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
I don't want CO2 to be completely removed from the atmosphere. Nobody does. You say that warmists want that. They do not. You are fighting a straw man.
30-09-2016 03:01
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
jwoodward48 wrote:I don't want CO2 to be completely removed from the atmosphere. Nobody does.

Sorry, you don't get to speak for others.

I have have the serious displeasure of debating warmizombies who seriously believe CO2 is pollution, poison and generally bad stuff that needs to be cleaned out of our environment and sucked out of our atmosphere once technically feasible.

jwoodward48 wrote: You say that warmists want that. They do not. You are fighting a straw man.

Are you offering to take over for me when I run into those types?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
30-09-2016 15:38
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Some people are very, very stupid. They don't speak for the general population any more than I do. In fact, quite less than I do.
01-10-2016 03:24
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
jwoodward48 wrote:Some people are very, very stupid. They don't speak for the general population any more than I do. In fact, quite less than I do.

When the warmiweasels start with the "CO2 is pollution" crap then I expect you to follow through with that sentiment.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
01-10-2016 23:34
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Again, some things can be pollution at higher concentrations and necessary at some level. I need oxygen. I will die if I have too much or too little oxygen.
02-10-2016 04:28
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Again, some things can be pollution at higher concentrations and necessary at some level. I need oxygen. I will die if I have too much or too little oxygen.

Sorry. That's typical warmiweaseling and your defense of it is disappointing.

Things that are poisons and things that are pollution are so independent of quantity.

Since every substance is fatal if one has too much of it, warmiweasels would have us classify everything as poison and as pollution, to include oxygen, nitrogen, water, CO2, pizza, apple pie and ice cream ... just to get their dogma's demon, i.e. CO2, classified as poison, pollution and every other negative connotation just to appease the WACKY "Climate" deity.

Stupid.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-10-2016 20:04
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Again, some things can be pollution at higher concentrations and necessary at some level. I need oxygen. I will die if I have too much or too little oxygen.

Sorry. That's typical warmiweaseling and your defense of it is disappointing.

Things that are poisons and things that are pollution are so independent of quantity.

Since every substance is fatal if one has too much of it, warmiweasels would have us classify everything as poison and as pollution, to include oxygen, nitrogen, water, CO2, pizza, apple pie and ice cream ... just to get their dogma's demon, i.e. CO2, classified as poison, pollution and every other negative connotation just to appease the WACKY "Climate" deity.

Stupid.


.


Again, you are showing that you have no understanding of basic anything.

Ice cream is good. Being stuck in a room that is entirely filled with ice cream is bad, because you'd drown. Things can be good in one concentration and bad in another.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
02-10-2016 20:58
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Again, some things can be pollution at higher concentrations and necessary at some level. I need oxygen. I will die if I have too much or too little oxygen.

Sorry. That's typical warmiweaseling and your defense of it is disappointing.

Things that are poisons and things that are pollution are so independent of quantity.

Since every substance is fatal if one has too much of it, warmiweasels would have us classify everything as poison and as pollution, to include oxygen, nitrogen, water, CO2, pizza, apple pie and ice cream ... just to get their dogma's demon, i.e. CO2, classified as poison, pollution and every other negative connotation just to appease the WACKY "Climate" deity.

Stupid.


.


Again, you are showing that you have no understanding of basic anything.

Ice cream is good. Being stuck in a room that is entirely filled with ice cream is bad, because you'd drown. Things can be good in one concentration and bad in another.


No, I think it is YOU that doesn't grasp what is being said here.

The question begins: What is pollution?


The Parrot Killer
02-10-2016 22:39
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
When harmful amounts of a substance are introduced into an environment.
03-10-2016 13:38
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
jwoodward48 wrote:When harmful amounts of a substance are introduced into an environment.

Nope. The quantity aspect must be specified.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-10-2016 14:34
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Harmful AMOUNTS.
03-10-2016 20:48
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:When harmful amounts of a substance are introduced into an environment.

Nope. The quantity aspect must be specified.


.


The 'environment' must be specified as well.


The Parrot Killer
03-10-2016 20:55
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Harmful AMOUNTS.


What is a harmful amount, and in what environment?

Without specifying these, pollution is a pretty vague term that doesn't really mean anything.

For example, gasoline may have pollutants in it that may cause damage when it's burned in an engine, such as water from a lake or a stream. Water in gasoline is a real problem with real consequences for aircraft.

Gasoline itself may be a pollutant when sufficient quantities of it enter a lake or a stream.

So which is a pollutant? Gasoline or water? How much of it makes that a pollutant? There's always a certain amount of water in gasoline, and there is always a certain amount of gasoline in water.

Is a trace amount a pollutant? Then both water AND gasoline are pollutants!


The Parrot Killer
03-10-2016 21:02
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
That's the thing - pollution is contextual. If there is ever an alien species that breathes carbon monoxide and drinks botulinum toxin, their classification of those substances would not be "pollution". To us, those substances are pollution. (In effect, CO isn't harmful outside, but air pollution indoors is also a thing.)
05-10-2016 22:04
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
jwoodward48 wrote: Harmful AMOUNTS.

Not at all. Poison is poison, independent of the amount.

Snake venom is poison, whether or not you specify how much is in question. It might not be powerful. It might not be lethal. Poison nonetheless it is.

Water, CO2, nitrogen ... none of these are poison. Yes, everything is fatal in sufficient quantities, even things that are not poisons, like water, CO2 and nitrogen.

Any person who relies on "AMOUNT" is dishonestly resting on the premise that "anything is a poison if you have too much of it" in order to fulfill the warmizombie agenda of establishing everything as a poison *so* that CO2 then can finally fit into the category of being a "poison."

The surest way to expose this petty dishonesty is to deny warmizombies this "AMOUNT" avenue for getting CO2 branded as a poison. Then just sit back and watch the warmizombie will, determination and resolve to establish once and for all that AMOUNT is to be a determining factor and is to be written in all caps!

--

CO2 is not poison. CO2 is not pollution.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-10-2016 00:09
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: Harmful AMOUNTS.

Not at all. Poison is poison, independent of the amount.


I never said "poison". You brought "poison" into the conversation.

Snake venom is poison, whether or not you specify how much is in question. It might not be powerful. It might not be lethal. Poison nonetheless it is.


Ditto, and - anecdotal evidence.

Water, CO2, nitrogen ... none of these are poison. Yes, everything is fatal in sufficient quantities, even things that are not poisons, like water, CO2 and nitrogen.


Yes, so, if I introduce 40000000000000000000000000000000000000 tons of water to North America, that would be considered pollution.

(What if we tried more power?)

Any person who relies on "AMOUNT" is dishonestly resting on the premise that "anything is a poison if you have too much of it" in order to fulfill the warmizombie agenda of establishing everything as a poison *so* that CO2 then can finally fit into the category of being a "poison."


No, we aren't claiming that CO2 is inherently bad. We're saying that we have introduced harmful amounts of it into the atmosphere.

The surest way to expose this petty dishonesty is to deny warmizombies this "AMOUNT" avenue for getting CO2 branded as a poison. Then just sit back and watch the warmizombie will, determination and resolve to establish once and for all that AMOUNT is to be a determining factor and is to be written in all caps!


So are DOMAINS.

CO2 is not poison. CO2 is not pollution.


And how does any of this change the fact that breathing 50% CO2 will kill you?

Nothing is inherently pollution. Things can be harmful. That's all.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
06-10-2016 21:07
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
jwoodward48 wrote: I never said "poison". You brought "poison" into the conversation.

Acknowledged. You did not. I address both "poison" and "pollution" at the same time because if I don't, warmizombies will just shift to whichever one I did not specify and force me to repeat everything. I just try to nip that in the bud.

jwoodward48 wrote: Yes, so, if I introduce 40000000000000000000000000000000000000 tons of water to North America, that would be considered pollution.

It would not be considered pollution. It would be considered a catastrophic deluge.

jwoodward48 wrote: No, we aren't claiming that CO2 is inherently bad.

Stick with "I'm not claiming that CO2 is inherently bad." Yes, there are many others who do claim this, re: demonization of CO2.

jwoodward48 wrote: We're saying that we have introduced harmful amounts of it into the atmosphere.

Who or what has been harmed by the additional CO2? ...besides the "Climate" goddess, of course.


And how does any of this change the fact that breathing 400 ppm CO2 has no harmful effects and only beneficial effects for plants?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-10-2016 21:09
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
jwoodward48 wrote: I never said "poison". You brought "poison" into the conversation.

You did not, acknowledged. I address both "poison" and "pollution" at the same time because if I don't, warmizombies will just shift to whichever one I did not specify and force me to repeat everything. I just try to nip that in the bud.

jwoodward48 wrote: Yes, so, if I introduce 40000000000000000000000000000000000000 tons of water to North America, that would be considered pollution.

It would not be considered pollution. It would be considered a catastrophic deluge.

jwoodward48 wrote: No, we aren't claiming that CO2 is inherently bad.

Stick with "I'm not claiming that CO2 is inherently bad." Yes, there are many others who do claim this, re: demonization of CO2.

jwoodward48 wrote: We're saying that we have introduced harmful amounts of it into the atmosphere.

Who or what has been harmed by the additional CO2? ...besides the "Climate" goddess, of course.


And how does any of this change the fact that breathing 400 ppm CO2 has no harmful effects and only beneficial effects for plants?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-10-2016 23:07
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: I never said "poison". You brought "poison" into the conversation.

You did not, acknowledged. I address both "poison" and "pollution" at the same time because if I don't, warmizombies will just shift to whichever one I did not specify and force me to repeat everything. I just try to nip that in the bud.


I get the feeling you've been conversing with some idiots. I'm sorry about that.

jwoodward48 wrote: Yes, so, if I introduce 40000000000000000000000000000000000000 tons of water to North America, that would be considered pollution.

It would not be considered pollution. It would be considered a catastrophic deluge.


Ah, okay. So what if I referred to "too much CO2" as "a catastrophic amount of GHG" or something similar? Would that be okay?

jwoodward48 wrote: No, we aren't claiming that CO2 is inherently bad.

Stick with "I'm not claiming that CO2 is inherently bad." Yes, there are many others who do claim this, re: demonization of CO2.


Well, yeah, there's always the idiots. CO2 isn't evil - it's necessary. But just as adding trillions of tons of water to North America's atmosphere would be bad, adding "too much" CO2 would be bad. The discussion is where that mark is, if it even exists.

jwoodward48 wrote: We're saying that we have introduced harmful amounts of it into the atmosphere.

Who or what has been harmed by the additional CO2? ...besides the "Climate" goddess, of course.


How is increased temperature bad? Let me count the ways...

1. There is a risk to unique and threatened systems. Coral reefs, tropical glaciers, endangered species, unique ecosystems, biodiversity hotspots, small island states, and indigenous communities are all threatened by MMCC.

2. There is a risk of extreme weather events; more precisely, an increase in the frequency, intensity, or consequences of heat waves, floods, droughts, wildfires, or tropical cyclones.

3. There is the distribution of impacts. Some areas may benefit from MMCC, but the majority of locations would be harmed. This explains any "now we don't have awful snowstorms" scenarios.

4. There are the aggregate damages that can be estimated: money, lives affected, or lives lost.

5. There is the risk of "tipping points", such as the deglaciation of the West Antarctic or Greenland ice sheets and major changes in the components of the Earth's climate system, such as a substantial reduction or collapse of the North Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation.

source

I tried to at least paraphrase that. If you'd like, I could look for more reliable sources that give predictions or estimates of the effects of MMCC.

And how does any of this change the fact that breathing 400 ppm CO2 has no harmful effects and only beneficial effects for plants?


Well, breathing 400 ppm CO2 is fine. There aren't any direct health risks associated with that concentration.

Increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere will benefit some plants, but not all. (I'm learning about photosynthesis in Bio class, and C3 plants are benefited from a greater CO2/O2 ratio; C4 plants are not.) Also, enzymes necessary for photosythesis can be denatured by excess CO2.

There are also the effects of increasing photosynthesis for some but not all plants. Cyanogenic plants will be more cyanogenic in a CO2-rich environment, which is bad because cyanide. (Did you know that wild almonds contain cyanide? How did we ever cultivate non-deadly ones?!)

On the ecosystem scale, we have the balance of plants being given a sharp kick, with biomes shifting as a result. (Needless to say, this is not good. Things changing too quickly can lead to species going extinct, and since everything is interconnected, we have no idea what might happen. Earth is a very chaotic system.)

Weeds will also grow better if there's more CO2, by the way.

Some plants rely on bacterial colonies in their roots - and some of those colonies don't react well to increased CO2.

Increasing temperature makes photosynthesis less efficient, reducing the benefits of more CO2, if such a benefit even exists for that plant. In droughts, this will be even worse.

This is really complex, so you can't just say "it's good for plants." Even if that were true, plants aren't people. If people are detrimentally affected, that matters more than the plants.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
07-10-2016 02:47
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
jwoodward48 wrote:
How is increased temperature bad? Let me count the ways...

1. There is a risk to unique and threatened systems. Coral reefs, tropical glaciers, endangered species, unique ecosystems, biodiversity hotspots, small island states, and indigenous communities are all threatened by MMCC.

'unique' and 'threatened' systems are vague gobbledegook.

Coral reefs have dealt with changes in water temperature much wider than anything the Church of Global Warming predicts and they are doing just fine. Any damage they suffer from sudden changes usually is completely recovered in a year or two.

Tropical glaciers are still at the same altitude they've always been. They will still grow and shrink the same way.

'Endangered species' is a catch-all phrase for anything political. The only real danger for a species is over-hunting. You see, we went through the spotted owl fiasco here awhile ago here. They were never in danger until the government stepped in to 'save' them.

Small island states have the same beaches they've always had. Nothing is changing for them.

Indigenous communities are people. If man can adapt to the cold like the Eskimo has, or adapt to the desert like the Navajo and Hopi tribes have, we can handle a dozen degrees of change (assuming anything changes at all).

jwoodward48 wrote:
2. There is a risk of extreme weather events; more precisely, an increase in the frequency, intensity, or consequences of heat waves, floods, droughts, wildfires, or tropical cyclones.

Vague dire warnings that the world is going to end. NONE of these are happening. Those things we have records for, like hurricanes, show no marked increase at all.

In Seattle we have a doozy of a heat wave last year during summer. This year summer was barely there at all. I expect a fairly normal winter this year.

jwoodward48 wrote:
3. There is the distribution of impacts. Some areas may benefit from MMCC, but the majority of locations would be harmed. This explains any "now we don't have awful snowstorms" scenarios.

But we do. Some pretty awful snowstorms hit some parts of the country (and Europe) last winter.

jwoodward48 wrote:
4. There are the aggregate damages that can be estimated: money, lives affected, or lives lost.
Vague disaster claims.
jwoodward48 wrote:
5. There is the risk of "tipping points", such as the deglaciation of the West Antarctic or Greenland ice sheets and major changes in the components of the Earth's climate system, such as a substantial reduction or collapse of the North Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation.

...deleted propaganda source...

You should understand the difference between a stable system and an unstable system. There are no 'tipping' points. If there were, they would have already 'tipped' and we would not be where we are today.

jwoodward48 wrote:
I tried to at least paraphrase that. If you'd like, I could look for more reliable sources that give predictions or estimates of the effects of MMCC.


I'm sure you can find LOTS more 'End of the world is nigh' quotes from the Church of Global Warming. They've got a million of them.

Expect most of these 'End of the world is nigh' prophecies to come out whenever any kind of weather event takes place anywhere. (Mathew will probably cause a few)


The Parrot Killer
07-10-2016 04:04
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
On the topic of "less awful snowstorms": I was referring to single locations in which people are noticing better weather, and then claiming that MMCC is good. We all have idiots on our sides.

On the topic of tipping points: nothing like this has ever happened. We're pumping CO2 into our atmosphere like we're TRYING to terraform it. Why do you say that "anything that could have happened will already have happened"? Besides, a. That reeks of "the climate has changed before, and b. How do you know it hasn't?
07-10-2016 19:48
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
jwoodward48 wrote: Ah, okay. So what if I referred to "too much CO2" as "a catastrophic amount of GHG" or something similar? Would that be okay?

You are apparently having a problem with semantics. You keep arguing quantity. The quantity does not convert CO2 to a poison. It's the quantity itself that's the problem in every single example you make. Anything and everything is fatal if you have too much of it.

It would be intellectually dishonest to pursue rendering the word "poison" meaningless by labeling every substance as "poison" just to get CO2 classified as a poison so as to legitimize your religion's demonization of a life-essential gas. I would take the opportunity point out that this kind of corruption of the language is fitting for an ideology that hates humanity, i.e. a life-essential compound is "poison". Like I said, pure water is not poison even though too much of it is fatal. When quantity is the determining factor, it's not poison.

[quote]jwoodward48 wrote: How is increased temperature bad? Let me count the ways...

Of course, this is pure fear-mongering.

What do you say to those like me who aren't gullible and who don't fall for the fear-mongering?

[quote]jwoodward48 wrote: Also, enzymes necessary for photosythesis can be denatured by excess CO2.

Do you mean: "...can be denatured by too much CO2" ? Shouldn't you mean "...will be denatured by too much CO2"?

How do the enzymes fare with the "optimal" amount of CO2?

[quote]jwoodward48 wrote: On the ecosystem scale, we have the balance of plants being given a sharp kick, with biomes shifting as a result.

Whoa, you just got way too technical for me. Does the "balance" really get a sharp "kick" with resulting "shifting"?


[quote]jwoodward48 wrote: In droughts, this will be even worse.

How do they fare with the "optimal" amount of water?

[quote]jwoodward48 wrote: If people are detrimentally affected, that matters more than the plants.

What are the impacts if people are not detrimentally affected?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
07-10-2016 21:29
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
jwoodward48 wrote:
On the topic of "less awful snowstorms": I was referring to single locations in which people are noticing better weather, and then claiming that MMCC is good. We all have idiots on our sides.

On the topic of tipping points: nothing like this has ever happened. We're pumping CO2 into our atmosphere like we're TRYING to terraform it. Why do you say that "anything that could have happened will already have happened"? Besides, a. That reeks of "the climate has changed before, and b. How do you know it hasn't?


Oh, illiterate one of logic, bigger snowstorms and smaller snowstorms are not due to the same Global Warming.

Oh, illiterate one of history, CO2 density has been MUCH higher than it is now. It's recorded in the ice cores.

Oh, illiterate one of English. Climate cannot change. It has no units. There no way to describe a change using that word. The phrase 'climate change' is a nonsensical phrase. Weather changes, climate doesn't.

Oh, illiterate one of science. The energy required to melt the polar ice would make the oceans boil first.

Oh, illiterate one of geology, there are volcanoes under the north polar sea that have been erupting for some time now. They're apparently beginning to settle down now.

Oh, illiterate one of mathematics. Tipping points are the result of unstable systems. Such systems would have already 'tipped' in the many thousands of years this ole' planet has been kicking around.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 07-10-2016 21:31
07-10-2016 22:04
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
On the topic of "less awful snowstorms": I was referring to single locations in which people are noticing better weather, and then claiming that MMCC is good. We all have idiots on our sides.

On the topic of tipping points: nothing like this has ever happened. We're pumping CO2 into our atmosphere like we're TRYING to terraform it. Why do you say that "anything that could have happened will already have happened"? Besides, a. That reeks of "the climate has changed before, and b. How do you know it hasn't?


Oh, illiterate one of logic, bigger snowstorms and smaller snowstorms are not due to the same Global Warming.


Oh, illiterate one of reading, I wasn't claiming that. I was noting that a simple increase in temperature will make some areas worse and some better.

Oh, illiterate one of history, CO2 density has been MUCH higher than it is now. It's recorded in the ice cores.


Were you there?

Sorry, too good to pass up. Anyway, how do you know that increases in the CO2 concentration didn't have any effect on temperature in the past? Maybe that's what brought the Earth out of some ice ages.

Oh, illiterate one of English. Climate cannot change. It has no units. There no way to describe a change using that word. The phrase 'climate change' is a nonsensical phrase. Weather changes, climate doesn't.


Oh, illiterate one of science. Climate refers to the weather - it's merely "the weather" with all the tiny peaks and troughs removed. Weather has no units. Psychology has no units. Plenty of things can change that don't have units.

You know what, that's so good that I just have to repeat it.

By your own logic, "the weather" isn't a thing either.

Oh, illiterate one of science. The energy required to melt the polar ice would make the oceans boil first.


So, what, did the idiots you discussed AGW with claim that the polar ice caps would literally disappear? Did they also say that the aliens are coming for us? Would you like to rant about aliens not existing? Because that's also not my point.

Oh, illiterate one of geology, there are volcanoes under the north polar sea that have been erupting for some time now. They're apparently beginning to settle down now.


Oh, illiterate one of logic. What the hell does that have to do with anything?

Also, let me pull out some obscure piece of mathematics. Don't Google it. Here it is: "perverse sheaves". Don't know what that is? Poser. You're a mathematically illiterate moron.

Oh, illiterate one of mathematics. Tipping points are the result of unstable systems. Such systems would have already 'tipped' in the many thousands of years this ole' planet has been kicking around.


No, they aren't.

A climate tipping point is a somewhat ill-defined concept of a point when global climate changes from one stable state to another stable state, in a similar manner to a wine glass tipping over. After the tipping point has been passed, a transition to a new state occurs. The tipping event may be irreversible, comparable to wine spilling from the glass: standing up the glass will not put the wine back.


The wine glass can sit there for millennia without tipping.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
08-10-2016 00:10
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
On the topic of "less awful snowstorms": I was referring to single locations in which people are noticing better weather, and then claiming that MMCC is good. We all have idiots on our sides.

On the topic of tipping points: nothing like this has ever happened. We're pumping CO2 into our atmosphere like we're TRYING to terraform it. Why do you say that "anything that could have happened will already have happened"? Besides, a. That reeks of "the climate has changed before, and b. How do you know it hasn't?


Oh, illiterate one of logic, bigger snowstorms and smaller snowstorms are not due to the same Global Warming.


Oh, illiterate one of reading, I wasn't claiming that. I was noting that a simple increase in temperature will make some areas worse and some better.

You assuming you know the temperature of the globe again?
jwoodward48 wrote:
Oh, illiterate one of history, CO2 density has been MUCH higher than it is now. It's recorded in the ice cores.


Were you there?

Don't have to be. The ice cores can be looked up by anyone who cares to take the trip.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Sorry, too good to pass up. Anyway, how do you know that increases in the CO2 concentration didn't have any effect on temperature in the past?

You don't, except that there was no mechanism known to cause any change known to science.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Maybe that's what brought the Earth out of some ice ages.

Ice ages occur with a regular period. That points to something about the Earth's orbit or some other periodic event.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Oh, illiterate one of English. Climate cannot change. It has no units. There no way to describe a change using that word. The phrase 'climate change' is a nonsensical phrase. Weather changes, climate doesn't.


Oh, illiterate one of science. Climate refers to the weather - it's merely "the weather" with all the tiny peaks and troughs removed. Weather has no units. Psychology has no units. Plenty of things can change that don't have units.

You know what, that's so good that I just have to repeat it.

By your own logic, "the weather" isn't a thing either.

Weather has units. It is a composite made up of temperature, humidity, and air pressure.

Weather changes. You can measure a change in any of these elements of weather.
Climate is a composite also, but that composite includes the value of an unspecified length of time, an element that renders 'change' meaningless.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Oh, illiterate one of science. The energy required to melt the polar ice would make the oceans boil first.


So, what, did the idiots you discussed AGW with claim that the polar ice caps would literally disappear? Did they also say that the aliens are coming for us? Would you like to rant about aliens not existing? Because that's also not my point.

That IS your point. That is the logical conclusion of the result of a 'tipping point'.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Oh, illiterate one of geology, there are volcanoes under the north polar sea that have been erupting for some time now. They're apparently beginning to settle down now.


Oh, illiterate one of logic. What the hell does that have to do with anything?

You DO realize erupting volcanoes (actually fault line) heats the water above it?

jwoodward48 wrote:
Also, let me pull out some obscure piece of mathematics. Don't Google it. Here it is: "perverse sheaves". Don't know what that is? Poser. You're a mathematically illiterate moron.


Redirection to a non-sequitur is a fallacy, dude.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Oh, illiterate one of mathematics. Tipping points are the result of unstable systems. Such systems would have already 'tipped' in the many thousands of years this ole' planet has been kicking around.


No, they aren't.

A climate tipping point is a somewhat ill-defined concept of a point when global climate changes from one stable state to another stable state, in a similar manner to a wine glass tipping over. After the tipping point has been passed, a transition to a new state occurs. The tipping event may be irreversible, comparable to wine spilling from the glass: standing up the glass will not put the wine back.


The wine glass can sit there for millennia without tipping.


Yes they are. You are moving the goalposts again by changing context. The same thing that tips the wine glass is the same thing that would have tipped it over long before now.

You are saying increasing CO2 by 100 ppm (or some other random number) will spill the wine glass. We've already had CO2 of that density and higher. The wine is still in the glass.


The Parrot Killer
08-10-2016 00:23
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
On the topic of "less awful snowstorms": I was referring to single locations in which people are noticing better weather, and then claiming that MMCC is good. We all have idiots on our sides.

On the topic of tipping points: nothing like this has ever happened. We're pumping CO2 into our atmosphere like we're TRYING to terraform it. Why do you say that "anything that could have happened will already have happened"? Besides, a. That reeks of "the climate has changed before, and b. How do you know it hasn't?


Oh, illiterate one of logic, bigger snowstorms and smaller snowstorms are not due to the same Global Warming.


Oh, illiterate one of reading, I wasn't claiming that. I was noting that a simple increase in temperature will make some areas worse and some better.

You assuming you know the temperature of the globe again?

No, that's not necessary for this statement. If the temperature everywhere increases, that'll be good for some places (if you're in an area prone to snowstorms, you'll at least initially like AGW) and bad for others (heat waves? expect more). This statement doesn't rely on measurements or assumptions. It's the simple statement that sometimes people would prefer to be warmer than they currently are.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Oh, illiterate one of history, CO2 density has been MUCH higher than it is now. It's recorded in the ice cores.


Were you there?

Don't have to be. The ice cores can be looked up by anyone who cares to take the trip.


Whoa, but how can you trust them? They could have been funded by... THE GUBBERMINT!!

jwoodward48 wrote:
Sorry, too good to pass up. Anyway, how do you know that increases in the CO2 concentration didn't have any effect on temperature in the past?

You don't, except that there was no mechanism known to cause any change known to science.


No... mechanism? You mean besides the GHE?

jwoodward48 wrote:
Maybe that's what brought the Earth out of some ice ages.

Ice ages occur with a regular period. That points to something about the Earth's orbit or some other periodic event.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Oh, illiterate one of English. Climate cannot change. It has no units. There no way to describe a change using that word. The phrase 'climate change' is a nonsensical phrase. Weather changes, climate doesn't.


Oh, illiterate one of science. Climate refers to the weather - it's merely "the weather" with all the tiny peaks and troughs removed. Weather has no units. Psychology has no units. Plenty of things can change that don't have units.

You know what, that's so good that I just have to repeat it.

By your own logic, "the weather" isn't a thing either.

Weather has units. It is a composite made up of temperature, humidity, and air pressure.

Weather changes. You can measure a change in any of these elements of weather.
Climate is a composite also, but that composite includes the value of an unspecified length of time, an element that renders 'change' meaningless.


Weather doesn't have a unit! How many kiloweathers did you notice outside?

If we are allowed multiple units, then "the average weather over a year" is a permissible action, and thus we have climate.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Oh, illiterate one of science. The energy required to melt the polar ice would make the oceans boil first.


So, what, did the idiots you discussed AGW with claim that the polar ice caps would literally disappear? Did they also say that the aliens are coming for us? Would you like to rant about aliens not existing? Because that's also not my point.

That IS your point. That is the logical conclusion of the result of a 'tipping point'.


The logical conclusion of "irreversible changes" isn't "AAAAAUGH ALIENS." It's also not "AAAUGH THE OCEANS ARE BOILING."

jwoodward48 wrote:

Oh, illiterate one of geology, there are volcanoes under the north polar sea that have been erupting for some time now. They're apparently beginning to settle down now.


Oh, illiterate one of logic. What the hell does that have to do with anything?

You DO realize erupting volcanoes (actually fault line) heats the water above it?


But how much? One milliKelvin? One microKelvin? Thirteen Kelvin? That matters, you know.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Also, let me pull out some obscure piece of mathematics. Don't Google it. Here it is: "perverse sheaves". Don't know what that is? Poser. You're a mathematically illiterate moron.


Redirection to a non-sequitur is a fallacy, dude.


...I'm not trying to prove my point with the statement. I'm saying that "you're geologically illiterate because you don't know that there are active volcanoes off the coast of West Wherever" makes no sense. Stop misusing the fallacy fallacy (that is, you're not even wrong - not only are you using the fallacy fallacy, but it doesn't even apply here!)

jwoodward48 wrote:

Oh, illiterate one of mathematics. Tipping points are the result of unstable systems. Such systems would have already 'tipped' in the many thousands of years this ole' planet has been kicking around.


No, they aren't.

A climate tipping point is a somewhat ill-defined concept of a point when global climate changes from one stable state to another stable state, in a similar manner to a wine glass tipping over. After the tipping point has been passed, a transition to a new state occurs. The tipping event may be irreversible, comparable to wine spilling from the glass: standing up the glass will not put the wine back.


The wine glass can sit there for millennia without tipping.


Yes they are. You are moving the goalposts again by changing context. The same thing that tips the wine glass is the same thing that would have tipped it over long before now.

You are saying increasing CO2 by 100 ppm (or some other random number) will spill the wine glass. We've already had CO2 of that density and higher. The wine is still in the glass.


Good point. I'm not sure about this "tipping point thing", but since there is a degree of trust involved in science, I'm pretty sure that I just don't know enough about it. I haven't tested either Relativity, and yet I'm pretty sure it's not a hoax.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
08-10-2016 00:43
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Don't have to be. The ice cores can be looked up by anyone who cares to take the trip.


Whoa, but how can you trust them? They could have been funded by... THE GUBBERMINT!!

These cores were actually funded by the government of the USSR. You normally would have a valid point, but this data is not in line with their usual agenda (although their conclusions certainly are). I would tend to trust this government data a bit more.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Weather changes. You can measure a change in any of these elements of weather.
Climate is a composite also, but that composite includes the value of an unspecified length of time, an element that renders 'change' meaningless.


Weather doesn't have a unit! How many kiloweathers did you notice outside?

If we are allowed multiple units, then "the average weather over a year" is a permissible action, and thus we have climate.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.


Average weather over a year is average weather over a year. That is a meteorological term, not a climate term. Climate doesn't specify a time interval, just a vague phrase 'a long time'.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Redirection to a non-sequitur is a fallacy, dude.


...I'm not trying to prove my point with the statement. I'm saying that "you're geologically illiterate because you don't know that there are active volcanoes off the coast of West Wherever" makes no sense. Stop misusing the fallacy fallacy (that is, you're not even wrong - not only are you using the fallacy fallacy, but it doesn't even apply here!)

So...a fallacy fallacy applies, but it doesn't apply? WTF???

If you didn't know a line of volcanoes was there, you are illiterate about them aren't you?
You didn't know the geology of the Arctic Sea. You are illiterate about that geology, aren't you?

jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Yes they are. You are moving the goalposts again by changing context. The same thing that tips the wine glass is the same thing that would have tipped it over long before now.

You are saying increasing CO2 by 100 ppm (or some other random number) will spill the wine glass. We've already had CO2 of that density and higher. The wine is still in the glass.


Good point. I'm not sure about this "tipping point thing", but since there is a degree of trust involved in science, I'm pretty sure that I just don't know enough about it. I haven't tested either Relativity, and yet I'm pretty sure it's not a hoax.


Which means you're guessing. You are just assuming not only a history, but also a redefinition of the meaning of 'stability'.


The Parrot Killer
08-10-2016 01:29
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
1. How do you know what does or doesn't fit their agenda?

2. Average mass over volume is average mass over volume. Density is a lie! Climate isn't rigorously defined, but that doesn't mean that it cannot be observed.

3. You are attempting to say that my fallacy makes my point moot, when in fact that point never contributed to the rest of my argument. I know this is complex. Also, illiteracy about linear algebra =/= illiteracy about math, for instance. You were saying "you don't know about these volcanoes, so you're geologically illiterate." That does not follow. My point was that you were merely insulting me, not actually noting any lack of overall knowledge.

4. I'm not guessing, I'm trusting. There's a difference.
08-10-2016 03:42
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
jwoodward48 wrote:
1. How do you know what does or doesn't fit their agenda?
Good question. To answer that, view the thing in question against what's in it for them.

In the case of the ice core projects. They did it out of government pride. Fine, but the CO2 content in the ice is incidental to that purpose. Their conclusion, which just assumed CO2 warms anything, was a classic government desire to expand itself and grow through a 'crisis'. Despite that, the CO2 data itself is still incidental to that purpose as well.

The USSR is no different from any other government in terms of the success metric of anything that doesn't create wealth.

jwoodward48 wrote:
2. Average mass over volume is average mass over volume. Density is a lie! Climate isn't rigorously defined, but that doesn't mean that it cannot be observed.

Average mass over volume IS density.
You can observe weather and even measure it. You can't observe climate because you have not specified a time interval. It is nonsensical to talk about observing it.

jwoodward48 wrote:
3. You are attempting to say that my fallacy makes my point moot, when in fact that point never contributed to the rest of my argument. I know this is complex. Also, illiteracy about linear algebra =/= illiteracy about math, for instance. You were saying "you don't know about these volcanoes, so you're geologically illiterate." That does not follow. My point was that you were merely insulting me, not actually noting any lack of overall knowledge.

I call 'em as I see 'em. You were illiterate about the geology under the Arctic Sea or the activity that is taking place there. I'm going to leave your 'fallacy' paradox where it is.
jwoodward48 wrote:
4. I'm not guessing, I'm trusting. There's a difference.

People trust Christ too. They also trust Buddha. They also trust the sun up in the sky as a benevolent god.

You're guessing, and trusting the God of the Church of Global Warming...the Great God Consensus.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 08-10-2016 03:43
08-10-2016 06:30
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
1. How do you know what does or doesn't fit their agenda?
Good question. To answer that, view the thing in question against what's in it for them.

In the case of the ice core projects. They did it out of government pride. Fine, but the CO2 content in the ice is incidental to that purpose. Their conclusion, which just assumed CO2 warms anything, was a classic government desire to expand itself and grow through a 'crisis'. Despite that, the CO2 data itself is still incidental to that purpose as well.

The USSR is no different from any other government in terms of the success metric of anything that doesn't create wealth.


But how do you know that the CO2 data wasn't fabricated?

jwoodward48 wrote:
2. Average mass over volume is average mass over volume. Density is a lie! Climate isn't rigorously defined, but that doesn't mean that it cannot be observed.

Average mass over volume IS density.
You can observe weather and even measure it. You can't observe climate because you have not specified a time interval. It is nonsensical to talk about observing it.


And I haven't specified a volume interval.

It's vague, I agree, but if there are trends in the weather, that's what we call climate.

jwoodward48 wrote:
3. You are attempting to say that my fallacy makes my point moot, when in fact that point never contributed to the rest of my argument. I know this is complex. Also, illiteracy about linear algebra =/= illiteracy about math, for instance. You were saying "you don't know about these volcanoes, so you're geologically illiterate." That does not follow. My point was that you were merely insulting me, not actually noting any lack of overall knowledge.

I call 'em as I see 'em. You were illiterate about the geology under the Arctic Sea or the activity that is taking place there. I'm going to leave your 'fallacy' paradox where it is.


Perhaps illiteracy has a different tone to your ear, because it just seemed like a demeaning insult.

Sure, let's leave the fallacy thing behind, it's incidental to our discussion.
jwoodward48 wrote:
4. I'm not guessing, I'm trusting. There's a difference.

People trust Christ too. They also trust Buddha. They also trust the sun up in the sky as a benevolent god.

You're guessing, and trusting the God of the Church of Global Warming...the Great God Consensus.[/quote]

Except that I'm trusting... the scientists, who tend to produce useful results. For the layperson in a field (and I am a layman in some senses of the term), it's not quite feasible to test the latest scientific breakthroughs in my backyard. I trust that there isn't this huge conspiracy to convince the world of QM or relativity. I do the same for AGW.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
09-10-2016 21:22
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
jwoodward48 wrote: People trust Christ too. They also trust Buddha. They also trust the sun up in the sky as a benevolent god.

Don't forget those who trust in "Climate."

jwoodward48 wrote: Except that I'm trusting... the scientists, who tend to produce useful results.

Oh no no no no....you are trusting your clergy that the WACKY religious dogma they feed you really is "settled science" because you desperately need their approval.

We have already established that you adopt their WACKY religious dogma when you don't otherwise have sufficient information, and that once you have adopted the dogma, you won't permit yourself to learn sufficient information.

jwoodward48 wrote: I trust that there isn't this huge conspiracy to convince the world of QM or relativity. I do the same for AGW.

You naively believe that there is no such thing as collusion for financial or political gain.

Smart. Really smart.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-10-2016 22:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8688)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
1. How do you know what does or doesn't fit their agenda?
Good question. To answer that, view the thing in question against what's in it for them.

In the case of the ice core projects. They did it out of government pride. Fine, but the CO2 content in the ice is incidental to that purpose. Their conclusion, which just assumed CO2 warms anything, was a classic government desire to expand itself and grow through a 'crisis'. Despite that, the CO2 data itself is still incidental to that purpose as well.

The USSR is no different from any other government in terms of the success metric of anything that doesn't create wealth.


But how do you know that the CO2 data wasn't fabricated?

Why would it be?
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
2. Average mass over volume is average mass over volume. Density is a lie! Climate isn't rigorously defined, but that doesn't mean that it cannot be observed.

Average mass over volume IS density.
You can observe weather and even measure it. You can't observe climate because you have not specified a time interval. It is nonsensical to talk about observing it.


And I haven't specified a volume interval.

It's vague, I agree, but if there are trends in the weather, that's what we call climate.

Climate isn't a trend. Trends are a statistical term.

You cannot measure a change unless you specify a time interval. Climate does not do this, so climate doesn't change.

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
3. You are attempting to say that my fallacy makes my point moot, when in fact that point never contributed to the rest of my argument. I know this is complex. Also, illiteracy about linear algebra =/= illiteracy about math, for instance. You were saying "you don't know about these volcanoes, so you're geologically illiterate." That does not follow. My point was that you were merely insulting me, not actually noting any lack of overall knowledge.

I call 'em as I see 'em. You were illiterate about the geology under the Arctic Sea or the activity that is taking place there. I'm going to leave your 'fallacy' paradox where it is.


Perhaps illiteracy has a different tone to your ear, because it just seemed like a demeaning insult.

...fallacy discussion dropped...

We've been over this. You seem to have a short memory.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
4. I'm not guessing, I'm trusting. There's a difference.

People trust Christ too. They also trust Buddha. They also trust the sun up in the sky as a benevolent god.

You're guessing, and trusting the God of the Church of Global Warming...the Great God Consensus.


Except that I'm trusting... the scientists, who tend to produce useful results. For the layperson in a field (and I am a layman in some senses of the term), it's not quite feasible to test the latest scientific breakthroughs in my backyard. I trust that there isn't this huge conspiracy to convince the world of QM or relativity. I do the same for AGW.[/quote]
All bow down to The Consensus...it is never wrong...may it bless us with a piece of paper that says we are right.

The Great God Consensus is a false god. No part of science uses consensus. No magazine, peer review, political organization including 'science' institutes, certification or degree, any <pick random number greater than 1> scientists, are required of science. No one owns science.

Predicting the 'surgeon argument' in the next msg cycle...


The Parrot Killer
09-10-2016 23:44
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: People trust Christ too. They also trust Buddha. They also trust the sun up in the sky as a benevolent god.

Don't forget those who trust in "Climate."


I never said that. That was Into.

jwoodward48 wrote: Except that I'm trusting... the scientists, who tend to produce useful results.

Oh no no no no....you are trusting your clergy that the WACKY religious dogma they feed you really is "settled science" because you desperately need their approval.

We have already established that you adopt their WACKY religious dogma when you don't otherwise have sufficient information, and that once you have adopted the dogma, you won't permit yourself to learn sufficient information.


"You can't understand this because you won't let yourself. You haven't entered into the Light of XXXX." Sounds familiar.

I'm not looking for the approval of John Climatologist. Why would I be?

jwoodward48 wrote: I trust that there isn't this huge conspiracy to convince the world of QM or relativity. I do the same for AGW.

You naively believe that there is no such thing as collusion for financial or political gain.

Smart. Really smart.


Oh, I know that collusion exists. I also know that I could be a brain in a jar.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
10-10-2016 06:06
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4301)
jwoodward48 wrote: I was noting that a simple increase in temperature will make some areas worse and some better.

You didn't really emphasize how AGW will make places better because that's kind of against your religion. You're not allowed to imply that AGW is good. It must be demonized. It can only be bad, like a "Climate" deity is arbitrarily dispensing punishments, not blessings.

That's the difference between your denomination and that of the climate lemmings. They believe the "Climate" goddess is a gentle, loving deiry who is cradling the earth in "greenhouse effect" warmth for the benefit of mankind.

jwoodward48 wrote: Anyway, how do you know that increases in the CO2 concentration didn't have any effect on temperature in the past? Maybe that's what brought the Earth out of some ice ages.

So once again your faith is not based on any science but on a storyline about that which you don't know, ...like a religion, ...exactly like a religion. Hmmm.

jwoodward48 wrote: Climate refers to the weather - it's merely "the weather" with all the tiny peaks and troughs removed.

That makes no sense. Does each individual in your church get to arbitrarily decide which peak and trough removal carries the most meaning for him/her personally? Is "climate" determined arbitrary changes to graphs and charts that transform "weather" into "climate"?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Page 1 of 3123>





Join the debate Hilarious Strawmen by the Deniers:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Naomi Klein: 'Big Green Groups Are More Damaging Than Climate Deniers'313-08-2019 14:20
Reddit's science forum banned climate deniers. Why don't all newspapers do the same? (2013)921-11-2017 19:25
Denying the Deniers4431-08-2017 17:13
So, how many M2C2 deniers can you fit on the head of a needle?1018-07-2017 05:28
In Obama's final State of the Union Address, he mocked deniers. He bad person?513-03-2017 04:59
▲ 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 © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact