Remember me
▼ Content

Remember the Al Gore's of this World


Remember the Al Gore's of this World18-09-2017 20:06
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Not that long ago I claimed that we had predictions of a coming Ice Age in the media and from the mouth of Al Gore.

This was totally denied by today's True Believers in the Church of the Holy Man Made Climate Change.

Well, I ran across a couple of references:

http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/22289-climate-alarmists-have-been-wrong-about-virtually-everything

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ny-times-1975-05-21.pdf

The True Believers have been wrong about every single thing that they've ever said or even thought. They are a danger to this entire world and perhaps they should be locked up to protect themselves.
18-09-2017 21:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10213)
Wake wrote:
Not that long ago I claimed that we had predictions of a coming Ice Age in the media and from the mouth of Al Gore.

This was totally denied by today's True Believers in the Church of the Holy Man Made Climate Change.

Well, I ran across a couple of references:

...deleted redundant references...

They deny it because they want to ignore that rather embarrassing part of history.

It got too wordy referring to Global Warming/Cooling/ComingIceAge/Warming/ClimateChange/Warming/ClimateChange/WhateverTheHellTheyCallItNow. Despite this, their 'solutions' were always the same: shut down American industry.

The Church of Global Warming stems from the Church of Karl Marx, just as the Church of Ecoradicals does.

Wake wrote:
The True Believers have been wrong about every single thing that they've ever said or even thought.

WRONG. Bulverism.

Occasionally, you get a sound argument, even from True Believers of any of these religions. Even litebeer comes up with one once in a while.

Discarding an argument because of who is making it is a fallacy, dude.

Wake wrote:
They are a danger to this entire world and perhaps they should be locked up to protect themselves.

Funny...that's what they say about YOU (and me as well).

They are not the danger. Their religions are. They would become victims to the leaders of these religions just as surely as you and me. They are just too stupid to see that. They are useful idiots.

It is the leaders of these religions. It is those that wish to implement a worldwide fascist government. It is the Marxists attempting to seize power.

Locking up followers of a religion is not going to change their minds. It is not going to stop the attempt by the leaders of this movement from making their attempt. They will find new followers.

Locking someone up for what they might do is illegal in this country. You can only lock them up for what they have done.


The Parrot Killer
19-09-2017 01:40
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
@All,
The statements in the 2 previous posts in this thread explain why these 2 individuals (IMO) spread disinformation and prevent any real discussions about climate change.
The link is to a story on roads and how they capture heat. Heat can be trapped in different ways.
http://asphaltmagazine.com/advancing-asphalt-roadways-into-the-future/ This is one example of black body radiation. Heat is captured and then released.
19-09-2017 02:00
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
@All,
The statements in the 2 previous posts in this thread explain why these 2 individuals (IMO) spread disinformation and prevent any real discussions about climate change.
The link is to a story on roads and how they capture heat. Heat can be trapped in different ways.
http://asphaltmagazine.com/advancing-asphalt-roadways-into-the-future/ This is one example of black body radiation. Heat is captured and then released.


Yep - quoting articles from Newsweek, The New York Times and Time Magazine is my spreading disinformation. The person spreading disinformation is you. Truth is growing to be anathema to you. Feel free to tell us how these news sources were spreading disinformation.
19-09-2017 02:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10213)
James_ wrote:
@All,
The statements in the 2 previous posts in this thread explain why these 2 individuals (IMO) spread disinformation and prevent any real discussions about climate change.
The link is to a story on roads and how they capture heat. Heat can be trapped in different ways.
http://asphaltmagazine.com/advancing-asphalt-roadways-into-the-future/ This is one example of black body radiation. Heat is captured and then released.


You cannot trap heat. No road can trap heat either.

This article is about using the Sun's energy striking roadways and heating them. Like any hunk of asphalt, roadways can retain their thermal energy for some time, even into the evening, better than the surrounding landscape.

They cannot trap thermal energy (it's cooling down), but extracting the energy before it is lost is something people are thinking about. Being illiterate journalists, they understand the term 'heat' about as well as you do (they don't).

Heat is the MOVEMENT of thermal energy. It is not the thermal energy itself.

Neither can be trapped. If you stop heat, it simply disappears. There is no heat.

The only way to trap thermal energy loss is to completely isolate the item within a perfect insulator, which doesn't exist. It's kinda useless, since you can't extract it for other power use either. Also such an insulation wouldn't allow anything like the Sun to heat it.

The atmosphere is open. It is not an insulator. It cannot trap thermal energy. No Holy Magick Gas has any insulative properties.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 19-09-2017 02:42
19-09-2017 02:39
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
@All,
The statements in the 2 previous posts in this thread explain why these 2 individuals (IMO) spread disinformation and prevent any real discussions about climate change.
The link is to a story on roads and how they capture heat. Heat can be trapped in different ways.
http://asphaltmagazine.com/advancing-asphalt-roadways-into-the-future/ This is one example of black body radiation. Heat is captured and then released.


You cannot trap heat. No road can trap heat either.


And another moronic reply. You're batting 300 today.
19-09-2017 02:41
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofed: I claimed that we had predictions of a coming Ice Age in the media....

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" pretends it is at the forefront, unmasking past "ice age claims". However, for 10-20 years AGW denier liar whiners been talkin' past media ice age coolin' articles.
While AGW denier liar whiners take 1970's data of familiar street vendor magazine sales, actual Science Journals during 1970 thru the 1980's show that 44 Science Papers were published on global warming, while only 7 papers were published about global cooling. BBBUUUTTTTTT, AGW denier liar whiners, who aren't cool, strangely list only the cooling articles.
Edited on 19-09-2017 03:06
19-09-2017 02:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10213)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
@All,
The statements in the 2 previous posts in this thread explain why these 2 individuals (IMO) spread disinformation and prevent any real discussions about climate change.
The link is to a story on roads and how they capture heat. Heat can be trapped in different ways.
http://asphaltmagazine.com/advancing-asphalt-roadways-into-the-future/ This is one example of black body radiation. Heat is captured and then released.


You cannot trap heat. No road can trap heat either.


And another moronic reply. You're batting 300 today.


An another example of an argument of the Stone.


The Parrot Killer
19-09-2017 16:22
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote: An another example of an argument of the Stone.


As we ALL know a stone gets warm in the sun and stays warm long after dark because it doesn't store heat.

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/p/100-words-to-make-you-sound-smart-american-heritage-publishing-staff/1105650794/2677116095749?st=PLA&sid=BNB_DRS_Core+Catch-All,+Low_00000000&2sid=Google_&sourceId=PLGoP79700

As we all know, the desert stays hot after sundown even when the air is cool because it doesn't store heat.

As we know, tropical water stay warm despite the polar caps being frozen because it doesn't store heat.

On the best day of your life you could make an anteater look bright.
19-09-2017 17:07
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: An another example of an argument of the Stone.


As we ALL know a stone gets warm in the sun and stays warm long after dark because it doesn't store heat.

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/p/100-words-to-make-you-sound-smart-american-heritage-publishing-staff/1105650794/2677116095749?st=PLA&sid=BNB_DRS_Core+Catch-All,+Low_00000000&2sid=Google_&sourceId=PLGoP79700

As we all know, the desert stays hot after sundown even when the air is cool because it doesn't store heat.

As we know, tropical water stay warm despite the polar caps being frozen because it doesn't store heat.

On the best day of your life you could make an anteater look bright.


It seems that all that you and ITN can do is spam this forum with your ignorance.
19-09-2017 17:18
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: An another example of an argument of the Stone.


As we ALL know a stone gets warm in the sun and stays warm long after dark because it doesn't store heat.

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/p/100-words-to-make-you-sound-smart-american-heritage-publishing-staff/1105650794/2677116095749?st=PLA&sid=BNB_DRS_Core+Catch-All,+Low_00000000&2sid=Google_&sourceId=PLGoP79700

As we all know, the desert stays hot after sundown even when the air is cool because it doesn't store heat.

As we know, tropical water stay warm despite the polar caps being frozen because it doesn't store heat.

On the best day of your life you could make an anteater look bright.


It seems that all that you and ITN can do is spam this forum with your ignorance.


Well, look, if it isn't the man who couldn't read an actual paper on angular momentum and what it really is.
19-09-2017 21:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10213)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: An another example of an argument of the Stone.


As we ALL know a stone gets warm in the sun and stays warm long after dark because it doesn't store heat.
...deleted redundant rant...


The following is a long post. Keep your anger in check long enough to read it and try to understand the arguments presented here.

A stone does not store heat. Nothing can store heat. That isn't why a Stone stays warm after the Sun goes down.

A stone stays warm because of reduced heat. A stone has thermal energy and can only lose it so fast to surrounding air as the air cools. The air itself can only cool so fast due to the same reason. Did you know all materials have a specific heat value? Do you know WHY that value is known as specific heat?

A stone won't stay warm as well when coupling is better, such as when the stone is in a riverbed. It is easier for a specific heat to be conducted, or in other words for a specific amount of thermal energy to be moved out of the stone.

You really need to get a handle on the difference between 'heat' and 'thermal energy'.

It is NOT possible to store heat. It simply goes to zero if there is no flow of thermal energy.

It is NOT possible to store thermal energy unless you completely decouple it from anything else (a box that is a perfect insulator). The stone will always warm and cool. There is no such thing as a perfect insulator.

Thermal energy has a unit of measurement, called a temperature.

Heat has a unit of measurement, called the Joule, a unit defined as energy transfer over time...in other words, work. It is the same as a watt-second.

Specific heat (which you also seem to not understand) is the heat required to change the temperature of some material one degree, in other words, how much energy has to be moved.

Photographic flash units are often rated in joules. This is a measurement describing how much current is available at a particular voltage (watts) for how long a time (one second).

Resistors are rated in watts (actually, watt-seconds). It is the number of watts the resistor can dissipate to standard air temperature per second without being damaged.

Heat can occur by conduction, convection, or radiation (if and only if the emission results in absorption causing an increase of thermal energy elsewhere).

The surface heats CO2 by either conduction (like everything else in the air), or by radiance (by emitting infrared light that is absorbed by CO2). BOTH ways cool the surface. BOTH are ways for the surface to heat the air.

As you correctly point out, heated (now warmer air) rises. The air loses pressure as it rises. It cools, following the ideal gas law, just as any gas cools when you reduce the pressure. The energy is dissipated.

The part you fail to understand is that air is a material too. Like the surface, it radiates light all the time...following the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Cooler air tends to radiate a lower frequency infrared light, and because the material is so much less dense, the intensity of that light is quite reduced compared to the surface. The air 'glows' with infrared energy, the same as the surface, but not as brightly, and at a slightly 'redder' color. It is lower in energy than anything the surface is radiating, which also 'glows' an infrared color (but more intense and slightly 'bluer'). This is true even though we don't know the emissivity of Earth, or the temperature of Earth.

The atmosphere IS a bit like a radiator on a car. Most of the excess thermal energy in an engine is lost through direct conduction and through pumping it out the back of the exhaust pipe, or through heating the oil (which is cooled by exposing the oil pan to the cool airstream).

The radiator just covers for the excess needs of thermal energy loss from the engine (often referred to as 'heat' loss, or the heating of surrounding air by that engine).

The atmosphere DOES help cool the planet. That does not stop at the tropopause. That cooling effect continues throughout the atmosphere. MOST of the cooling comes from direct radiance into space by the surface. The rest comes from direct radiance into space by the atmosphere.

Any satellite in orbit can see this 'glow', if it has instruments on board to see infrared light over a wide band.

The Church of Global Warming is completely correct in that CO2 absorbs certain frequencies of infrared light. The effect of that absorption is warmer CO2. The surface is cooled by this action (a little detail conveniently ignored by the Church).

The Church of Global Warming is completely wrong in that CO2 cannot in turn heat the warmer surface that heated it in the first place. This is heat from cold to hot, which is not possible according to the law of entropy, also known as the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

The Church of Global Warming violates the Stefan-Boltzmann law also, since to 'trap' the energy as they say necessarily means reducing the radiance of Earth, all while claiming to use this energy to warm the Earth. The S-B law describes radiance and temperature moving in the same direction. It never moves in opposite directions. It does not matter if the emissivity is not known or the temperature is not known.

CO2 does not change emissivity. It is a gas, like any other. Emissivity, like the Stefan-Boltzmann law itself, is color-blind. This comes as a result of the way the S-B can be derived by integrating all frequencies of light from Planck's law into one sum. The absorption of infrared light by CO2 changes nothing, for it also emits infrared light.

Transposing this law DOES allow you to determine a temperature from a known radiance IF and only IF the emissivity is known, and that is the ONLY light you are measuring. It is not possible for any satellite to separate incident light that is not part of radiance from light is from radiance. The emissivity is, not being known, is the only way to determine which is which.

Your 'transpositions' eliminate emissivity from the equation (not possible without redefining the equation), or add a term for 'incident light', which is not part of the equation. Your transposition is actually violating the rules of algebra by the elimination and addition of these terms to the equation.

Emissivity is a constant. It is a measured value. The ONLY way to measure it is to first know the temperature of the object you are measuring. We don't know the temperature of the Earth.

This is a value that is the result of a statistical summary. Statistical analysis requires the calculation of a value know as the margin of error, which is not calculate from the data, but from the possible variance of the data...in other words the possible temperature gradient (I have personally seen gradients as steep as 20 deg F per mile).

We simply do not have anywhere near enough instruments to reduce the margin of error to anything less than the gradient in the first place. The summary is useless. Further, selection of data must be by randN, a random number similar to that use in card games...a random number with a 'memory'. Once a card is drawn, it cannot be drawn again. The same is true with data selection. You cannot use a temperature reading twice, or 'adjust it by any sort of weighting (which effectively does the same thing).

Selection MUST be independent of any aspect of the data itself. Location and location grouping are significant in temperature. That factor must be eliminated. Thermometers must be equally spaced for the analysis to make any sense. No correction for location or location grouping is allowed. Raw data must be used. The output of a non-existent statistical analysis cannot be used as an input to the same analysis. Time is significant. Earth rotates, storms move, etc. that factor must be eliminated for the analysis to make any sense. The readings must be taken simultaneously.

We just don't have the instrumentation. It's even worse when trying to measure an Earth-wide emissivity, or the sea level, or the amount of ice on Earth, or any of a number of things the Church of Global Warming goes on about.



You really have to get a handle on this stuff, or you are going to remain confused about it. Getting angry is not going to help. It prevents you from learning anything. It also prevents you from presenting an effective argument against the Church of Global Warming. The arguments you are using are based on the same fallacies and bad math the Church of Global Warming itself is using. It largely isn't even a science problem. It's a math problem. It requires the use of statistical math, which they use improperly, resulting in egregious math errors.

It is the reason I reject a lot of claims of 'data' around here.Their 'data' is nothing more than bad math, if not completely fabricated in the first place. (what is known as a randU, or the 'predictable' random number...the kind that appears when people like to talk about the <insert random high number here> scientists the have consensus on 'global warming').


This is a long post. I hope you take the time to read it all, and keep your anger in check long enough to allow for the possibility of my arguments presented here as being reasonable.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 19-09-2017 22:06
19-09-2017 22:38
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: An another example of an argument of the Stone.


As we ALL know a stone gets warm in the sun and stays warm long after dark because it doesn't store heat.
...deleted redundant rant...


The following is a long post. Keep your anger in check long enough to read it and try to understand the arguments presented here.

A stone does not store heat. Nothing can store heat. That isn't why a Stone stays warm after the Sun goes down.

A stone stays warm because of reduced heat. A stone has thermal energy and can only lose it so fast to surrounding air as the air cools. The air itself can only cool so fast due to the same reason. Did you know all materials have a specific heat value? Do you know WHY that value is known as specific heat?

A stone won't stay warm as well when coupling is better, such as when the stone is in a riverbed. It is easier for a specific heat to be conducted, or in other words for a specific amount of thermal energy to be moved out of the stone.

You really need to get a handle on the difference between 'heat' and 'thermal energy'.

It is NOT possible to store heat. It simply goes to zero if there is no flow of thermal energy.

It is NOT possible to store thermal energy unless you completely decouple it from anything else (a box that is a perfect insulator). The stone will always warm and cool. There is no such thing as a perfect insulator.

Thermal energy has a unit of measurement, called a temperature.

Heat has a unit of measurement, called the Joule, a unit defined as energy transfer over time...in other words, work. It is the same as a watt-second.

Specific heat (which you also seem to not understand) is the heat required to change the temperature of some material one degree, in other words, how much energy has to be moved.

Photographic flash units are often rated in joules. This is a measurement describing how much current is available at a particular voltage (watts) for how long a time (one second).

Resistors are rated in watts (actually, watt-seconds). It is the number of watts the resistor can dissipate to standard air temperature per second without being damaged.

Heat can occur by conduction, convection, or radiation (if and only if the emission results in absorption causing an increase of thermal energy elsewhere).

The surface heats CO2 by either conduction (like everything else in the air), or by radiance (by emitting infrared light that is absorbed by CO2). BOTH ways cool the surface. BOTH are ways for the surface to heat the air.

As you correctly point out, heated (now warmer air) rises. The air loses pressure as it rises. It cools, following the ideal gas law, just as any gas cools when you reduce the pressure. The energy is dissipated.

The part you fail to understand is that air is a material too. Like the surface, it radiates light all the time...following the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Cooler air tends to radiate a lower frequency infrared light, and because the material is so much less dense, the intensity of that light is quite reduced compared to the surface. The air 'glows' with infrared energy, the same as the surface, but not as brightly, and at a slightly 'redder' color. It is lower in energy than anything the surface is radiating, which also 'glows' an infrared color (but more intense and slightly 'bluer'). This is true even though we don't know the emissivity of Earth, or the temperature of Earth.

The atmosphere IS a bit like a radiator on a car. Most of the excess thermal energy in an engine is lost through direct conduction and through pumping it out the back of the exhaust pipe, or through heating the oil (which is cooled by exposing the oil pan to the cool airstream).

The radiator just covers for the excess needs of thermal energy loss from the engine (often referred to as 'heat' loss, or the heating of surrounding air by that engine).

The atmosphere DOES help cool the planet. That does not stop at the tropopause. That cooling effect continues throughout the atmosphere. MOST of the cooling comes from direct radiance into space by the surface. The rest comes from direct radiance into space by the atmosphere.

Any satellite in orbit can see this 'glow', if it has instruments on board to see infrared light over a wide band.

The Church of Global Warming is completely correct in that CO2 absorbs certain frequencies of infrared light. The effect of that absorption is warmer CO2. The surface is cooled by this action (a little detail conveniently ignored by the Church).

The Church of Global Warming is completely wrong in that CO2 cannot in turn heat the warmer surface that heated it in the first place. This is heat from cold to hot, which is not possible according to the law of entropy, also known as the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

The Church of Global Warming violates the Stefan-Boltzmann law also, since to 'trap' the energy as they say necessarily means reducing the radiance of Earth, all while claiming to use this energy to warm the Earth. The S-B law describes radiance and temperature moving in the same direction. It never moves in opposite directions. It does not matter if the emissivity is not known or the temperature is not known.

CO2 does not change emissivity. It is a gas, like any other. Emissivity, like the Stefan-Boltzmann law itself, is color-blind. This comes as a result of the way the S-B can be derived by integrating all frequencies of light from Planck's law into one sum. The absorption of infrared light by CO2 changes nothing, for it also emits infrared light.

Transposing this law DOES allow you to determine a temperature from a known radiance IF and only IF the emissivity is known, and that is the ONLY light you are measuring. It is not possible for any satellite to separate incident light that is not part of radiance from light is from radiance. The emissivity is, not being known, is the only way to determine which is which.

Your 'transpositions' eliminate emissivity from the equation (not possible without redefining the equation), or add a term for 'incident light', which is not part of the equation. Your transposition is actually violating the rules of algebra by the elimination and addition of these terms to the equation.

Emissivity is a constant. It is a measured value. The ONLY way to measure it is to first know the temperature of the object you are measuring. We don't know the temperature of the Earth.

This is a value that is the result of a statistical summary. Statistical analysis requires the calculation of a value know as the margin of error, which is not calculate from the data, but from the possible variance of the data...in other words the possible temperature gradient (I have personally seen gradients as steep as 20 deg F per mile).

We simply do not have anywhere near enough instruments to reduce the margin of error to anything less than the gradient in the first place. The summary is useless. Further, selection of data must be by randN, a random number similar to that use in card games...a random number with a 'memory'. Once a card is drawn, it cannot be drawn again. The same is true with data selection. You cannot use a temperature reading twice, or 'adjust it by any sort of weighting (which effectively does the same thing).

Selection MUST be independent of any aspect of the data itself. Location and location grouping are significant in temperature. That factor must be eliminated. Thermometers must be equally spaced for the analysis to make any sense. No correction for location or location grouping is allowed. Raw data must be used. The output of a non-existent statistical analysis cannot be used as an input to the same analysis. Time is significant. Earth rotates, storms move, etc. that factor must be eliminated for the analysis to make any sense. The readings must be taken simultaneously.

We just don't have the instrumentation. It's even worse when trying to measure an Earth-wide emissivity, or the sea level, or the amount of ice on Earth, or any of a number of things the Church of Global Warming goes on about.



You really have to get a handle on this stuff, or you are going to remain confused about it. Getting angry is not going to help. It prevents you from learning anything. It also prevents you from presenting an effective argument against the Church of Global Warming. The arguments you are using are based on the same fallacies and bad math the Church of Global Warming itself is using. It largely isn't even a science problem. It's a math problem. It requires the use of statistical math, which they use improperly, resulting in egregious math errors.

It is the reason I reject a lot of claims of 'data' around here.Their 'data' is nothing more than bad math, if not completely fabricated in the first place. (what is known as a randU, or the 'predictable' random number...the kind that appears when people like to talk about the <insert random high number here> scientists the have consensus on 'global warming').


This is a long post. I hope you take the time to read it all, and keep your anger in check long enough to allow for the possibility of my arguments presented here as being reasonable.


You have to have "that talk" with your boyfriend. You obviously are on the edge of insanity.
19-09-2017 23:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10213)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: An another example of an argument of the Stone.


As we ALL know a stone gets warm in the sun and stays warm long after dark because it doesn't store heat.
...deleted redundant rant...


The following is a long post. Keep your anger in check long enough to read it and try to understand the arguments presented here.
...deleted remaining long post...


You have to have "that talk" with your boyfriend. You obviously are on the edge of insanity.

Guess you couldn't do it. Instead of addressing a single argument presented in that post, you chose to go with a simple insult.

My only conclusion is that you have a mind that is extremely closed. You won't even research it.

There is a religion in play here, and you are part of it. Like other religions, you must put down the Outsider. It has been mentioned before by others, but here I will give it a name, taken from those who have noticed this pattern before.

Henceforth I will refer to it as the Church of the Warmazombie. The initial circular argument of this Church is similar to the Church of Global Warming (the globe is 'warming' or 'cooling' or that 'climate change' is taking place). It uses circular arguments of data, quoting that one set of random numbers is better than another set. Occasionally, a member of this Church might accidentally present real data that is verifiable and is from a known source and context.

It argues the globe is 'warming' or even possibly 'cooling', using the same fabrications of data the Church of Global Warming uses.

It worships the Great God Consensus, the same god as the Church of Global Warming. It does not worship the Great Goddess Gaia, however. It does worship the demigods the Holy Dataset and the Holy Link, in just the same way as the Church of Global Warming.

It's purpose is to attack it's sister Church, the Church of Global Warming by using the same faulty reasoning the Church of Global Warming uses. It often depends on bad math, the same as the Church of Global Warming and the use of manufactured data, the same as the Church of Global Warming.

It believes in the Holy Gas, just a different Holy Gas than the Church of Global Warming (whatever that happens to be). It believes in manufactured data, just a different manufactured data then the Church of Global Warming (whatever that happens to be).

Like the Church of Global Warming, it denies science, mathematics, formal logic, and the philosophy behind defining these subjects. It tries to impose consensus upon science, especially consensus by credentials, but also consensus in general. It completely fails to recognize that consensus is a religious or political term only and it has nothing to do with science.

You are not the first one to be found to be a member of the Church of the Warmazombie, Wake. There are many like you. You won't be the last, either.

Like the others in your Church, you won't listen to any Outsider simply because they are an Outsider. Bulverism is the biggest characteristic among members of your Church, but bigotry is common as well. You have displayed both.

Like the others in your Church, you deny mathematics and science. I cannot change your Religion. You refuse to learn.

At least the Church of the Warmazombie doesn't try to jail people to stop them from 'destroying the world' by burning fuel.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 19-09-2017 23:15




Join the debate Remember the Al Gore's of this World:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Great News! Al Roker has Addressed Climate Change for us!221-07-2019 22:18
USS Al Gore601-07-2019 05:59
Bernie Sanders & Al Gore Discuss Climate Change and Renewables (July 2017)918-12-2017 23:54
Al Gore Dumps Tipper?606-10-2017 20:11
Al Gore is a LIAR !!!!!2619-09-2017 03:31
Articles
Al Gore: Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech
Al Gore: Hurricane Katrina and Global Warming
Al Gore: Bali speech
▲ 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