The failure of climate change theory

climate scientist wrote:
Oh dear, getting very worked up again, aren't you IBdaMann.

You are a troll because you subject me to personal abuse, not because you disagree with what I think. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and I do not label people as trolls, just because they disagree with me, so long as they do not spew insults at me, like you do.

The only place where supporting evidence has a role is in rhetoric.

You have denied your own argument.

climate scientist wrote: I guess the thousands of scientists world-wide working in labs, doing experiments, gathering supporting evidence on cancer, diabetes, Amazonian biodiversity, lower temperature thermoconductors, etc, etc, they are all just wasting their time, right?

climate scientist wrote: People are entitled to their own opinions, but that doesn't make them right.

Research is not science. Taking measurements is not science

climate scientist wrote:

Research is not science. Taking measurements is not science

Haha! You have an extremely odd view on what does and does not constitute science!

climate scientist wrote: Still no evidence about your claim that the greenhouse effect violates the laws of physics.

climate scientist wrote: I don't really need to call you a troll, because you are doing a perfectly good job of illustrating this with the content of your posts. So by all means, do carry on.

Absolutely...assuming that by "troll" you mean someone with whom you disagree.

I have already blown your version of the "greenhouse effect" out of the water. You certainly aren't any judge who I need to convince.

By the way, why are you insisting that I repeat myself when your standard excuse for EVASION is that you refuse to "repeat" yourself?

climate scientist wrote:

Absolutely...assuming that by "troll" you mean someone with whom you disagree.

As I said before, you are not a troll because you disagree with me, you are a troll because you are intent on writing abusive posts.

I have already blown your version of the "greenhouse effect" out of the water. You certainly aren't any judge who I need to convince.

By the way, why are you insisting that I repeat myself when your standard excuse for EVASION is that you refuse to "repeat" yourself?

In my original posts several weeks ago I provided numerous references to scientific literature, as to why the greenhouse effect exists, and why some of your statements referring to energy and heat and temperature were incorrect.

You have never provided any evidence of any kind. I have been asking you to back up your statements with scientific evidence from the literature for weeks now, and you refuse. So I am left to assume that this is because you cannot find any evidence. So I will ask again, can you provide any evidence to back up your statement that the greenhouse effect violates the laws of physics?

climate scientist wrote:In my original posts several weeks ago I provided numerous references to scientific literature, as to why the greenhouse effect exists, and why some of your statements referring to energy and heat and temperature were incorrect.

From the peer reviewed scientific literature of Beowulf

Hwæt! We Gar-Dena in gear-dagum
þeod-cyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon!
Oft Scyld Scefing sceaþena þreatum
monegum mægþum meodo-setla ofteah;
egsode eorl[as] syððan ærest wearð
feasceaft funden; he þæs frofre gebad,
weox under wolcnum, weorð-myndum þah,
oðæt him æghwylc þara ymb-sittendra
ofer hron-rade hyran scolde,
gomban gyldan. Þæt wæs god cyning!

climate scientist wrote:You have never provided any evidence of any kind.

Are you seriously arguing that something must be true because it's in a book???
Your continued asking the same question that has already been answered is just argumentum ad lapidem. You are just refusing to consider any answer presented that doesn't meet your political view.

climate scientist wrote:

Are you seriously arguing that something must be true because it's in a book???
Your continued asking the same question that has already been answered is just argumentum ad lapidem. You are just refusing to consider any answer presented that doesn't meet your political view.

Not just a book. Thousands of books, thousands of scientific papers, and plenty of data. I am happy to consider IBdaMann's statements if he can back them up with some evidence or literature.

climate scientist wrote:
I have no political view. I really couldn't care less who is in government at the moment.

climate scientist wrote:
I do have a scientific view, however. It is based on scientific literature, research and data.

climate scientist wrote:
Are you telling me that your opinion on climate change has nothing whatsoever with your political view?

climate scientist wrote:
If that is the case, then why do you reject the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence?

climate scientist wrote:
You have not presented anything to back up your claims either, in which case, on what are they based?

Supporting evidence has no place in science. If you are going to modify the laws of thermodynamics, you must show verifiable falsifying data of those laws or show why those laws don't apply.

Bullshit. Your political party is not Republican or Democrat. It is the IPCC.

No. My political view comes from my view on climate change and other 'looming disaster' claims, not the other way around. I reject both Republicans and Democrats, not because I worship the IPCC and the United Nations, but because neither party will uphold the Constitution.

Because it isn't scientific evidence. There is no such thing as 'scientific' evidence. There is evidence, or not.

Existing laws of thermodynamics. Existing laws of motion. Existing laws of radiation physics. Existing laws of electromagnetism. Existing laws of hydrodynamics and aerodynamics. Existing pressure and gas laws. Existing temperature and precipitation data across the country collected by NOAA operated stations.
I could go on, but that would be ignored by you. You would rather accept books and papers that ignore or modify these laws without explanation as 'The Truth'.

climate scientist wrote: I have said many times that the greenhouse effect does not violate any physical laws.

climate scientist wrote: It is you and IBdaMann who claim that it does.

climate scientist wrote: I have asked for evidence to back up this claim so that I can investigate why you seem to think that the greenhouse effect does violate the laws of thermodynamics.

climate scientist wrote: The IPCC is non-political, because it is so international.

climate scientist wrote: The reports are written by scientists, not politicans.

climate scientist wrote: I quote the reports so often because they are publicly available.

climate scientist wrote: I could quote research papers if you would prefer, but you might not have access to all of them.

climate scientist wrote: The IPCC reports are based on data.

climate scientist wrote: Numerous independent investigations into the IPCC process have found the science to be robust.

climate scientist wrote: My views on climate change are based on data (some of which I have collected myself) and research.

climate scientist wrote: I have access to all the main scientific journals through my job.

climate scientist wrote: I also frequently attend seminars, particularly those relating to aspects of the carbon cycle, since this is my field of research.

climate scientist wrote: My scientific understanding is not based on the IPCC reports, but it is based on the same research that the IPCC reports are based on.

climate scientist wrote:Call it what you like. The evidence indicates that the planet has warmed, is warming, and is likely to warm in the future.

climate scientist wrote:Do you not think that if the greenhouse effect did violate the laws of thermodynamics, then someone else might have looked into it?

climate scientist wrote: The only people who make such as claim are climate change deniers, and they have been shown to be wrong by physicists.

You can look anywhere on the internet you wish and the Law of Conservation of Energy will be expressed in the manner I expressed above. Your violation of that law will not change by looking in different websites.

climate scientist wrote:
Um... you haven't expressed the law of conservation of energy at all.

climate scientist wrote:The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant, because energy is conserved over time.

climate scientist wrote: So actually, the equation would simply be total energy = X, where X is a constant.

climate scientist wrote:

Supporting evidence has no place in science. If you are going to modify the laws of thermodynamics, you must show verifiable falsifying data of those laws or show why those laws don't apply.

I do not think the laws of thermodynamics need to be modified. I have said many times that the greenhouse effect does not violate any physical laws. It is you and IBdaMann who claim that it does. I have asked for evidence to back up this claim so that I can investigate why you seem to think that the greenhouse effect does violate the laws of thermodynamics. You have not provided any evidence. Therefore, I am left to assume that you came to this conclusion because it suits you to, and that you statement is based on nothing more than your opinion. Evidence and data are the corner stones of science. I'm not sure why you think otherwise. I could turn round and say that the oceans are actually twice as deep as we think they are, but it would be pointless and meaningless, unless I had any data or evidence to back up my statement.

Bullshit. Your political party is not Republican or Democrat. It is the IPCC.

I am not American, nor do I live in the US, so no, I do not support either the Republicans or the Democrats. The IPCC is non-political, because it is so international. The reports are written by scientists, not politicans. We have been through this before. I quote the reports so often because they are publicly available. I could quote research papers if you would prefer, but you might not have access to all of them. The IPCC reports are based on data. Numerous independent investigations into the IPCC process have found the science to be robust. My views on climate change are based on data (some of which I have collected myself) and research. I have access to all the main scientific journals through my job. I also frequently attend seminars, particularly those relating to aspects of the carbon cycle, since this is my field of research. The IPCC is mainly a resource that I use for teaching purposes, because the figures are well presented. My scientific understanding is not based on the IPCC reports, but it is based on the same research that the IPCC reports are based on.

No. My political view comes from my view on climate change and other 'looming disaster' claims, not the other way around. I reject both Republicans and Democrats, not because I worship the IPCC and the United Nations, but because neither party will uphold the Constitution.

And what is your view on climate change based on?

Because it isn't scientific evidence. There is no such thing as 'scientific' evidence. There is evidence, or not.

Call it what you like. The evidence indicates that the planet has warmed, is warming, and is likely to warm in the future.

Existing laws of thermodynamics. Existing laws of motion. Existing laws of radiation physics. Existing laws of electromagnetism. Existing laws of hydrodynamics and aerodynamics. Existing pressure and gas laws. Existing temperature and precipitation data across the country collected by NOAA operated stations.
I could go on, but that would be ignored by you. You would rather accept books and papers that ignore or modify these laws without explanation as 'The Truth'.

I accept all of the above. I have never said otherwise. None of the books and papers I have provided reject any of these. The data you provided show that the planet has warmed. You have not explained how the greenhouse effect violates any of the above, or provided any evidence to indicate that the greenhouse effect violates any of the above. Do you not think that if the greenhouse effect did violate the laws of thermodynamics, then someone else might have looked into it? The only people who make such as claim are climate change deniers, and they have been shown to be wrong by physicists.

climate scientist wrote:

You can look anywhere on the internet you wish and the Law of Conservation of Energy will be expressed in the manner I expressed above. Your violation of that law will not change by looking in different websites.

Um... you haven't expressed the law of conservation of energy at all. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant, because energy is conserved over time.

So actually, the equation would simply be total energy = X, where X is a constant. Of course, the Earth is not an isolated system, because energy is transferred to and received from space.

climate scientist wrote:
@ IBdaMann. Oh dear oh dear oh dear. You seem to be a bit rattled. I have never said that energy is created or destroyed. I said that it is transformed from one form to another. I said that the Law of Conservation of Energy applies to closed systems. This is a fact. Here are some links to educate you about the Law of conservation, and the 1st LoT:

http://www.explainthatstuff.com/conservation-of-energy.html

http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/node/1842

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/conser.html

https://chemistry.osu.edu/~woodward/ch121/ch5_law.htm

http://study.com/academy/lesson/first-law-of-thermodynamics-law-of-conservation-of-energy.html

I suggest that you read/watch them, particularly the last one. Your understanding of physics is really quite shocking. Do you have any references to back up the ridiculous claims that you have mentioned above. Such as:

"The law of conservation of energy is properly and formally exprssed in math, not in some natural language, e.g. English."

"Btw...that whole "the 1st LoT only applis in a closed system" is a huge rookie mistake."

Or did you simply make these statements up? Because the physics books disagree with you.

climate scientist wrote:
@ IBdaMann. Oh dear oh dear oh dear. You seem to be a bit rattled. I have never said that energy is created or destroyed. I said that it is transformed from one form to another. I said that the Law of Conservation of Energy applies to closed systems. This is a fact. Here are some links to educate you about the Law of conservation, and the 1st LoT:

http://www.explainthatstuff.com/conservation-of-energy.html

http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/node/1842

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/conser.html

https://chemistry.osu.edu/~woodward/ch121/ch5_law.htm

http://study.com/academy/lesson/first-law-of-thermodynamics-law-of-conservation-of-energy.html

I suggest that you read/watch them, particularly the last one. Your understanding of physics is really quite shocking. Do you have any references to back up the ridiculous claims that you have mentioned above. Such as:

"The law of conservation of energy is properly and formally exprssed in math, not in some natural language, e.g. English."

"Btw...that whole "the 1st LoT only applis in a closed system" is a huge rookie mistake."

Or did you simply make these statements up? Because the physics books disagree with you.

You accept them at convenience. Then you routinely break them at your convenience without explaining why.
I find it interesting that you apparently also accept the books and papers that ignore or modify these laws without explanation at 'The Truth'. Is that included in your statement?

climate scientist wrote:

You accept them at convenience. Then you routinely break them at your convenience without explaining why.
I find it interesting that you apparently also accept the books and papers that ignore or modify these laws without explanation at 'The Truth'. Is that included in your statement?

Can you be more specific? What am I apparently breaking at my convenience? Where are these books and papers that modify the laws of physics? Can you post them here, and explain which parts demonstrate that the laws of physics have been modified?

climate scientist wrote:
You did not reply to my question: if you do not trust the textbooks and scientific resources, then on what evidence have you based your view on climate change? Or is your view on climate change actually not based on any evidence at all? What have you read that is apparently so convincing?

I have already answered that question. Ignoring my answer will not make it go away.

climate scientist wrote:

I have already answered that question. Ignoring my answer will not make it go away.

I beg to differ. You said that your political views were based on your views about climate change. But you did not say what your climate change views were based on.

Yes, I have...countless times. Are you truly going to try to deny all the discussions we've had?

Ceist wrote:It's not really any different than a young earth creationist trying to argue that the earth is less than 10,000 years old and that all the science for a 4 and half billion year old earth is wrong.

climate scientist wrote:

Yes, I have...countless times. Are you truly going to try to deny all the discussions we've had?

No of course not. Perhaps I am missing something then. Indulge me, and explain here what evidence your views on climate change are based on. Please provide links.

??? You have denied your own argument AGAIN!

climate scientist wrote:

??? You have denied your own argument AGAIN!

You are not making much sense. What is this argument that I am apparently denying? Indulge me, and explain here what evidence your views on climate change are based on. Please provide links. And stop evading my question.

Ceist wrote:
"Me like free-market and no gubmint. Gubmint sux!"

climate scientist wrote:

??? You have denied your own argument AGAIN!

You are not making much sense. What is this argument that I am apparently denying?

climate scientist wrote:
Indulge me, and explain here what evidence your views on climate change are based on. Please provide links. And stop evading my question.

Into the Night wrote:

climate scientist wrote:

??? You have denied your own argument AGAIN!

You are not making much sense. What is this argument that I am apparently denying?

News media is something you don't trust. Then you council me to go to the news media to make my case.

climate scientist wrote:
Indulge me, and explain here what evidence your views on climate change are based on. Please provide links. And stop evading my question.

I am not an echo of Google or any website like Ceist. I have formed my own opinions after conducting my own research over time.

I am not going to answer here, it's already been answered in discussions since I joined this forum. I have provided links to data and I have provided data. Go read and be happy.

Ceist wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

climate scientist wrote:

??? You have denied your own argument AGAIN!

You are not making much sense. What is this argument that I am apparently denying?

News media is something you don't trust. Then you council me to go to the news media to make my case.

climate scientist wrote:
Indulge me, and explain here what evidence your views on climate change are based on. Please provide links. And stop evading my question.

I am not an echo of Google or any website like Ceist. I have formed my own opinions after conducting my own research over time.

I am not going to answer here, it's already been answered in discussions since I joined this forum. I have provided links to data and I have provided data. Go read and be happy.

No sweetie, I'm just referring you to educational science sources or the science literature so you could learn something if you removed that faith-based teflon-coated science denier shield you wear.

You and your mate IB are just making up non-science nonsense. Your Sky Dragon Slayer paranoid conspiracy views are so fringe and crack pot that you can never find any textbook, valid educational science source, or anything in the science literature to support them.

Do you even accept that your claims that the natural 'greenhouse' effect doesn't even exist are extremely fringe, are not based on any scientific evidence and that you are battling against mainstream science, the laws of physics and a vast amount of evidence?

You and IB can continue to pretend ad nauseum that you are talking about science, but you are just ranting irrationally like a Young Earth Creationist trying to convince everyone the earth is less than 10,000 years old.

Guess what? You're not convincing anyone but yourselves. People are just playing with you because it's funny to see what crackpot statements you'll make up next.

Ceist wrote: You and your mate IB are just making up non-science nonsense.

Ceist wrote:Your Sky Dragon Slayer paranoid conspiracy views are so fringe and crack pot that you can never find any textbook, valid educational science source, or anything in the science literature to support them.

Ceist wrote:... and that you are battling against mainstream science, the laws of physics and a vast amount of evidence?

Ceist wrote: You and IB can continue to pretend ad nauseum that you are talking about science, but you are just ranting irrationally like a Young Earth Creationist trying to convince everyone the earth is less than 10,000 years old.

gctimes wrote:
Man-made climate change is a proven scientific fact, not a theory.

gctimes wrote:
Man-made climate change is a proven scientific fact, not a theory.

Tim the plumber wrote:

gctimes wrote:
Man-made climate change is a proven scientific fact, not a theory.

The debate, generally, is to what extent human release of CO2 has and will effect the climate.

Obviously human activity does have an effect. The climate in a city is different to the country side.