Remember me
▼ Content

The failure of climate change theory



Page 4 of 4<<<234
05-11-2015 23:24
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
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.


You have denied your own argument.
06-11-2015 08:55
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
IBdaMann stampedes around the internet ranting that climate science is a religious myth and that climate scientists and anyone else who doesn't accept his crank beliefs are morons, dumbasses, and marxist warmazombies following a religious cult ... blah blah blah.

He claims he is only 'citing science', despite never being able to provide any authoritative science sources when challenged (because there aren't any that support his ridiculous pseudoscience Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense).

Then, when he finally provides a link, he uses Cliff Harris's website as an 'authoritative' source.

Cliff Harris claims he is one of the "top 10 climatologists in the last few decades" because he has kept some temperature 'scrapbooks' since he was a child.
Like IB, he also has no qualifications or background in any field of science, or any published research, but they both hold the delusional belief they are 'experts'.

But the real cracker, is that Cliff Harris is a devout Christian who believes that only God can change the earth's climate and believes he can predict the climate using the Bible.

THIS is what IB means by 'citing science'?

IBdaMann - Hoisted with his own 'religious' petard*.


Incredibly funny.

*To be hurt or destroyed by one's own plot or device intended for another; to be "blown up by one's own bomb".



Edited on 06-11-2015 08:58
06-11-2015 09:34
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
The only place where supporting evidence has a role is in rhetoric.


Okay then. Glad that you cleared that up for us. 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?

You have denied your own argument.


People are entitled to their own opinions, but that doesn't make them right. Science is based on data and evidence, not on how many people believe in something.
06-11-2015 17:03
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
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?


Why on earth would you guess that?

You obviously think "science" means "that which is important or useful." You need to correct your understanding.

Research is useful because it provides information, which is itself useful. Research can be performed in countless areas, some very important, like political examinations, social studies, medical analyses, housing cost/availability surveys etc... Research is not science. Taking measurements is not science. Conducting surveys is not science. The information they produce is itself trivia.

Religion is also useful because it helps some people cope with an uncertain world (thus making it of crucial importance to them), and is useful to politicians because religion is an opiate of the masses and provides politicians the reins of command (thus making it of crucial importance to them). As useful as religion is, it is not science.

Science is a collection of falsifiable models that predict nature and that have thus far survived the scientific method. There is no "supporting evidence" for any model within the body of science. When the falsifiable model for the theory of gravity is presented, no "supporting evidence" is presented to help "make the case." None is needed.

If information/data/measurements/observations help inspire someone in crafting a falsifiable model that accurately predicts nature without fail, that's great! Then we have new science and any "supporting evidence" is no longer needed. The scientific method would then try to falsify the model, and would not care one iota for any "supporting evidence" that suggests the model might be true.


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

Stupid has never been an opinion and is always deserving of mockery. Insisting that one's equipment is based on the "greenhouse effect" is stupid and deserving of mockery. Insisting that a religious viewpiont is science because no one can find your religious viewpoint discussed in science is stupid and deserving of mockery. Insisting that you are a scientist when you need to be taught grade-school fundamentals is stupid and deserving of mockery. Bulverism by ignorant morons is stupid and deserving of mockery.

If you ever decide you wish to participate in a discussion instead of pretending you have divine knowledge, pretending that you speak for countless, unnamed others and pretending that those who have differing viewpoints must automatically be wrong (especially those who clearly know so much more than you) then sure, we can engage in an actual discussion.

Until then, yes, you can count on every stupid bulveristic thing you write to be mocked. You can have a stupid opinion; that's fine. You can have a WACKY religious dogma; that's fine as well. However, when you simply dismiss corrections from others with snide, baseless arrogance, expect mockery to follow.


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
06-11-2015 20:24
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Research is not science. Taking measurements is not science


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

Still no evidence about your claim that the greenhouse effect violates the laws of physics. 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.
06-11-2015 20:40
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
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!


Please state your position. Write the words: "Research and measurements are science."

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

Do you accept the 1st LoT?

Do you accept the relationships:

Resulting Energy = Initial Energy + Added Energy
Resulting Energy = Initial Energy - Expended Energy

?

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: 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'm happy to not be a religious dupe who believes unfalsifiable religious dogma is somehow falsifiable science. I'm elated to not be so gullible that I tell people that my equipment is based on a religious myth. Can you imagine someone claiming his equipment is based on the immaculate conception, or on the "greenhouse effect" or on the coming of the twelfth imam? He would have to be quite the moron, yes?





.


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
06-11-2015 20:47
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
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?
06-11-2015 21:36
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
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?

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.
06-11-2015 21:48
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
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.

No literature. Science. Cite science, not literature.

I'll tell you what, I'll post some literature and I suppose that will prove my point:

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.


You need to explain why "evidence" trumps science. The science is against you. I presented the science. You presented no science.


.


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
06-11-2015 23:48
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Let's compare authoritative sources:

IBs 'authoritative' sources (which Into The Night also high-fived)

Cliff Harris: No qualifications in any field of science and no published research. He apparently calls himself "one of the top climatologists in the world" because he has kept scrap-books of temperatures since he was a child. He is a devout Christian who believes only God can change the climate and that he can predict the climate using the Bible.

Robert Felix: An out of work former architect with no qualifications in any relevant field of science and no published research. He believes there is an Ice Age Coming..... any day now. He wrote a self-published book about his beliefs and you can buy it from his website.

Himself: a fanatically zealous Sky Dragon Slayer who doesn't even understand what constitutes science, parrots pseudoscience he found on some anti-science conspiracy blog, makes evidence-free unsupported assertions, and trolls around the internet calling everyone morons.

climate scientist's sources: the last 200 years of science as discussed in hundreds of thousands of research papers in science Journals in and any science textbook.

Gosh, so hard to decide




Edited on 06-11-2015 23:57
07-11-2015 17:36
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
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. I have no political view. I really couldn't care less who is in government at the moment. I do have a scientific view, however. It is based on scientific literature, research and data.

Are you telling me that your opinion on climate change has nothing whatsoever with your political view? If that is the case, then why do you reject the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence? You have not presented anything to back up your claims either, in which case, on what are they based?
07-11-2015 21:07
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
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.

Argumentum ad populum. It doesn't matter how many books or papers you claim. They can't prove anything true. 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.
climate scientist wrote:
I have no political view. I really couldn't care less who is in government at the moment.

Bullshit. Your political party is not Republican or Democrat. It is the IPCC.
climate scientist wrote:
I do have a scientific view, however. It is based on scientific literature, research and data.

It is based on the IPCC and it's political agenda.
climate scientist wrote:
Are you telling me that your opinion on climate change has nothing whatsoever with your political view?

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

Because it isn't scientific evidence. There is no such thing as 'scientific' evidence. There is evidence, or not.
climate scientist wrote:
You have not presented anything to back up your claims either, in which case, on what are they based?

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'.
07-11-2015 22:10
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
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.
07-11-2015 23:15
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
climate scientist wrote: I have said many times that the greenhouse effect does not violate any physical laws.

Exactly. You describe blatant violations of physics and close with "...and there is no violation of physics."

You avoided my question as to whether or not you accept the relationships:

1) Total Energy = Initial Energy + Added Energy
2) Total Energy = Initial Energy - Expended Energy

These are what you violate, and then claim you aren't violating them. So, yes, you have contradicted yourself many times, as you have indicated.

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

Well, your version, at least.

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.


There's the science above that you are violating. It has been explained to you many times, but you reach deep into your faith and summon forth your bulverism and presume that the messenger must be wrong.

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.

Science trumps "The Science."

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

The IPCC is Marxist and supports leftists governments and leftist political parties around the world.

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

The reports are written by activists and the final versions are edited by politicians. The reports contain no science, only fear-mongering for the scientifically illiterate.

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

So are the Papal Encyclicals. Shall I quote them?

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

Would you accept any research papers on the basis that I call them "scientific" research papers? I promise to use the word "scientific" in the exact same manner you do.

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

They're based on trivia? Oh, that's really helpful.

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

<give me a moment to catch my breath>

What, exactly, do you think that means, re: the "robust" part?

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

Meaning you were presented "signs" and developed unfalsifiable beliefs based upon them, yes? You otherwise don't have anything falsifiable to show for all those signs that have been revealed unto you, correct?

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

And I have access to all the scientific* Papal encyclicals. Shall we compare notes?

* - I'm just using the word "scientific" in the manner a la Climate Scientist.

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

I also know of people who attend regular church services. We have everything we need to discuss "climate."

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.

I love that need for you to qualify everything about "climate" with the word "scientific". Hey, if you can do it, you must accept everyone else being able to do it as well. Everything is "scientific" so long as the word "scientific" is applied by the speaker/author. Awesome.

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.

The sun warms the earth. Yes, the earth has been warmed in the past, is being warmed right now, and will likely be warmed in the future.

So what?

The fact remains that, as far as you know, the earth could be cooling right now, i.e. decreasing in temperature.

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?

Right, it turns out they're going to cancel Christianity because someone looked into it and discovered people can't come back from the dead and rise into heaven.

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.

Your turn. I know of no one who has proven me wrong, much less anyone using the same physics I use. How have I been proven wrong?


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
08-11-2015 12:22
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
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.
08-11-2015 14:27
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
climate scientist wrote:
Um... you haven't expressed the law of conservation of energy at all.

It's time, once again, to mock your stupid.

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

Don't ever ask for any more science references. You can't understand English, and you can't understand math. It will be recognized as an intentional attempt waste time while you stall.

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.

The 1st LoT applies always, per the relationship you apparently are trying to deny.

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

So, instead of the 1st LoT being what it is, you are saying this is what it "would be" were it to exist? Given your poor grasp of English I would understand if you meant something else entirely (hint: this is your opportunity to once again change your story).

Btw...that whole "the 1st LoT only applis in a closed system" is a huge rookie mistake. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed in any system, open or closed. Your stupis "greenhouse effect" doesn't get to violate the 1st LoT just by asserting the earth is not closed system..


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
08-11-2015 14:59
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
@ 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.
08-11-2015 23:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
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.

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?
08-11-2015 23:46
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
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.

False equivalence, and a compositional fallacy. You are looking at the wrong 'isolated system'. Try looking at the Sun-Earth-Space system.
Edited on 08-11-2015 23:47
09-11-2015 07:53
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
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.


Frankly I'm amazed that these Sky Dragon Slayers actually believe they are convincing anyone. 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.



09-11-2015 07:53
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
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.


Frankly I'm amazed that these Sky Dragon Slayers actually believe they are convincing anyone but themselves. They are not really much different to young earth creationists trying to argue that the earth is less than 10,000 years old and that all the evidence for a 4 and half billion year old earth is wrong and all the scientists are wrong.
Their arguments are just rhetoric and pseudoscience too.



Edited on 09-11-2015 08:13
09-11-2015 14:53
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
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?

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?
09-11-2015 22:33
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
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?

I have already answered these questions. I will not post them here. You've already done that.
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.
Edited on 09-11-2015 22:34
09-11-2015 22:46
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
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.
09-11-2015 23:42
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
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?
09-11-2015 23:47
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
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.
10-11-2015 18:05
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
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.

Aside from you being the scientifically illiterate religious fundamentalist on the side of WACKY religion, you are otherwise spot on.



.


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
10-11-2015 22:03
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
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!
11-11-2015 09:42
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
??? 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.
11-11-2015 11:24
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
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.

I think it goes something like this:

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

"Me scared of gubmint reglationz on CO2 (greenhouse gases don't even exist!), so global warming must be a leftist, Marxist, fascist, gubmint hoax!"

"Me believe leftist, Marxist, fascist, gubmint paid scientists and any evil scientist whose data I don't like, must be fudging data because they get paid big bucks to lie for da gibmint and want to take over the world and do evil stuff and make me pay taxes and stuff"

"Me believe textbooks are all wrong and me is right because I told you so"

"Me like playing with numbers and stuff. I learnt how to count on my fingers on both hands last year, but now I can even count to 100 and do a line graph in Excel! Yes really I can. I bet you can't you moron. So there!"

"Me don't need no stinkin' evidence. Evidence has no place in science"

"Me right. You wrong. So there! Suck on that you moron!"



Edited on 11-11-2015 11:29
11-11-2015 13:57
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
Ceist wrote:
"Me like free-market and no gubmint. Gubmint sux!"

Aaaah, the purely Marxist angle!

It's amazing that you allow entire posts go by without calling for the abolition of petroleum.

Shouldn't you have "Death to Capitalism!" in your signature line?


.


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
11-11-2015 21:54
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
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.
11-11-2015 22:06
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
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.



Edited on 11-11-2015 22:28
12-11-2015 00:05
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
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.


You have referred to nothing but irrelevant links. You apparently have no mind of your own, as is continuously demonstrated by this insistence on links and your God Google.
12-11-2015 02:16
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
Ceist wrote: You and your mate IB are just making up non-science nonsense.


Could you write it "might" instead of "mate" so we can enjoy the full benefit of your accent as well?

e.g. "You and your might IB are just putting the shrimps on the ba'a-b."




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.

Defo. They aren't views. They are a lack of views, namely yours. You are the one who needs to support your WACKY religious conjecture that you are touting as science.

It is no one's responsibility to accept your burden of proof and to somehow prove your assertions false.

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

Science is science. The word "mainstream" applies to religions, e.g. "mainstream Islam," "mainstream Global Warming dogma," "mainstream Christianity," etc... to distinguish a subjective "consensus" viewpoint, the meat-n-potatoes of religion. The bread-n-butter of religion, of course, is normally the "vast amount of (supporting) evidence" you mention.

Thanks for illuminating my point as well as you did.

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.

As I have repeatedly said, you cannot discern religion from science. Your belief that your religion is science, and that science is akin to Creationism, pretty much ends any previous potential speculation.


.


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
13-11-2015 02:55
gctimes
☆☆☆☆☆
(24)
Man-made climate change is a proven scientific fact, not a theory.
13-11-2015 05:01
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
gctimes wrote:
Man-made climate change is a proven scientific fact, not a theory.


Man-made climate change is a fanatical religion proven to dupe the scientifically illiterate.


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
13-11-2015 10:59
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1285)
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.
13-11-2015 13:20
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
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.


Of course you mean according to your personal definition of "climate"... whatever that is, yes?


.


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 4 of 4<<<234





Join the debate The failure of climate change theory:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Theory coming to fruition?1418-05-2019 22:43
An alternative theory from a non-scientist529-04-2019 18:28
Whirlpool theory of ocean deadzones?325-04-2019 05:47
Is Gore's theory CO2 causes warming false?2731-01-2019 00:19
Why I doubt the Climate Theory? Plant food causes climate change?315-12-2018 20:20
Articles
Theory
▲ 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