Remember me
▼ Content

The "radiative Greenhouse effect" does not exist



Page 4 of 4<<<234
11-03-2020 08:27
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3979)
IBdaMann wrote:...no one knows whether there actually was an ice age (it's pure speculation) ...
OK IBD, what's not pure speculation?

Do you know you're not dreaming right now? Familiar with Descartes?

How about that the Earth is not flat?

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
11-03-2020 19:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22643)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 22...16b...35b1...


No argument presented.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
11-03-2020 20:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14886)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...no one knows whether there actually was an ice age (it's pure speculation) ...
OK IBD, what's not pure speculation?

Stupid question. We have been over this.


.


I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit

A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-03-2020 21:02
Harry CProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(157)
Harry C wrote:
There is an observed temperature increase that has occurred over time. Why is that?


The question was more rhetorical. It's more like, why do we care if the answer is not CO2?


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
11-03-2020 21:39
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14886)
Harry C wrote:
Harry C wrote:
There is an observed temperature increase that has occurred over time. Why is that?


The question was more rhetorical. It's more like, why do we care if the answer is not CO2?

Because we want to see who is gullible enough to buy the supposition that there is actually an observed temperature increase.

Once we identify the gullible people we can target them for other financial scams and real estate timeshare deals.


.


I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit

A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-03-2020 23:07
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3979)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...no one knows whether there actually was an ice age (it's pure speculation) ...
OK IBD, what's not pure speculation?

Stupid question. We have been over this.
We have and you've never answered.

What's more there is this:no data is valid for IBD

Like really? WOW! Still no rebuttal.

Harry C wrote:
The question was more rhetorical. It's more like, why do we care if the answer is not CO2?

Because in any serious investigation eliminating things is an important part of the process. Sometimes it's the only way to find the right answer.

I could read that as:
"There is a serious fraud being perpetrated on the world, but why do we care since it's not true?"

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
11-03-2020 23:14
James___
★★★★★
(5513)
Harry C wrote:
Harry C wrote:
There is an observed temperature increase that has occurred over time. Why is that?


The question was more rhetorical. It's more like, why do we care if the answer is not CO2?



With me, a couple of reasons. What will people think about scientists when the planet starts cooling again? Why would anyone want to listen to them? Also, if the science is wrong, it's hurting other facets of science. And last but not least, it's taken over about all discussions of science.
Find sources of fresh water west of the Mississippi River interesting? That accounts for about 40% of US agricultural production. But it's not CO2.
Why is the northern Pacific Ocean having above average temperature warm blobs (2) since 2013 that can last a couple of years or more and if not caused by CO2, then why are they happening?
12-03-2020 02:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22643)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 29...paradoxes a...r...29...20c...10 (science<->answers)...16b...


No argument presented. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
12-03-2020 02:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22643)
James___ wrote:
Why is the northern Pacific Ocean having above average temperature warm blobs (2) since 2013 that can last a couple of years or more and if not caused by CO2, then why are they happening?


They aren't happening.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-04-2024 20:12
RenaissanceMan
★☆☆☆☆
(115)
If climate change were "fact, fact, fact," as its proponents swear with absolute certainty, there could not possibly be thousands of scientists who have published papers, videos and books refuting the climate change panic with a wide variety of compelling details and facts and graphs.
10-04-2024 20:12
RenaissanceMan
★☆☆☆☆
(115)
If climate change were "fact, fact, fact," as its proponents swear with absolute certainty, there could not possibly be thousands of scientists who have published papers, videos and books refuting the climate change panic with a wide variety of compelling details and facts and graphs.
Edited on 10-04-2024 20:14
10-04-2024 20:17
keepit
★★★★★
(3330)
rm,
Where could i find a list of these scientists and books etc, refuting human induced climate change. That's lot of refuting. I always heard that 97% agreed, not refuted.
10-04-2024 20:54
James_
★★★★★
(2273)
keepit wrote:
rm,
Where could i find a list of these scientists and books etc, refuting human induced climate change. That's lot of refuting. I always heard that 97% agreed, not refuted.



The IPCC has been pulling a fast one with this. They used to say CO2;
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0497116/

While the documentary was not sponsored by the IPCC, it does seem that the IPCC
let that documentary determine the science behind climate change. There is a large number of scientists who does not support the IPCC saying CO2 and today the IPCC will not say CO2 is causing climate change.
And today many organizations will still say CO2 because that's what the IPCC gave them as a cause for climate change.

This is an example of what I mean. https://nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/determination_of_end_of_ice_age/

That opinion of his has been heavily censored. When he says

However in the North during the ice age climate was also subjected to fast climate oscillations, i.e. a flip-flop from cold to very cold conditions. This flip-flop or bipolar see saw continued to occur during the slow and gradual warming from 18,000 to 11,000 years ago.


That is all he is allowed to say. Do you support a 2 State solution? Some things are not allowed to be spoken.

p.s., If my research proves out, his opinion changing will become known. And who forced him to change his opinion, I will hunt those people down and cost them their jobs. A lot of my research has been based on what has been made known.
His opinion was my Rosetta Stone for understanding how my research applies to understanding climate change. That makes his original opinion an important historical artifact, an important contribution to science if you will.

p.s.s., My research if successful will explain the flip-flops that he describes. This
information is found online. What made his opinion special was the contexts and examples that he used.
Edited on 10-04-2024 21:17
11-04-2024 00:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22643)
keepit wrote:
rm,
Where could i find a list of these scientists and books etc, refuting human induced climate change. That's lot of refuting. I always heard that 97% agreed, not refuted.

Argument from randU fallacy. Quoting made up numbers doesn't mean anything, keepit.

Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science. Climate cannot change.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 11-04-2024 00:22
11-04-2024 00:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22643)
James_ wrote:
keepit wrote:
rm,
Where could i find a list of these scientists and books etc, refuting human induced climate change. That's lot of refuting. I always heard that 97% agreed, not refuted.



The IPCC has been pulling a fast one with this. They used to say CO2;
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0497116/

While the documentary was not sponsored by the IPCC, it does seem that the IPCC
let that documentary determine the science behind climate change. There is a large number of scientists who does not support the IPCC saying CO2 and today the IPCC will not say CO2 is causing climate change.
And today many organizations will still say CO2 because that's what the IPCC gave them as a cause for climate change.

This is an example of what I mean. https://nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/determination_of_end_of_ice_age/

That opinion of his has been heavily censored. When he says

However in the North during the ice age climate was also subjected to fast climate oscillations, i.e. a flip-flop from cold to very cold conditions. This flip-flop or bipolar see saw continued to occur during the slow and gradual warming from 18,000 to 11,000 years ago.


That is all he is allowed to say. Do you support a 2 State solution? Some things are not allowed to be spoken.

p.s., If my research proves out, his opinion changing will become known. And who forced him to change his opinion, I will hunt those people down and cost them their jobs. A lot of my research has been based on what has been made known.
His opinion was my Rosetta Stone for understanding how my research applies to understanding climate change. That makes his original opinion an important historical artifact, an important contribution to science if you will.

p.s.s., My research if successful will explain the flip-flops that he describes. This
information is found online. What made his opinion special was the contexts and examples that he used.
Climate cannot change.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
11-04-2024 01:31
RenaissanceMan
★☆☆☆☆
(115)
keepit wrote:
rm,
Where could i find a list of these scientists and books etc, refuting human induced climate change. That's lot of refuting. I always heard that 97% agreed, not refuted.


TheGlobalWarmingFraud dot wordpress dot com


Author of Brilliant Creations - The Wonder of Nature and Life, described by medical doctor as "beyond incredible"
12-04-2024 20:41
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14886)
keepit wrote:Where could i find a list of these scientists and books etc, refuting human induced climate change. That's lot of refuting. I always heard that 97% agreed, not refuted.

Why should any rational adult worship your WACKY Global Warming religion?
RE: At LEAST 97% of scientists agree13-04-2024 20:52
sealover
★★★★☆
(1769)
IBdaMann wrote:
keepit wrote:Where could i find a list of these scientists and books etc, refuting human induced climate change. That's lot of refuting. I always heard that 97% agreed, not refuted.

Why should any rational adult worship your WACKY Global Warming religion?



Especially after this past year of extreme weather, the 97% figure is an underestimate.

There is no doubt among credible scientists.

Unambiguous definition of "rational adult".

A "rational adult" is a scientifically illiterate Internet troll who never passed a single college level course in ANY field of science. Doesn't even know what science is. Literally!
13-04-2024 23:50
RenaissanceMan
★☆☆☆☆
(115)
You mean the "credible scientists" who have been wrong for decades? Who have provided nonsense "research" found to be fudged? Those "credible scientists"?
I've excelled in college level science courses. You cultists who spread your nonsense simply prattle, without providing any original material you created that substantiates your contentions.
I have compiled pages and pages of data, including graphs which I personally created to show the nonsense of trivial amounts of carbon dioxide supposedly driving our climate.

I'll show the link again here: http://TheGlobalWarmingFraud.wordpress.com

The graph showing red and blue absorption data for water and CO2 is my creation. You can learn a lot if you are willing to learn instead of just blather.
15-04-2024 19:28
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14886)
sealover wrote: Especially after this past year of extreme weather,

This past year has been rather devoid of harsh weather.

sealover wrote: the 97% figure is an underestimate.

The 97% figure is a meaningless fabrication.

sealover wrote: There is no doubt among credible scientists.

You don't speak for anyone else but yourself. Unambiguous definition of "credible scientist".
15-04-2024 19:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22643)
sealover wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
keepit wrote:Where could i find a list of these scientists and books etc, refuting human induced climate change. That's lot of refuting. I always heard that 97% agreed, not refuted.

Why should any rational adult worship your WACKY Global Warming religion?



Especially after this past year of extreme weather, the 97% figure is an underestimate.

There is no doubt among credible scientists.

Unambiguous definition of "rational adult".

A "rational adult" is a scientifically illiterate Internet troll who never passed a single college level course in ANY field of science. Doesn't even know what science is. Literally!

Science does not use consensus.
The '97%' is a random number. You don't even know where it comes from.
You don't get to speak for everyone. You only get to speak for you. Omniscience fallacy.
You cannot project your illiteracy of science onto anybody else.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
22-04-2024 21:05
RenaissanceMan
★☆☆☆☆
(115)
The most esteemed scientist in the world in 1895 was Lord Kelvin, president of the Royal Society, the oldest scientific organization in the world. That year, he claimed "Heavier than air human flight is impossible." Seven years later, two uneducated bicycle mechanics flew at Kitty Hawk.
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance" - Wilbur Wright
23-04-2024 16:19
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14886)
RenaissanceMan wrote:
The most esteemed scientist in the world in 1895 was Lord Kelvin, president of the Royal Society, the oldest scientific organization in the world. That year, he claimed "Heavier than air human flight is impossible."

Lord Kelvin never claimed that "heavier than air" flight was impossible. He made the business miscalculation of claiming that it was impractical.

Lord Kelvin was well aware that birds are heavier than air, and that they fly.
24-04-2024 02:14
RenaissanceMan
★☆☆☆☆
(115)
"Heavier than air human flight is impossible." - Lord Kelvin
This claim was echoed by a French military officer around that time. It was turned on its head by two bicycle mechanics who never graduated from high school.
24-04-2024 02:14
RenaissanceMan
★☆☆☆☆
(115)
"Heavier than air human flight is impossible." - Lord Kelvin
This claim was echoed by a French military officer around that time. It was turned on its head by two bicycle mechanics who never graduated from high school.
24-04-2024 02:48
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14886)
"IBDaMann is Da' Best" - Lord Kelvin
This claim was echoed by a French military officer around that time.
Page 4 of 4<<<234





Join the debate The "radiative Greenhouse effect" does not exist:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The SCIENCE of the "Greenhouse Effect"31217-11-2024 06:52
Nitrate Reduction - Powerful Greenhouse Gas Emission AND Alkalinity10621-10-2024 00:54
Greenhouse gasses8318-07-2024 21:32
'Greenhouse' Effect?4930-11-2023 06:45
Greenhouse gases cool better and cause lower surface temperature of earth than non greenhouse gases310-05-2023 08:27
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


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