Remember me
▼ Content

The SCIENCE of the "Greenhouse Effect"



Page 6 of 6<<<456
19-10-2015 14:50
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Tim the plumber wrote:
climate scientist wrote:
How does "climate science" differ substantially from any major religion?


In the same way that physics, chemistry, and biology differ substantially from any major religion.


Exalent!

I look forward to seeing you post the evidence to support your position. Something some here utterly fail to do.

I don't think tens of thousands of published research papers in the Journals over the past 40 years or so, the research reports of most of the major Science institutions, all the IPCC reports on the research, and a whole lot of University textbooks (And hey, even ExxonMobile's research since the 1970's) could fit in a forum post.

Are you saying you haven't looked into any of these yourself?



Edited on 19-10-2015 14:59
19-10-2015 15:16
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Tim the Dumber - pray tell, dear Timothy, regarding Exalent which you refer to in your prior post, is that the oratory equivalent of Ex-lax which you rely upon to produce so much verbal diarrhea?


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
19-10-2015 17:47
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Ceist wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
climate scientist wrote:
How does "climate science" differ substantially from any major religion?


In the same way that physics, chemistry, and biology differ substantially from any major religion.


Exalent!

I look forward to seeing you post the evidence to support your position. Something some here utterly fail to do.

I don't think tens of thousands of published research papers in the Journals over the past 40 years or so, the research reports of most of the major Science institutions, all the IPCC reports on the research, and a whole lot of University textbooks (And hey, even ExxonMobile's research since the 1970's) could fit in a forum post.

Are you saying you haven't looked into any of these yourself?


I have certainly read some of these. I just wanted to say that it will be good to have points backed by references to data and papers.

So that claims can be checked out.
19-10-2015 17:48
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
trafn wrote:
@Tim the Dumber - pray tell, dear Timothy, regarding Exalent which you refer to in your prior post, is that the oratory equivalent of Ex-lax which you rely upon to produce so much verbal diarrhea?


I think you have the better of me in the verbage stakes.

Spelling I'll give you, you have me beat there too. I never could spell.
19-10-2015 17:54
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Tim the plumber - you know, me neither. As a matter of fact, I'm fond of saying that if there isn't a typo in it, then I probably didn't write it.

I'll share a little secret with you (don't tell anyone). In the 70's when I attended Syracuse University, I held the all time record for failing Freshman English 101: 5 times in a row!* It wasn't until I finally studied and passed predicate logic (the logic of language) that I finally passed the damn English course, and that was, of course, only after I had failed predicate logic once before.

* - this is true! The English Department even posted a plaque honoring me for the achievement which they posted in the first floor men's room of the English Building.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
19-10-2015 19:12
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4578)
trafn wrote: which they posted in the first floor men's room of the English Building.

How did you know it was an English building? Did it speak with a funny accent?


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
19-10-2015 23:57
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - yes, every time you walked in the door it said, "Hello," but in with a strong Slavik accent.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
Page 6 of 6<<<456





Join the debate The SCIENCE of the "Greenhouse Effect":

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Bill Nye greenhouse gas experiment fail.1515-09-2019 20:45
Revealing the 160 year systematic error behind greenhouse theory with Raman Spectroscopy215-09-2019 18:46
Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law64813-09-2019 05:55
Is CO2 much of a Greenhouse gas at all?10813-09-2019 05:54
Argument against AGW science314-08-2019 20:51
▲ 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