Remember me
▼ Content

What is the cause of climate change based on the greenhouse gas theory?



Page 2 of 3<123>
23-01-2023 21:24
Carleto
☆☆☆☆☆
(23)
The effect of once-through cooled natural gas, coal and nuclear power plants on climate change is analyzed. The fuel of a nuclear plant is uranium where 200 uranium fuel rods (75 tons) are used to produce the power of a nuclear power plant. In a once-through cooled nuclear reactor (nuclear reactor that does not use a cooling tower) water is pumped into the interior of the core to cool the reactor then the heated water is discharged back into the water source where 1.2 million gallons per day of heated water (90° F) is discharged into the water source.
"Supporters of nuclear power like to argue that nukes are the key to combating climate change. Here's why they are dead wrong. Every nuclear generating station spew about two-thirds of the energy it burns inside its reactor core into the environment. Only one-third is converted into electricity. Another tenth of that is lost in transmission........Every day, large reactors like the two at Diablo Canyon, California, individually dump about 1.25 million gallons of water into the ocean at temperatures up to 20 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the natural environment. Diablo's "once-through cooling system" takes water out of the ocean and dumps it back superheated, irradiated and laden with toxic chemicals. Many U.S. reactors use cooling towers which emit huge quantities of steam and water vapor that also directly warm the atmosphere." (Wasserman).

The world's 326 once-through cooled nuclear power plants are discharging 390 million gallons per day of heated water into rivers, lakes, and oceans. In addition, more than 2,000 natural gas and 940 coal power plants also use a once-through cooling system where more than 3.5 billion gallons per day of heated water (90° F) is discharged back into the water source. Plus, the thermodynamic pollution produced by a nuclear power plants' cooling pools (120° F) that are cooling the spent uranium fuel rods is also discharged into the environment.
23-01-2023 21:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13337)
Carleto wrote:The world's 326 once-through cooled nuclear power plants are discharging 390 million gallons per day of heated water into rivers, lakes, and oceans.

Irrelevant. You would realize this if you weren't so scientifically illiterate.

The earth cools. The total energy that you indicate radiates away from the earth in milliseconds and is gone forever, never to return. It is a negligible quantity when the entire planet is considered.

Carleto wrote: In addition, more than 2,000 natural gas and 940 coal power plants also use a once-through cooling system where more than 3.5 billion gallons per day of heated water (90° F) is discharged back into the water source.

Negligible on a planetary scale. This amount is treated as zero.

Carleto wrote:Plus, the thermodynamic pollution produced by a nuclear power plants'

You have already been educated on this point and yet you choose to propagate disinformation instead. There is no such thing as thermodynamic pollution and you know it.

You are a weasel. You have been caught being intentionally dishonest. We're done here.
23-01-2023 22:01
Carleto
☆☆☆☆☆
(23)
Could the heated water be affecting the ocean currents?
23-01-2023 22:16
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2689)
Carleto wrote:
Could the heated water be affecting the ocean currents?


Hell no. Fill up your kitchen sink with cold tap water. Put in one drop of sizzling 150° water. Get back to me when you have a measurable temperature increase.

Why do you fight so hard for what you have been told to believe?


Computer science made this page possible, whether you do not believe in science or not.- Swan
23-01-2023 23:25
Carleto
☆☆☆☆☆
(23)
Where is the current in your kitchen sink?
24-01-2023 00:44
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2689)
Carleto wrote:
Where is the current in your kitchen sink?

Why does it matter? Will the temperature suddenly rise with a current? If I swirl it around will I be able to boil a venison heart in the sink?


Computer science made this page possible, whether you do not believe in science or not.- Swan
24-01-2023 01:54
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13337)
Carleto wrote:Where is the current in your kitchen sink?

What current are you claiming said drop of very hot water will create? If you don't believe that hot water will create/change any current then you already have your answer and we need to wonder why you asked in the first place.
24-01-2023 02:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(20153)
Carleto wrote:
Could the heated water be affecting the ocean currents?

A drop in the proverbial ocean. No effect.


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
24-01-2023 08:55
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4522)
Interesting, thermal-pollution warming the planet... Pretty much everything emits thermal energy, often released into the environment as a byproduct of some work performed. A car engine is terribly inefficient. Most of the fuel burned, is wasted.
24-01-2023 15:45
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13337)
HarveyH55 wrote:Interesting, thermal-pollution warming the planet...

The sales force wants to sell it as Therma-Trash but the strategic marketing team wants to go with Waste-n-Bake.

HarveyH55 wrote: Pretty much everything emits thermal energy, often released into the environment as a byproduct of some work performed.

Yes, but if I may quibble trivially with your wording, ... everything, not just "pretty much everything", emits thermal radiation (not thermal energy) and is radiated strictly per Stefan-Boltzmann.

Your reference to "work performed" is one way a body can acquire thermal energy that it converts to thermal radiation (a different form of energy) which is what is radiated away.

All thermal radiation is emitted into the body's surrounding environment. The extent to which such energy is absorbed by matter in the surrounding environment is governed by the temperature of the matter in the surrounding environment, although it might already be too late.

HarveyH55 wrote: A car engine is terribly inefficient. Most of the fuel burned, is wasted.

Completely correct.
25-01-2023 08:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(20153)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Interesting, thermal-pollution warming the planet... Pretty much everything emits thermal energy, often released into the environment as a byproduct of some work performed. A car engine is terribly inefficient. Most of the fuel burned, is wasted.

A modern FADEC car engine is almost 50% efficient. That's pretty damn good.


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
25-01-2023 15:23
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13337)
Into the Night wrote:A modern FADEC car engine is almost 50% efficient. That's pretty damn good.

When "almost 50%" is "pretty damn good" ... there is definitely a different standard applied. This is exactly why we should be rebuffing the idea of electric cars that are powered by electricity from combustion engine generators. Instead of gasoline achieving, say, 32% directly in a given combustion engine car, that same gasoline achieves 32% in a generator, then say 80% in transport and then say 85% efficiency in an equivalent electric car ... or from 32% down to 22%.

Your mileage may vary. Pun fully intended.

The whole move to electric cars simply reduces efficiency and thus wastes energy.
25-01-2023 20:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(20153)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:A modern FADEC car engine is almost 50% efficient. That's pretty damn good.

When "almost 50%" is "pretty damn good" ... there is definitely a different standard applied. This is exactly why we should be rebuffing the idea of electric cars that are powered by electricity from combustion engine generators. Instead of gasoline achieving, say, 32% directly in a given combustion engine car, that same gasoline achieves 32% in a generator, then say 80% in transport and then say 85% efficiency in an equivalent electric car ... or from 32% down to 22%.

Your mileage may vary. Pun fully intended.

The whole move to electric cars simply reduces efficiency and thus wastes energy.
That's exactly right.

Electric cars require generating the electricity (which generally requires fuel), but also loses a lot of energy in transformer heating in multiple transformers, line heating, and waste heat in the batteries during the charging cycle, and then again during the discharge cycle. The batteries are generally liquid cooled for this reason. So are transformers for the same reason.
Electric lines are air cooled..

While gasoline cars also generate waste heat, I can use some of that heat to keep the cabin nice and comfortable in the winter.

As EVs become mandated, the electrical system can't generate anywhere near enough. The only choice of the grid operators is to shed that load. In other words, you can't charge your car.


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
25-01-2023 20:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(20153)
The SDTC generates very little power of their own. They import almost all their power from the WRIC (which serves most western States, the SDTC, and two provinces in Canada).

Yet the SDTC wants to mandate EVs. The power load will be much greater than the transmission lines feeding the SDTC. To save the rest of WRIC, those lines will have to be disconnected. Automatic circuits will kick in to protect the rest of the grid.

The last thing anyone wants is a blackstart.
26-01-2023 01:37
James_
★★★★☆
(1189)
Into the Night wrote:
The SDTC generates very little power of their own. They import almost all their power from the WRIC (which serves most western States, the SDTC, and two provinces in Canada).

Yet the SDTC wants to mandate EVs. The power load will be much greater than the transmission lines feeding the SDTC. To save the rest of WRIC, those lines will have to be disconnected. Automatic circuits will kick in to protect the rest of the grid.

The last thing anyone wants is a blackstart.



This reminds me of when I tried discussing the electrical grid. People really have no understanding of the infrastructure necessary to support an advanced economy.
And now that I agree with ITN on something, is Armageddon next?
26-01-2023 04:31
Carleto
☆☆☆☆☆
(23)
Negligible on a planetary scale. This amount is treated as zero.

--------what about locally, like diablio canyon nuclear power plant and the reactor along the Atlantic ocean current.
26-01-2023 04:38
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13337)
Carleto wrote:--------what about locally

... then it's not global.

I'm not the only one who is still waiting for your unambiguous definition of the global climate.
26-01-2023 04:42
James_
★★★★☆
(1189)
Carleto wrote:
Negligible on a planetary scale. This amount is treated as zero.

--------what about locally, like diablio canyon nuclear power plant and the reactor along the Atlantic ocean current.



Agreeing with ITN is suicide. Death is preferable. He has that effect on people.
Nuclear energy, they're saying micro-plants but the radioactive waste is like posting with ITN if you know what I mean.
26-01-2023 06:59
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13337)
James_ wrote:Agreeing with ITN is suicide. Death is preferable.

Did you just say that it is better to disagree with Into the Night and die than it is to agree with him and die?

Doesn't the death component render both options equivalent?

James_ wrote:Nuclear energy, they're saying micro-plants but the radioactive waste is like posting with ITN if you know what I mean.

Of course it's obvious you mean that ozone depletion is linked to climate change and that scientists are finding previously undiscovered phase reversals in the Van Allen belt. You and I both know that GasGuzzler is mistakenly presuming that you are referencing the Norwegian jet stream, but you make your point clear with the context and the mention of micro-plants. I caught your reference to Frank's and Ralph's success at the Dubai chess tournament. It was pretty slick the way you worked that in there. And I see what you did with the Navy humor. Clever.
26-01-2023 21:02
Carleto
☆☆☆☆☆
(23)
I'm not the only one who is still waiting for your unambiguous definition of the global climate.

-----------have you thought about a class in abstract thinking or searching on the internet? but here is a possible definition "all hell breaking out"
26-01-2023 21:11
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13337)
Carleto wrote:
IBDaMann wrote:I'm not the only one who is still waiting for your unambiguous definition of the global climate.
have you thought about a class in abstract thinking or searching on the internet? but here is a possible definition "all hell breaking out"

Have you thought about either defining your terms or ceasing to refer to your WACKY beliefs as being rational?
26-01-2023 21:35
Carleto
☆☆☆☆☆
(23)
Is the greenhouse gas theory based on CO2/sun interaction heating the planet?
26-01-2023 22:09
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2689)
Carleto wrote:
Is the greenhouse gas theory based on CO2/sun interaction heating the planet?


IBdaMann is best suited to answer this question, but I'll take the first stab at it.

Greenhouse gas theory actually has two options...

1) In the first option, CO2 absorbs thermal energy from the surface and emits it back down to the surface, reheating the planet and making it warmer. This option is not possible as heat always flows from hot to cold. You cannot heat a warmer surface with a cooler gas.

2) option two claims CO2 to be an insulator and not allowing heat to flow and radiate out into space. Option two is also totally bogus as CO2 is not an insulator. In fact, it's a rather good conductor of thermal energy. As thermal energy is absorbed by CO2, it only helps to cool the surface. It cannot warm it.


Computer science made this page possible, whether you do not believe in science or not.- Swan
26-01-2023 22:25
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13337)
Carleto wrote:Is the greenhouse gas theory based on CO2/sun interaction heating the planet?

The "Greenhouse Gas Doctrine" is a mandatory religious belief among the Climate Change congregation about the Climate goddesss' miraculous superpower to defy physics, specifically thermodynamics and black body science.

It would be helpful if you could provide more detail about the specifics of this doctrine, at least within the domain of your belief.
26-01-2023 22:58
Carleto
☆☆☆☆☆
(23)
I just did ------Is the greenhouse gas theory based on CO2/sun interaction heating the planet?
27-01-2023 02:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(20153)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The SDTC generates very little power of their own. They import almost all their power from the WRIC (which serves most western States, the SDTC, and two provinces in Canada).

Yet the SDTC wants to mandate EVs. The power load will be much greater than the transmission lines feeding the SDTC. To save the rest of WRIC, those lines will have to be disconnected. Automatic circuits will kick in to protect the rest of the grid.

The last thing anyone wants is a blackstart.



This reminds me of when I tried discussing the electrical grid. People really have no understanding of the infrastructure necessary to support an advanced economy.
And now that I agree with ITN on something, is Armageddon next?

Armageddon is about a battle, not an electrical grid.


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
27-01-2023 02:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(20153)
Carleto wrote:
Negligible on a planetary scale. This amount is treated as zero.

--------what about locally, like diablio canyon nuclear power plant and the reactor along the Atlantic ocean current.

Which Atlantic ocean current?
The Diablo Canyon nuclear plant is in the SDTC, and therefore nearest the Pacific ocean. It is currently running only half power and is scheduled to be decommissioned by the SDTC in 2024.

It doesn't and won't affect any current in the Pacific ocean.


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
27-01-2023 02:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(20153)
Carleto wrote:
I'm not the only one who is still waiting for your unambiguous definition of the global climate.

-----------have you thought about a class in abstract thinking or searching on the internet? but here is a possible definition "all hell breaking out"

So...global climate is a cliche from the Bible???


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
27-01-2023 03:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(20153)
Carleto wrote:
Is the greenhouse gas theory based on CO2/sun interaction heating the planet?

Sorry, dude. You cannot trap light.
You cannot trap heat.
You cannot trap thermal energy.
You cannot reduce entropy.
You cannot use a colder gas to heat a warmer surface.

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

You are still ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


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 27-01-2023 03:53
27-01-2023 22:11
Carleto
☆☆☆☆☆
(23)
It doesn't and won't affect any current in the Pacific ocean.

----------do you have a link? or is this just an opinion?
28-01-2023 00:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13337)
Carleto wrote:----------do you have a link? or is this just an opinion?

Are you saying that all this time you have been operating under the misconception that the internet is the complete and easily accessible repository of accurate and truthful knowledge that has been purged of all errors? Do you mean to tell me that you believe everything you read on the internet and that you can't understand any argument unless it is accompanied by an internet link? Did you really claim that any truthful information is mere opinion if an internet link is not also provided?

You are in a world of hurt.
29-01-2023 19:44
Xadoman
★★★☆☆
(895)
Carleto, the biggest player in heating besides the sun is Earth s core. It heats the Earth from inside. The sun is external heater. The temperature of earth is the sum of both internal( core) and external( the sun).

As you may have probably heard, the inside core is cooling down. It has been cooling down since the beginning of the earth. Remember, they say the earth was at once a giant fireball. Then it started to cool. Everything cools down eventually. The sun itself is going to cool down if it has no fuel to burn anymore.

So in overall - the earth is cooling down. It is inevitable. The inside core is cooling down. The earth also moves away from the sun with small steps each and every year. Just like the moon drifts away from the earth( 3,8 cm per year). The further from the sun the earth moves, the cooler it gets.

So there is no warming but instead slow inevitable cooling.
30-01-2023 01:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(20153)
Carleto wrote:
It doesn't and won't affect any current in the Pacific ocean.

----------do you have a link? or is this just an opinion?

Math doesn't need a link.
Geography doesn't need a link either.

A typical cooling pond at a nuke plant contains about 12 million gallons of water (assuming 40 ft deep, 200 ft per side, a rather LARGE cooling pond!). Let's just for giggles say this water is 20 deg F warmer than the Pacific ocean.

The Pacific ocean contains (estimated) approximately 187 quintillon gallons. One quintillion is 1,000,000,000 million gallons or a total of 187,000,000,000 million gallons.

So 12 / 187,000,000,000 is about 0.000000000006%...effectively nothing. There is no effect in the temperature of the Pacific ocean.


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 30-01-2023 01:38
03-02-2023 16:30
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13337)
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Carleto wrote:First, lets make it diametrically clear that I am an absolute believer in man-made climate change

Do you believe that it all essentially began at Spindletop? Do you think perhaps M2C2 (man-made climate change) will cause rain to fall up and the sky to "burst"?

Carleto wrote: but not by CO2

Can we rule out gravity as the cause?

Carleto wrote:I have found in my personal understanding of myself that I am not prefect,

@ Into the Night, I really think mantra 6 should be slightly readjusted to "6) Feigning partnership and/or common ground" and then broken out, with this one being "Feigning Humility", i.e.

6) Feigning partnership and/or common ground
a) Offer to Work Together
b) Insincere Desire to Work Through the Math
c) Average Joe, pretending to represent the typical rational individual
d) Feigning Humility (opposite of bulverism)

It really doesn't happen enough to do that. Should it become more a common mantra, I'll consider it.

I'd like to address this topic again. This fallacy is exceedingly common. "Skeptics" such as Earthling-1, Pete Rogers, et. al. always come on heavy with the "I'm on your side" and "rally around me" just to get others to blindly support whatever they happen to be preaching. I have been posting on the Danish mirror site lately and when I started, there were quite a few "skeptics" who insisted that I should get on board with "the team" and not be questioning greenhouse effect, but instead should be focused on showing that its not catastrophic. Of course, I am stupid for questioning the Little Ice Age that formed the Denmark terrain that we have today. The initial "offer to work together" is the standard tact for applying pressure to get others to "join the team" which means "just support me, don't question me." You've seen how viscously they attack when they are questioned or otherwise required to support their positions.


Also, it would be value-added if you could find a way to work in another very common fallacy that we normally don't even think about: "Proof by Trivia." This is where pieces of trivia are tossed into the discussion just like meaningless buzzwords as though they prove the argument. In the context of Global Warming, warmizombies are forever posting "record breaking heat temperatures" and summer time heat maps while "skeptics" are forever posting record-breaking cold temperatures and cold weather trivia. We've all seen this from day one, ... but over on the Danish mirror site there is an example that is on its fifth thread which has over 80 pages ... of nothing but terribly boring weather trivia. I have asked on several occasions what point is being made, but I am ignored. It's a total waste of bandwidth, but the trivia gets piled on with extreme determination to falsify some opponent's unfalsifiable (and often unstated) dogma.
03-02-2023 17:45
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(3136)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Carleto wrote:First, lets make it diametrically clear that I am an absolute believer in man-made climate change

Do you believe that it all essentially began at Spindletop? Do you think perhaps M2C2 (man-made climate change) will cause rain to fall up and the sky to "burst"?

Carleto wrote: but not by CO2

Can we rule out gravity as the cause?

Carleto wrote:I have found in my personal understanding of myself that I am not prefect,

@ Into the Night, I really think mantra 6 should be slightly readjusted to "6) Feigning partnership and/or common ground" and then broken out, with this one being "Feigning Humility", i.e.

6) Feigning partnership and/or common ground
a) Offer to Work Together
b) Insincere Desire to Work Through the Math
c) Average Joe, pretending to represent the typical rational individual
d) Feigning Humility (opposite of bulverism)

It really doesn't happen enough to do that. Should it become more a common mantra, I'll consider it.

I'd like to address this topic again. This fallacy is exceedingly common. "Skeptics" such as Earthling-1, Pete Rogers, et. al. always come on heavy with the "I'm on your side" and "rally around me" just to get others to blindly support whatever they happen to be preaching. I have been posting on the Danish mirror site lately and when I started, there were quite a few "skeptics" who insisted that I should get on board with "the team" and not be questioning greenhouse effect, but instead should be focused on showing that its not catastrophic. Of course, I am stupid for questioning the Little Ice Age that formed the Denmark terrain that we have today. The initial "offer to work together" is the standard tact for applying pressure to get others to "join the team" which means "just support me, don't question me." You've seen how viscously they attack when they are questioned or otherwise required to support their positions.


Also, it would be value-added if you could find a way to work in another very common fallacy that we normally don't even think about: "Proof by Trivia." This is where pieces of trivia are tossed into the discussion just like meaningless buzzwords as though they prove the argument. In the context of Global Warming, warmizombies are forever posting "record breaking heat temperatures" and summer time heat maps while "skeptics" are forever posting record-breaking cold temperatures and cold weather trivia. We've all seen this from day one, ... but over on the Danish mirror site there is an example that is on its fifth thread which has over 80 pages ... of nothing but terribly boring weather trivia. I have asked on several occasions what point is being made, but I am ignored. It's a total waste of bandwidth, but the trivia gets piled on with extreme determination to falsify some opponent's unfalsifiable (and often unstated) dogma.


Please, 3 trillion words or less.


According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
03-02-2023 18:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(20153)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Carleto wrote:First, lets make it diametrically clear that I am an absolute believer in man-made climate change

Do you believe that it all essentially began at Spindletop? Do you think perhaps M2C2 (man-made climate change) will cause rain to fall up and the sky to "burst"?

Carleto wrote: but not by CO2

Can we rule out gravity as the cause?

Carleto wrote:I have found in my personal understanding of myself that I am not prefect,

@ Into the Night, I really think mantra 6 should be slightly readjusted to "6) Feigning partnership and/or common ground" and then broken out, with this one being "Feigning Humility", i.e.

6) Feigning partnership and/or common ground
a) Offer to Work Together
b) Insincere Desire to Work Through the Math
c) Average Joe, pretending to represent the typical rational individual
d) Feigning Humility (opposite of bulverism)

It really doesn't happen enough to do that. Should it become more a common mantra, I'll consider it.

I'd like to address this topic again. This fallacy is exceedingly common. "Skeptics" such as Earthling-1, Pete Rogers, et. al. always come on heavy with the "I'm on your side" and "rally around me" just to get others to blindly support whatever they happen to be preaching. I have been posting on the Danish mirror site lately and when I started, there were quite a few "skeptics" who insisted that I should get on board with "the team" and not be questioning greenhouse effect, but instead should be focused on showing that its not catastrophic. Of course, I am stupid for questioning the Little Ice Age that formed the Denmark terrain that we have today. The initial "offer to work together" is the standard tact for applying pressure to get others to "join the team" which means "just support me, don't question me." You've seen how viscously they attack when they are questioned or otherwise required to support their positions.


Also, it would be value-added if you could find a way to work in another very common fallacy that we normally don't even think about: "Proof by Trivia." This is where pieces of trivia are tossed into the discussion just like meaningless buzzwords as though they prove the argument. In the context of Global Warming, warmizombies are forever posting "record breaking heat temperatures" and summer time heat maps while "skeptics" are forever posting record-breaking cold temperatures and cold weather trivia. We've all seen this from day one, ... but over on the Danish mirror site there is an example that is on its fifth thread which has over 80 pages ... of nothing but terribly boring weather trivia. I have asked on several occasions what point is being made, but I am ignored. It's a total waste of bandwidth, but the trivia gets piled on with extreme determination to falsify some opponent's unfalsifiable (and often unstated) dogma.

Sounds like Moon and a couple of others over on JPP. I've been coming across some other new mantras as well, including certain types of insults that keep reappearing.

Yeah. I should address these.


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
03-02-2023 19:37
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13337)
Swan wrote:Please, 3 trillion words or less.

I hear you. I confess that I probably could have written that in under one trillion words, but it would have been tight.

I'll work on it.
03-02-2023 21:18
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(3136)
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Carleto wrote:First, lets make it diametrically clear that I am an absolute believer in man-made climate change

Do you believe that it all essentially began at Spindletop? Do you think perhaps M2C2 (man-made climate change) will cause rain to fall up and the sky to "burst"?

Carleto wrote: but not by CO2

Can we rule out gravity as the cause?

Carleto wrote:I have found in my personal understanding of myself that I am not prefect,

@ Into the Night, I really think mantra 6 should be slightly readjusted to "6) Feigning partnership and/or common ground" and then broken out, with this one being "Feigning Humility", i.e.

6) Feigning partnership and/or common ground
a) Offer to Work Together
b) Insincere Desire to Work Through the Math
c) Average Joe, pretending to represent the typical rational individual
d) Feigning Humility (opposite of bulverism)

It really doesn't happen enough to do that. Should it become more a common mantra, I'll consider it.

I'd like to address this topic again. This fallacy is exceedingly common. "Skeptics" such as Earthling-1, Pete Rogers, et. al. always come on heavy with the "I'm on your side" and "rally around me" just to get others to blindly support whatever they happen to be preaching. I have been posting on the Danish mirror site lately and when I started, there were quite a few "skeptics" who insisted that I should get on board with "the team" and not be questioning greenhouse effect, but instead should be focused on showing that its not catastrophic. Of course, I am stupid for questioning the Little Ice Age that formed the Denmark terrain that we have today. The initial "offer to work together" is the standard tact for applying pressure to get others to "join the team" which means "just support me, don't question me." You've seen how viscously they attack when they are questioned or otherwise required to support their positions.


Also, it would be value-added if you could find a way to work in another very common fallacy that we normally don't even think about: "Proof by Trivia." This is where pieces of trivia are tossed into the discussion just like meaningless buzzwords as though they prove the argument. In the context of Global Warming, warmizombies are forever posting "record breaking heat temperatures" and summer time heat maps while "skeptics" are forever posting record-breaking cold temperatures and cold weather trivia. We've all seen this from day one, ... but over on the Danish mirror site there is an example that is on its fifth thread which has over 80 pages ... of nothing but terribly boring weather trivia. I have asked on several occasions what point is being made, but I am ignored. It's a total waste of bandwidth, but the trivia gets piled on with extreme determination to falsify some opponent's unfalsifiable (and often unstated) dogma.

Sounds like Moon and a couple of others over on JPP. I've been coming across some other new mantras as well, including certain types of insults that keep reappearing.

Yeah. I should address these.


You talk to yourself very well. Up the Chlorpromazine


According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
04-02-2023 18:24
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13337)
Into the Night wrote:Sounds like Moon and a couple of others over on JPP. I've been coming across some other new mantras as well, including certain types of insults that keep reappearing.

Yeah. I should address these.

I highly recommend to everyone a read of these two latest posts (you'll have to translate from Danish) to get a full appreciation for desperation enough to reach for the most boring of trivia to prove a point that cannot even be vaguely expressed much less clearly specified.

https://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/part-10-opdaterede-sol-is-temp-hav-data-d12-e3432-s3200.php#post_89235
04-02-2023 19:44
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(3136)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Sounds like Moon and a couple of others over on JPP. I've been coming across some other new mantras as well, including certain types of insults that keep reappearing.

Yeah. I should address these.

I highly recommend to everyone a read of these two latest posts (you'll have to translate from Danish) to get a full appreciation for desperation enough to reach for the most boring of trivia to prove a point that cannot even be vaguely expressed much less clearly specified.

https://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/part-10-opdaterede-sol-is-temp-hav-data-d12-e3432-s3200.php#post_89235


LOL everyone is 3 people max.

Take your pills Einstein


According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
Page 2 of 3<123>





Join the debate What is the cause of climate change based on the greenhouse gas theory?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N253330-01-2023 07:22
Relativity theory31703-11-2022 19:38
Climate change is caused by greenhouse gases22605-10-2022 06:53
Biden white house selling oil to chinka while Americans suffer the highest gas prices ever023-07-2022 04:07
Evolutionary Biology and the Endosymbiotic Theory of Consciousness.8918-05-2022 18:19
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 © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact