For The Deniers

[Northern Light]

There's no hope. We are doomed. Too many stupid people clinging to their ignorance.

 

[Quaestio]

Amen to that. Sheesh!

You've got a lot of fun ahead of you reading posts by gfm7175 (and his sock-like mentor Into the Night) for the first time. After the 100th time of the same garbled anti-science illogical gibberish, it just gets tiring. Have you come across Into The Night's and gfm7175's hilarious claim that "Ice doesn't melt, only water melts"?

 

[Idiometer]

You've got a lot of fun ahead of you reading posts by gfm7175 (and his sock-like mentor Into the Night) for the first time. After the 100th time of the same garbled anti-science illogical gibberish, it just gets tiring. Have you come across Into The Night's and gfm7175's hilarious claim that "Ice doesn't melt, only water melts"?

Not yet, but it sounds hilarious ... something to look forward to!

 

[gfm7175]

Baseless conspiracy ideation.

Marxists want control of people's minds... The AGW baloney is one of many methods of achieving that...

Thank you for mindlessly parroting your sock-like mentor Into the Night almost verbatim. He's wrong too. I wonder if one day you'll wake up and be embarrassed that you mindlessly regurgitated his comments?

He is correct, and I am correct... Define global warming for me... What is it? Just tell me what it is (without defining it with itself)...

Usually ignorance and/or because they feel it threatens their religious beliefs.

Correct.

More appeals to stupidity and more mindless repetition of Into the Night's ignorant 'buzzword' nonsense.

Define global warming for me... Define it in a non-circular manner...

 

[joko104]

Are you begining to feel you were lied to about this man made global warming thing?

The poll title is opposite from the OP poll statement.

 

[gfm7175]

Your misunderstanding of what constitutes a fact is truly stunning.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

Wikipedia dismissed on sight. Wikipedia is a horrible source, riddled with much misinformation and incompleteness. Also, it can be edited by anyone at any time. Wikipedia does not define words, nor does any dictionary. People define words through various ways of reasoning (and the study of them) such as Philosophy, Science, Math, Logic, etc...

Facts are shorthand predicate. They are used to speed up conversations (something doesn't have to be established as a true if it is already accepted by all conversing parties as a true). That's how we can have speedy conversations with people. We don't have to establish every single little thing as a true every single time we talk to someone... That is what facts are and how they work. They aren't universal truths, they aren't proofs, and they don't even have to be correct. Even things which are subjective can be established as facts. Wikipedia is wrong about what a fact is...

So, all of these people are full of ****?

Yes, they are.

https://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/glo...d-impacts/global-warming-science#.XCRcZxJlA1I

There is no "the science"... Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's all science is. It is very simple and straightforward...

Heat cannot be trapped... The writers of this article don't know how a blanket works. Apparently they think this is a magick blanket where energy enters through it perfectly fine, but somehow can't come back out through it... We don't burn fossils for fuel; they don't burn very well... Science doesn't make use of supporting evidence, only conflicting evidence. We don't know the temperature of the Earth (we don't have near enough thermometers to measure it)... Even of a rise 1.5 degrees F was true (it's baloney random numbers), my place of residence sees a temperature swing of around 100 degrees F (+-) in a six month period... It is called Summer and Winter. Global Warming is a baloney religion based on a circularly defined buzzword. I bet you can't even define it in a non-circular manner... It is thus a void argument.

CO2 levels (throughout the whole atmosphere) cannot be measured... We don't have enough stations uniformly spread throughout our planet to measure such a thing. Mauna Loa has been known to cook their numbers, so their numbers are baloney... We don't know what CO2 levels were 800,000 years ago because we had no way of testing them 800,000 years ago. More religious baloney... CO2 doesn't absorb the sun's energy when it enters our atmosphere? Only when it leaves? More "magick one way" "magick blanket" baloney... Saying that a change in the sun's intensity doesn't account for changing temperatures on Earth is complete hogwash... It doesn't matter how many "scientists" agree... consensus is not science...

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Consensus does not further legitimize, authenticate, support, bless, or sanctify any theory. Consensus is not part of science.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/global_warming_controversy.htm

Consensus is not part of science... It does not bless or sanctify any theory... There is no such thing as 'greenhouse gases'... There is no way to accurately measure the temperature of the Earth.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmi...global-warming-happening-humans-primary-cause

Science doesn't make use of supporting evidence... The temperature of the Earth cannot be measured (we don't have enough thermometers, and they are not uniformly spaced throughout our planet)... Sea levels cannot be measured (we have no reference point)... Land shifts... Heat cannot be trapped... We don't burn fossils... Consensus is not part of science... Define "reality", What is it? ...

See how your "holy links" are just a bunch of baloney?

 

[rickc]

Wikipedia dismissed on sight. Wikipedia is a horrible source, riddled with much misinformation and incompleteness. Also, it can be edited by anyone at any time. Wikipedia does not define words, nor does any dictionary. People define words through various ways of reasoning (and the study of them) such as Philosophy, Science, Math, Logic, etc...

Facts are shorthand predicate. They are used to speed up conversations (something doesn't have to be established as a true if it is already accepted by all conversing parties as a true). That's how we can have speedy conversations with people. We don't have to establish every single little thing as a true every single time we talk to someone... That is what facts are and how they work. They aren't universal truths, they aren't proofs, and they don't even have to be correct. Even things which are subjective can be established as facts. Wikipedia is wrong about what a fact is...


Yes, they are.


There is no "the science"... Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's all science is. It is very simple and straightforward...

Heat cannot be trapped... The writers of this article don't know how a blanket works. Apparently they think this is a magick blanket where energy enters through it perfectly fine, but somehow can't come back out through it... We don't burn fossils for fuel; they don't burn very well... Science doesn't make use of supporting evidence, only conflicting evidence. We don't know the temperature of the Earth (we don't have near enough thermometers to measure it)... Even of a rise 1.5 degrees F was true (it's baloney random numbers), my place of residence sees a temperature swing of around 100 degrees F (+-) in a six month period... It is called Summer and Winter. Global Warming is a baloney religion based on a circularly defined buzzword. I bet you can't even define it in a non-circular manner... It is thus a void argument.

CO2 levels (throughout the whole atmosphere) cannot be measured... We don't have enough stations uniformly spread throughout our planet to measure such a thing. Mauna Loa has been known to cook their numbers, so their numbers are baloney... We don't know what CO2 levels were 800,000 years ago because we had no way of testing them 800,000 years ago. More religious baloney... CO2 doesn't absorb the sun's energy when it enters our atmosphere? Only when it leaves? More "magick one way" "magick blanket" baloney... Saying that a change in the sun's intensity doesn't account for changing temperatures on Earth is complete hogwash... It doesn't matter how many "scientists" agree... consensus is not science...


Consensus does not further legitimize, authenticate, support, bless, or sanctify any theory. Consensus is not part of science.


Consensus is not part of science... It does not bless or sanctify any theory... There is no such thing as 'greenhouse gases'... There is no way to accurately measure the temperature of the Earth.


Science doesn't make use of supporting evidence... The temperature of the Earth cannot be measured (we don't have enough thermometers, and they are not uniformly spaced throughout our planet)... Sea levels cannot be measured (we have no reference point)... Land shifts... Heat cannot be trapped... We don't burn fossils... Consensus is not part of science... Define "reality", What is it? ...

See how your "holy links" are just a bunch of baloney?

man you are hilarious. i applaud your display of ignorance!

no doubt 30 to 40 percent of americans have bought the same line of BS

Our country is in a dangerous place because of it.

 

[gfm7175]

man you are hilarious. i applaud your display of ignorance!

no doubt 30 to 40 percent of americans have bought the same line of BS

Our country is in a dangerous place because of it.

Not a counterargument... Argument of the Stone Fallacy...

 

[rickc]

Not a counterargument... Argument of the Stone Fallacy...

actually debate is pointless with you guys.

and as the results become obvious deniers just move the goalpost

 

[gfm7175]

actually debate is pointless with you guys.

That's your own fault for not making any counterargument to any of my assertions...

and as the results become obvious

What is so "obvious"?

deniers

Bigotry... not interested...

just move the goalpost

What goalposts? Where are they being moved from and to?

No goalposts are being moved... You're simply not engaging in discussion...

 

[Idiometer]

Wikipedia dismissed on sight. Wikipedia is a horrible source, riddled with much misinformation and incompleteness. Also, it can be edited by anyone at any time. Wikipedia does not define words, nor does any dictionary. People define words through various ways of reasoning (and the study of them) such as Philosophy, Science, Math, Logic, etc...

Facts are shorthand predicate. They are used to speed up conversations (something doesn't have to be established as a true if it is already accepted by all conversing parties as a true). That's how we can have speedy conversations with people. We don't have to establish every single little thing as a true every single time we talk to someone... That is what facts are and how they work. They aren't universal truths, they aren't proofs, and they don't even have to be correct. Even things which are subjective can be established as facts. Wikipedia is wrong about what a fact is...


Yes, they are.


There is no "the science"... Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's all science is. It is very simple and straightforward...

Heat cannot be trapped... The writers of this article don't know how a blanket works. Apparently they think this is a magick blanket where energy enters through it perfectly fine, but somehow can't come back out through it... We don't burn fossils for fuel; they don't burn very well... Science doesn't make use of supporting evidence, only conflicting evidence. We don't know the temperature of the Earth (we don't have near enough thermometers to measure it)... Even of a rise 1.5 degrees F was true (it's baloney random numbers), my place of residence sees a temperature swing of around 100 degrees F (+-) in a six month period... It is called Summer and Winter. Global Warming is a baloney religion based on a circularly defined buzzword. I bet you can't even define it in a non-circular manner... It is thus a void argument.

CO2 levels (throughout the whole atmosphere) cannot be measured... We don't have enough stations uniformly spread throughout our planet to measure such a thing. Mauna Loa has been known to cook their numbers, so their numbers are baloney... We don't know what CO2 levels were 800,000 years ago because we had no way of testing them 800,000 years ago. More religious baloney... CO2 doesn't absorb the sun's energy when it enters our atmosphere? Only when it leaves? More "magick one way" "magick blanket" baloney... Saying that a change in the sun's intensity doesn't account for changing temperatures on Earth is complete hogwash... It doesn't matter how many "scientists" agree... consensus is not science...


Consensus does not further legitimize, authenticate, support, bless, or sanctify any theory. Consensus is not part of science.


Consensus is not part of science... It does not bless or sanctify any theory... There is no such thing as 'greenhouse gases'... There is no way to accurately measure the temperature of the Earth.


Science doesn't make use of supporting evidence... The temperature of the Earth cannot be measured (we don't have enough thermometers, and they are not uniformly spaced throughout our planet)... Sea levels cannot be measured (we have no reference point)... Land shifts... Heat cannot be trapped... We don't burn fossils... Consensus is not part of science... Define "reality", What is it? ...

See how your "holy links" are just a bunch of baloney?

I'm not going to waste my time with someone this deliberately ignorant. You have a nice day, sweetie.

 

[gfm7175]

I'm not going to waste my time with someone this deliberately ignorant. You have a nice day, sweetie.

I will take that as you having no counterargument, which was already obvious by your "Argumentation By Holy Link"...

Have a nice day as well, Sugar...

 

[slick]

Don't know about what the right has said, but the left has constantly lied about man made global warming.

dup post

 

[slick]

Don't know about what the right has said, but the left has constantly lied about man made global warming.

https://www.academia.org/the-top-10-global-warming-lies-of-the-left/

It was 30 years ago today that NASA head Dr. James E Hansen testified to the US Senate that “global warming has begun”.
So this was the beginning of all the doom and gloom. Since Hansen’s testimony, we’ve been treated a litany of crazed predictions that never came true. In fact, Hansen’s own charts and computer models from 1988 have been debunked, where he predicted a massive rise in temperature that ended up being quite meager.

Leading climate alarmist Al Gore once said that we would reach a “point of no return” in 10 years. 12 years ago.
https://www.academia.org/the-top-10-...s-of-the-left/
Australian Politics › Australian Politics Forum › Member Run Boards › Environment

Trump Says Plan to End Climate Spending Would Save $100B, That $100B would build one awesome WALL
and fund maintenance on it for decades. These "distinguished" authors, scientists, et. al. get paid off by the Globalists. That's how
they distribute the spoils for doing their favors. None of their work product has ANYTHING to do with excellence or honesty.

 

[Quaestio]

Marxists want control of people's minds... The AGW baloney is one of many methods of achieving that...


He is correct, and I am correct... Define global warming for me... What is it? Just tell me what it is (without defining it with itself)...


Correct.


Define global warming for me... Define it in a non-circular manner...

You haven't yet addressed why you believe in an imaginary second law of thermodynamics and magickally intelligent photons yet.

A colder body cannot warm an already warmer body. Heat does not flow backwards. Denial of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics...

No one is claiming that as that would be really stupid, so your statement is inherently really stupid. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is only about NET flow of heat, not individual flows of thermal energy. A heat ‘flux’ is the net flow of energy that occurs spontaneously as a result of temperature differences. You don't appear to realize the fact that the energy from the sun is part of the NET flow of heat along with down-welling longwave radiation from 'greenhouse' gases. Or that the earth and it's atmosphere are warmer than the ~2.7K cold of space.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that the NET flow of thermal energy ( “heat”) goes from hot to cold without exception. The 2nd Law says nothing about the "individual" flows of energy, only the NET flow. So while “heat” can’t flow from cold to hot, radiated energy absolutely can and does.

Or perhaps you are seriously claiming that photons from a cooler body are somehow magickally intelligent and 'know' not to radiate in the direction of a warmer body? Or that photons radiated from a cooler body are not absorbed by a warmer body as the photons from a warmer body are absorbed by a cooler body? :shock:

You are talking about an imaginary second law of thermodynamics as well as an imaginary 'greenhouse' effect. Or rather you are mindlessly parroting Into the Night's nonsense claims. He's wrong too.

You both should try reading some freakin' textbooks on heat transfer and atmospheric physics. Or are you claiming they are all "wrong" too like Into the Night does?

 

[Quaestio]

Not a counterargument... Argument of the Stone Fallacy...

Your logical fallacy is: Argument of the Third Flush of the Porcelain Throne.

 

[Quaestio]

I'm not going to waste my time with someone this deliberately ignorant. You have a nice day, sweetie.

Sensible choice. Especially if you have better things to do with your time - like teach a smart parrot to say 'G'Day' - rather than respond to an online poster who just mindlessly and repetitively squawks the exact same buzzword nonsense phrases as another poster (Into the Night) writes.

You cannot reason people out of positions they didn't reason themselves into.

 

[Quaestio]

It was 30 years ago today that NASA head Dr. James E Hansen testified to the US Senate that “global warming has begun”.
So this was the beginning of all the doom and gloom. Since Hansen’s testimony, we’ve been treated a litany of crazed predictions that never came true. In fact, Hansen’s own charts and computer models from 1988 have been debunked, where he predicted a massive rise in temperature that ended up being quite meager.

Leading climate alarmist Al Gore once said that we would reach a “point of no return” in 10 years. 12 years ago.
https://www.academia.org/the-top-10-...s-of-the-left/
Australian Politics › Australian Politics Forum › Member Run Boards › Environment

Trump Says Plan to End Climate Spending Would Save $100B, That $100B would build one awesome WALL
and fund maintenance on it for decades. These "distinguished" authors, scientists, et. al. get paid off by the Globalists. That's how
they distribute the spoils for doing their favors. None of their work product has ANYTHING to do with excellence or honesty.

Stop trusting tabloids and conspiracy blogs and you might know better.

 

[Integrityrespec]

I don't think there is that much doubt about some degree of climate change. The questions is how much and how long it is going to take before it really has some meaningful effect. I think the left and the "climate scientist" fudge the numbers to keep their work going. There is plenty of confilicting information. If you believe the left then how do you explain some of the biggest climate supporters running around the world in their private planes and big autos contributing to the problem and telling the rest of us to cut back and use wind and solar?

 

[Quaestio]

I don't think there is that much doubt about some degree of climate change. The questions is how much and how long it is going to take before it really has some meaningful effect. I think the left and the "climate scientist" fudge the numbers to keep their work going. There is plenty of confilicting information. ....

Yup, it's all just a giant hoax involving millions of corrupt scientists in many different fields of science and every major science institution around the world. They're even lying to you about the laws of physics. Yup.

 

[slick]

Stop trusting tabloids and conspiracy blogs and you might know better.

Thanx for the tip.

Leading climate alarmist Al Gore once said that we would reach a “point of no return” in 10 years. That was 12 years ago
when he said that, how long will it take before you realize it's all a hoax?

So tell me, I'm about 25 feet above sea level about 20 miles from the Atlantic Ocean. How much time do I have before
my house is affected by rising waters? Should I get out when the gettings good?

 

[Idiometer]

I don't think there is that much doubt about some degree of climate change. The questions is how much and how long it is going to take before it really has some meaningful effect. I think the left and the "climate scientist" fudge the numbers to keep their work going. There is plenty of confilicting information. If you believe the left then how do you explain some of the biggest climate supporters running around the world in their private planes and big autos contributing to the problem and telling the rest of us to cut back and use wind and solar?

Science is neither left or right.

And if those who support the move from polluting fuels to renewables need to get from point A to point B, and passenger planes that run on solar power or batteries have not yet been invented or perfected, I'm okay with that.

The "conflicting information" is mostly coming from shady pseudo-scientists getting their funding from companies like ExxonMobil. 97% (or more by now) of scientists all over the world are in agreement on the facts of AGW. The consensus is quite solid. The problem is one of dissemination. Climate science is complex and involves physical, biological and information sciences, including ecology, biology, physics, chemistry, plant science, zoology, mineralogy, oceanography, limnology, soil science, geology, geography, and atmospheric science. You can't just ask a meteorologist, and you can't just watch that moron Jim Inhofe toss around a snowball in congress and claim it disproves global warming.

 

[Quaestio]

Thanx for the tip.

Leading climate alarmist Al Gore once said that we would reach a “point of no return” in 10 years. That was 12 years ago
when he said that, how long will it take before you realize it's all a hoax?

So tell me, I'm about 25 feet above sea level about 20 miles from the Atlantic Ocean. How much time do I have before
my house is affected by rising waters? Should I get out when the gettings good?

Yeah yeah and Al Gore is fat.

He's also not a scientist. Climate truthers seem to love using Al Gore as some type of 'argument' instead of science.

We've already passed the 'point of no return' for keeping global warming under 1.5C and we're already starting to see the effects. It's pretty much already locked in unless humans find an effective way of sequestering CO2 from the atmosphere.

Next we'll be reaching the "point of no return" to keep global warming under 2C, then 3C.

 

[Quaestio]

Yeah yeah and Al Gore is fat.

He's also not a scientist. Climate truthers seem to love using Al Gore as some type of 'argument' instead of science.

We've already passed the 'point of no return' for keeping global warming under 1.5C and we're already starting to see the effects. It's pretty much already locked in unless humans find an effective way of sequestering CO2 from the atmosphere.

Next we'll be reaching the "point of no return" to keep global warming under 2C, then 3C.

To give that some perspective, the difference between now and most of Northern America covered in mile high ice sheets, is global average temperature being 4 or 5C cooler than now.

Isn't it great that climate truthers seem to love to claim that *'predictions' for 2030 or 2050 or 2100 have 'failed!' and haven't come true! :shock:
As far as I know it's still only 2018 (well 2019 in a few days).

*It's also not 'predictions', it's projections. Confidence in a climate "projection" is a measure of how plausible the projected range of change is for a given emission scenario.

 

[slick]

Yeah yeah and Al Gore is fat.

He's also not a scientist. Climate truthers seem to love using Al Gore as some type of 'argument' instead of science.

We've already passed the 'point of no return' for keeping global warming under 1.5C and we're already starting to see the effects. It's pretty much already locked in unless humans find an effective way of sequestering CO2 from the atmosphere.

Next we'll be reaching the "point of no return" to keep global warming under 2C, then 3C.

These "distinguished" authors, scientists, et. al. get paid off by the Globalists. That's how they distribute the spoils for doing their
favors. None of their work product has ANYTHING to do with excellence or honesty.

The violent demonstrations that flared this fall in France were a culmination of decades of rising anger among
the working class, it is true, but they were triggered by plans to impose a tax hike on gasoline and diesel
fuel at the pump in the name of fighting climate change. Only three years ago, French monuments were
bathed in green floodlights to celebrate a global deal negotiated in a Paris suburb to limit emissions;
now we are scraping ugly slogans off those monuments.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/27/...tml?rref=collection/sectioncollection/opinion

The times are a changing what a difference 3 years make. People are wising up