No One Can Understand My Global Warming Argument

[Tim the plumber]

I can? So you have published! Where are your publications?

Are you able to trust your own calculations? Your own eyes?

 

[gfm7175]

The logic you're employing with your 'atheism can't be an ideology like religion 'cause it's diametrically opposed to religion' is a fallacy.

Conservativism and Socialism aren't ideologies 'cause they're diametrically opposed? Hum?

He doesn't understand what a religion actually is... He seems to think that Theism encompasses all of religion (that Theism and religion are synonymous terms). That simply isn't the case, as religion encompasses much more than that...

Relating to this thread, about the OP's "Global Warming Argument", Global Warming is also a religion. It is an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from it. The initial circular argument that global warming makes happens to be based on a circularly-defined buzzword, which gets it in trouble with logic and renders it to be a void argument.

It's easy to slip into fallacious reasoning when discussing religion, as I did when trying to justify why I don't believe in fairies...

 

[gfm7175]

Atheism isn't religion but it employs strong faith in no deity.

Actually, it IS a religion (and you even showed why it is a religion in the part of your comment that I bolded).

A religion is best defined as an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from it. The part of your comment that I bolded is basically what the initial circular argument for Atheism is, that no god(s) exist. Having faith in something IS believing something by way of circular reasoning (in other words, a circular argument is an argument of faith). By employing strong faith in no deity, that person is practicing religion (the same way that a person who employs strong faith in the biblical God practices religion).

Does that make sense as to what a religion is and how Atheism is also a religion?

 

[Phys251]

The logic you're employing with your 'atheism can't be an ideology like religion 'cause it's diametrically opposed to religion' is a fallacy.

Conservativism and Socialism aren't ideologies 'cause they're diametrically opposed? Hum?

You have a misconception of what atheism is. Atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief. For example, I don't believe in faeries, but that doesn't mean that I don't believe that somewhere out there on a distant planet, there just might exist faeries. But for me to believe in them, I would need to have strong evidence that faeries exist. No such evidence exists yet, and therefore, I currently lack belief in faeries. This is a "weaker" position than steadfastly saying that faeries do not exist. I'm guessing they don't, but in the extremely unlikely case that they do, I leave the door open. But only evidence can get me through that door.

 

[Phys251]

Are you able to trust your own calculations? Your own eyes?

Nice dodge. You clearly have published research papers that falsify climate science. So let's see them. Now.

 

[Phys251]

Not an argument.

You are choosing to take the side of someone who is deliberately misinformed as to what atheism actually is. Very interesting.

Whatever religions he happens to adhere to has no effect on logic.

I know that hypocrisy is something that is acceptable on your side. You don't have to remind me.

Why would he want to think about it?

No, it's not. The Ten Commandments do not belong to ITN... The Bible claims that those commandments are from God.

If you are a Christian then the Ten Commandments are yours to follow. Please don't confuse yourself by pretending that I misworded my comment. It just further proves how little you contribute to this discussion.

I am quite familiar with them.

And yet you struggle to follow them.

All Christians do that? Only Christians do that? Either way, be careful with that type of argumentation... nasty logical fallacies result from it...

I just love it when people who struggle with reading comprehension feel that I misworded something. :lol:

SCOTUS is not an Oligarchy... The USA is a Federated Republic, ruled by the US Constitution.

We are a secular democratic republic despite the theocrats' attempts to make it otherwise.

James 2:10 is not saying that breaking one commandment is breaking all the commandments... James is conveying in that passage that one single transgression completely breaks our unity with the law, thus our unity with God, much like how hitting a window with a hammer at one single point will destroy the whole window. That passage is a warning to people who reject Jesus' sacrifice and instead attempt to keep the entirety of the Mosaic law...

Wait, so James 2:10 should not be taken literally? So there are passages of the bible outside of Revelation that should not be taken literally? Which ones? Where do you draw the line?

He does read it. I do too.

You replied to a post that wasn't even addressed to you, as if he needed your help defending himself. Why not just follow the Bible and do what it says? Why, when you see a brother in Christ giving false testimony against his neighbor, do you enable him to do that? Is not the Bible pretty clear that that's exactly the wrong thing to do in this case? Either you haven't read much of the Bible, or more likely, you pick and choose which parts you want to follow. Again, very typical from your side, and it's a big reason why Christianity is dying out in the US.

 

[gfm7175]

You have a misconception of what atheism is.

He seems to understand what Atheism is; he just doesn't seem to understand why it is a religion.

Atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief.

Which itself IS a belief... Atheism is the belief that no god(s) exist. It is a religion.

For example, I don't believe in faeries,

That is a religion. You and I share that faith-based belief.

but that doesn't mean that I don't believe that somewhere out there on a distant planet, there just might exist faeries.

That is simply acknowledging that your religion (and mine) can't be proven or disproven. You are not a fundamentalist of this religion, and neither am I. Fairies could even exist somewhere on THIS planet...

But for me to believe in them, I would need to have strong evidence that faeries exist. No such evidence exists yet, and therefore, I currently lack belief in faeries.

This is the Argument of Ignorance Fallacy that I got myself tangled up in when you asked me why I don't believe in fairies. You just here-by gave, essentially, the same answer that I gave to you when you asked me why I don't believe in fairies. You are arguing that the convincing reason why you don't believe in them is that there is a lack of evidence for their existence. --- I got myself tangled up in making this Argument of Ignorance Fallacy, and have since learned from it, and hopefully you can learn from it too.

You need not justify your faith. Attempting to do so leads into these types of logical fallacies...

This is a "weaker" position than steadfastly saying that faeries do not exist.

No, it's not. It is the same position of disbelief. The only difference is that it is showing that you are not a fundamentalist of that religion.

I'm guessing they don't, but in the extremely unlikely case that they do, I leave the door open. But only evidence can get me through that door.

You are not a fundamentalist of that religion; neither am I. The claims of no evidence is where you start getting into logical trouble, like I did... You can also learn to avoid that fallacy.

 

[gfm7175]

You are choosing to take the side of someone who is deliberately misinformed as to what atheism actually is. Very interesting.

He is actually quite informed as to what Atheism is. YOU are the one who is misinformed. Inversion Fallacy.

I know that hypocrisy is something that is acceptable on your side. You don't have to remind me.

What is "my side"? Be very careful with making those sorts of groupings of people...

If you are a Christian then the Ten Commandments are yours to follow. Please don't confuse yourself by pretending that I misworded my comment.

I responded to what you claimed... Actually, the Bible claims that the Ten Commandments are EVERYONE'S to keep.

It just further proves how little you contribute to this discussion.

Personal commentary ignored on sight...

And yet you struggle to follow them.

Correct, I do struggle to follow the Ten Commandments; I am fallen.

I just love it when people who struggle with reading comprehension feel that I misworded something. :lol:

Adds nothing of substance to the discussion...

We are a secular democratic republic despite the theocrats' attempts to make it otherwise.

No, we aren't. That actually argues a paradox... We are a Federated Republic.

Wait, so James 2:10 should not be taken literally? So there are passages of the bible outside of Revelation that should not be taken literally? Which ones? Where do you draw the line?

Your position regarding what that passage was claiming was incomplete. I provided a more complete analysis of that passage...

You replied to a post that wasn't even addressed to you, as if he needed your help defending himself.

He can defend himself. I can respond to whatever comment I feel like responding to; you are not a dictator.

Why not just follow the Bible and do what it says? Why, when you see a brother in Christ giving false testimony against his neighbor, do you enable him to do that? Is not the Bible pretty clear that that's exactly the wrong thing to do in this case? Either you haven't read much of the Bible, or more likely, you pick and choose which parts you want to follow. Again, very typical from your side, and it's a big reason why Christianity is dying out in the US.

OR maybe I'm a fallen being who is incapable of keeping the law in its entirety?

 

[Tim the plumber]

Nice dodge. You clearly have published research papers that falsify climate science. So let's see them. Now.

I have published, here, the numbers that Greenland's ice mass balance is determined by. That is the amount of water (snow) falling on it and the way to estimate, at a low level of precision but good enough, the outflow.

That you will not consider such obvious evidence shows how religious your thinking is on this issue.

 

[Deuce]

I actually proved global warming was a problem years ago, you were all just too dumb to get it. My girlfriend saw it. You wouldn’t know her. She goes to another school.

 

[Into the Night]

Aha! There's something you might want to think about, ITN:

I have, and that is my choice of religion, just as atheism is your choice of religion.

No, "Thou shalt not give false testimony against thy neighbor" is one of your Ten Commandments.

I have given no false testimony to anyone. False dichotomy fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

If it was delivered with that intention at the right place, I'm not so sure.

Not big enough. Even if it were, the plate would crumble, not move.

 

[Into the Night]

Gotcha... that makes perfect sense, ITN, and explains how my attempt to avoid the fallacy still failed... The more thought I've put into this (I've never really thought about it deeply before), the more it seems like pretty much any attempt to answer the "why" question for the belief in a religion (that attempts to justify it) gets one into trouble with logic, seeming to lead towards either a circular argument fallacy, or like the case that caught me, a subtle argument of ignorance fallacy. Seems best to just avoid the justification "bait and trap", since it seems to only lead one into logic issues, and to instead leave it as a faith-based choice.

There you go. You got it right. No matter what the religion, is must be based on faith and faith alone.

 

[ecofarm]

Not big enough. Even if it were, the plate would crumble, not move.

Now you're overestimating a nuke.

 

[Into the Night]

Modern refineries crack oil down to olefins first,

Nope. No olefins are involved at all.

and then reassemble them to enhance the the output of whatever product is needed from a barrel of oil.

Nope. Cracking is a filtering process.

Without that a given barrel of oil would have a specified amount of the each product only.

Chemical enhancements to favor a certain product do not use olefins either.

No one is going to make oil,

We already do.

they will make finished fuel products, but there is no need for oil to be involved in process.

Gasoline is filtered oil. Kerosene is filtered oil. Asphalt is filtered oil.

Current grid connect laws are a quilt work of bad plans. Net metering, feed in Tariffs, monthly connect fees, ect.

No, they are quite simple. You connect to the grid, you are charged for the electricity you use. If you are a power supplier, you set up a contract to supply that grid with your power. The grid operator will purchase power from the cheapest sources first. That contract also specifies the technical requirements for supplying power to the grid.

We need one simple plan, that is viable for both the solar homeowner, and the utility, not toxic to ether.

It already is. Solar is expensive. Trying to sell it to the power company will have to compete against other cheaper sources of power. They won't buy expensive power just to satisfy YOU. Imposing such regulations on a grid operator is price controls. Price controls never work. They always cause shortages.

Lastly I have never said that it did not take energy to create man made hydrocarbon fuels, it is simply and energy storage device.

Why make it when it's already there?

Currently with oil in the $55 a barrel range, man made fuels are not economically viable,

Irrelevant. I have already answered this. Argument by repetition fallacy.

but oil will not always stay at $55 a barrel. It will slowly increase in price.

Who made you a Holy Seer?

Off peak wholesale electricity on the other hand, has been going down in price.

Void argument fallacy. Define your time interval by absolute times.

As solar expands, so will the duck curve.

Ducks have nothing to do with solar power.

There will come a time when daytime generation, exceeds demand,

Never. If generation exceeds demand, it is not generated.

if the energy is dumped, it is lost as heat.

Electrical energy is not dumped. It is never generated! No heating at all.

If on the other hand all the surplus were stored as hydrocarbon fuels, the energy could be utilized for other demands, instead of lost.

Excess electricity is not lost. It is never generated!

 

[Into the Night]

Atheism isn't religion but it employs strong faith in no deity. It is an ideology. As is religion an ideology.

It is a religion. You even use the word 'faith'. It believes that there is no god or gods.

 

[Into the Night]

It is only possible to get a profund thing published in a scientific journal.

What is profound about the direction a dog faces when it goes out to take a ****? (Yes, it appeared in a 'scientific' journal.

Journals are magazines. They aren't science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It's amazing the crap they publish in 'scientific' journals.

The bleeding obvious is not publishable.

Sure it is. I've seen studies published in 'scientific' journals about whether a bad smell causes a reaction.

I challenge you to go through the numbers on Greenland's ice mass balance, precipitation vs out flow, and explain why it can possibly be loosing ics mass.

This is the only part you had to write. Here your argument is sound.

 

[Into the Night]

You have a misconception of what atheism is. Atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief.

A lack of belief in a god or gods is itself a belief.

For example, I don't believe in faeries, but that doesn't mean that I don't believe that somewhere out there on a distant planet, there just might exist faeries.

We are talking about Earth, not any speculated planet.

But for me to believe in them, I would need to have strong evidence that faeries exist. No such evidence exists yet, and therefore, I currently lack belief in faeries.

So you currently believe fairies do not exist. You believe that because there is no supporting evidence. Argument of ignorance fallacy.

This is a "weaker" position than steadfastly saying that faeries do not exist.

It IS saying that fairies do not exist.

I'm guessing they don't, but in the extremely unlikely case that they do, I leave the door open.

No, you believe fairies do not exist. You have shut that door.

But only evidence can get me through that door.

Here you say it again. You believe fairies do not exist.

 

[Into the Night]

Nice dodge. You clearly have published research papers that falsify climate science. So let's see them. Now.

There is no 'climate science'. Buzzword fallacy. Science has no theories based on non-quantifiable subjective words, like 'climate'.

 

[Into the Night]

You are choosing to take the side of someone who is deliberately misinformed as to what atheism actually is. Very interesting.

How is someone who is deliberately misinformed guilty of a lie, dude?

Atheism is a religion. You have been deliberately lmisinformed. You fell for it because you are illiterate in logic and philosophy.

 

[KLATTU]

there is no 'climate science'. Buzzword fallacy. Science has no theories based on non-quantifiable subjective words, like 'climate'.

*****mic drop*********

 

[Into the Night]

i have published, here, the numbers that greenland's ice mass balance is determined by. That is the amount of water (snow) falling on it and the way to estimate, at a low level of precision but good enough, the outflow.

That you will not consider such obvious evidence shows how religious your thinking is on this issue.

...q.e.d.

 

[Into the Night]

Now you're overestimating a nuke.

Not at all. YOU are overestimating a nuke. Inversion fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

*****mic drop*********

Butterfingers.

 

[ecofarm]

Not at all. YOU are overestimating a nuke. Inversion fallacy.

First you claimed a nuke could not help shift a piece of a plate one billionth of a millimeter. Now you claim it would cause a plate to crumble.