Global Warming Denialists, does CO2 absorb longwave radiation?

[The Irish Ram]

I hate that these whacko cult-Christians drag Jesus's name through the mud with their stupidity.

I believe Christ is God but I don't limit God to such stupid shit like "humans can't cause Global Warming".

God made the Universe, and he made it so that Humans are its Shepherds and we are destroying the Earth according to God's plans.

And Science proves that.

My problem is. If you love science as you claim, being a creationist has to make you uncomfortable. In my opinion theirs only 2 places that God is a conceivable hypothesis. That's before the Big Bang and how did life start on Earth. In all other areas, science has a perfectly valid and testable explanation.

No science does not.
Science is only as valid and testable as their next discovery. Einstein was convinced that there were only 3 dimensions. Hubble introduced him to the 4th. Until now science has convinced you that there were only 4. Hawking changed that. Who will change us next? Kaku? One of our leading scientists just exclaimed that what he believes he has discovered will upset everything science has believed, and convinced you of.
I am more than comfortable with creation. Because I am more than comfortable with God's explanation.
There was a whole lot that went on from the time He created heaven and earth, and the time the Holy Spirit moved to create light. Why was light needed? Because there was an UNNATURAL darkness that needed to be removed. Lucifer had been kicked out of Heaven and cut to the ground:

Isaiah 14:12
The Fall of Lucifer - “How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground,

It was not created that way. It became that way. To understand that you need to revert back to the Septuigent.

 

[SSDD]

I'm seriously fighting some stupid holocaust deniers that don't believe there are experiments that prove CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

So take it here, tell the WHOLE forum what you holocaust deniers believe about CO2.

Do you believe CO2 absorbs longwave radiation or not?

Put up or shut up and eat shit.

Of course it absorbs long wave...in a very narrow band...and immediately emits said long wave...now, what you need to realize is that there isn't the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the claim that absorption and emission equals warming....that is an assumption that can only be observed in climate models...never once in the real world.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I hate that these whacko cult-Christians drag Jesus's name through the mud with their stupidity.

I believe Christ is God but I don't limit God to such stupid shit like "humans can't cause Global Warming".

God made the Universe, and he made it so that Humans are its Shepherds and we are destroying the Earth according to God's plans.

And Science proves that.

Oh looky .. AN ATHEIST, SHIT STAIN FOOL who doesn't know shit about CO2 or why it does not cause the earth to warm...

Way to go retard.. You have shown us that your cult AGW crap cant be supported with reasoned logic and that you must resort to adhom attacks and fallacy to support your position..

 

[Billy_Bob]

I'm seriously fighting some stupid holocaust deniers that don't believe there are experiments that prove CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

So take it here, tell the WHOLE forum what you holocaust deniers believe about CO2.

Do you believe CO2 absorbs longwave radiation or not?

Put up or shut up and eat shit.

Of course it absorbs long wave...in a very narrow band...and immediately emits said long wave...now, what you need to realize is that there isn't the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the claim that absorption and emission equals warming....that is an assumption that can only be observed in climate models...never once in the real world.

He has no clue why CO2 emitted at 12-15um is absorbed near surface in water vapor and that water vapor can not just re-emit it without using some of the energy to warm it. This causes the new photon to be emitted at 17-26um which is outside of what CO2 can retard. One of those simple things the AGW crowd cant explain but energy loss at TOA in that band shows to be happening, laying their runaway greenhouse meme waste..

 

[westwall]

I'm seriously fighting some stupid holocaust deniers that don't believe there are experiments that prove CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

So take it here, tell the WHOLE forum what you holocaust deniers believe about CO2.

Do you believe CO2 absorbs longwave radiation or not?

Put up or shut up and eat shit.

Of course we do. However, what does that long wave IR then do to raise the temperature. I asked you to describe the mechanism of global warming and you ran like a wimp.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm seriously fighting some stupid holocaust deniers that don't believe there are experiments that prove CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

So take it here, tell the WHOLE forum what you holocaust deniers believe about CO2.

Do you believe CO2 absorbs longwave radiation or not?

Put up or shut up and eat shit.

Of course it absorbs long wave...in a very narrow band...and immediately emits said long wave...now, what you need to realize is that there isn't the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the claim that absorption and emission equals warming....that is an assumption that can only be observed in climate models...never once in the real world.

He has no clue why CO2 emitted at 12-15um is absorbed near surface in water and that water can not just re-emit it without using some of the energy to warm it. This causes the new photon to be emitted at 17-26um which is outside of what CO2 can retard. One of those simple things the AGW crowd cant explain but energy loss at TOA in that band shows to be happening, laying their runaway greenhouse meme waste..

He has no clue why CO2 emitted at 12-15um is absorbed near surface in water

Don't tell SSDD that atmospheric CO2 can emit towards water on the surface.
You'll make his smart photons feel stupid.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I'm seriously fighting some stupid holocaust deniers that don't believe there are experiments that prove CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

So take it here, tell the WHOLE forum what you holocaust deniers believe about CO2.

Do you believe CO2 absorbs longwave radiation or not?

Put up or shut up and eat shit.

Of course it absorbs long wave...in a very narrow band...and immediately emits said long wave...now, what you need to realize is that there isn't the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the claim that absorption and emission equals warming....that is an assumption that can only be observed in climate models...never once in the real world.

He has no clue why CO2 emitted at 12-15um is absorbed near surface in water and that water can not just re-emit it without using some of the energy to warm it. This causes the new photon to be emitted at 17-26um which is outside of what CO2 can retard. One of those simple things the AGW crowd cant explain but energy loss at TOA in that band shows to be happening, laying their runaway greenhouse meme waste..

He has no clue why CO2 emitted at 12-15um is absorbed near surface in water

Don't tell SSDD that atmospheric CO2 can emit towards water on the surface.
You'll make his smart photons feel stupid.

It wont get past the first 10 microns of the surface of water but it will be eaten up by water vapor... Which means surface water can not be warmed by this radiation return.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm seriously fighting some stupid holocaust deniers that don't believe there are experiments that prove CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

So take it here, tell the WHOLE forum what you holocaust deniers believe about CO2.

Do you believe CO2 absorbs longwave radiation or not?

Put up or shut up and eat shit.

Of course it absorbs long wave...in a very narrow band...and immediately emits said long wave...now, what you need to realize is that there isn't the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the claim that absorption and emission equals warming....that is an assumption that can only be observed in climate models...never once in the real world.

He has no clue why CO2 emitted at 12-15um is absorbed near surface in water and that water can not just re-emit it without using some of the energy to warm it. This causes the new photon to be emitted at 17-26um which is outside of what CO2 can retard. One of those simple things the AGW crowd cant explain but energy loss at TOA in that band shows to be happening, laying their runaway greenhouse meme waste..

He has no clue why CO2 emitted at 12-15um is absorbed near surface in water

Don't tell SSDD that atmospheric CO2 can emit towards water on the surface.
You'll make his smart photons feel stupid.

It wont get past the first 10 microns of the surface of water but it will be eaten up by water vapor... Which means surface water can not be warmed by this radiation return.

It wont get past the first 10 microns of the surface of water but it will be eaten up by water vapor

Photons from the colder atmosphere are eaten up by warmer water vapor at the surface? Okay.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I'm seriously fighting some stupid holocaust deniers that don't believe there are experiments that prove CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

So take it here, tell the WHOLE forum what you holocaust deniers believe about CO2.

Do you believe CO2 absorbs longwave radiation or not?

Put up or shut up and eat shit.

Of course it absorbs long wave...in a very narrow band...and immediately emits said long wave...now, what you need to realize is that there isn't the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the claim that absorption and emission equals warming....that is an assumption that can only be observed in climate models...never once in the real world.

He has no clue why CO2 emitted at 12-15um is absorbed near surface in water and that water can not just re-emit it without using some of the energy to warm it. This causes the new photon to be emitted at 17-26um which is outside of what CO2 can retard. One of those simple things the AGW crowd cant explain but energy loss at TOA in that band shows to be happening, laying their runaway greenhouse meme waste..

He has no clue why CO2 emitted at 12-15um is absorbed near surface in water

Don't tell SSDD that atmospheric CO2 can emit towards water on the surface.
You'll make his smart photons feel stupid.

It wont get past the first 10 microns of the surface of water but it will be eaten up by water vapor... Which means surface water can not be warmed by this radiation return.

It wont get past the first 10 microns of the surface of water but it will be eaten up by water vapor

Photons from the colder atmosphere are eaten up by warmer water vapor at the surface? Okay.

That is precisely what water vapor does.. it absorbs the photon as the residency time in water vapor is 300-500 nanoseconds as compared to 1-4 nanoseconds in CO2.. Kinetic energy is lost in water vapor where it is not in CO2.. It is then re-emitted at a much longer wavelength that can not be retarded by CO2.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Of course it absorbs long wave...in a very narrow band...and immediately emits said long wave...now, what you need to realize is that there isn't the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the claim that absorption and emission equals warming....that is an assumption that can only be observed in climate models...never once in the real world.

He has no clue why CO2 emitted at 12-15um is absorbed near surface in water and that water can not just re-emit it without using some of the energy to warm it. This causes the new photon to be emitted at 17-26um which is outside of what CO2 can retard. One of those simple things the AGW crowd cant explain but energy loss at TOA in that band shows to be happening, laying their runaway greenhouse meme waste..

He has no clue why CO2 emitted at 12-15um is absorbed near surface in water

Don't tell SSDD that atmospheric CO2 can emit towards water on the surface.
You'll make his smart photons feel stupid.

It wont get past the first 10 microns of the surface of water but it will be eaten up by water vapor... Which means surface water can not be warmed by this radiation return.

It wont get past the first 10 microns of the surface of water but it will be eaten up by water vapor

Photons from the colder atmosphere are eaten up by warmer water vapor at the surface? Okay.

That is precisely what water vapor does.. it absorbs the photon as the residency time in water vapor is 300-500 nanoseconds as compared to 1-4 nanoseconds in CO2.. Kinetic energy is lost in water vapor where it is not in CO2.. It is then re-emitted at a much longer wavelength that can not be retarded by CO2.

That is precisely what water vapor does..

Don't tell SSDD that water vapor tricks his smart photons.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Here are two that have "put up". They are the UN officials in charge of "Climate Control". GET 'EM!

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.
So what is the goal of environmental policy? "We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer.


Now get her:
Last year, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, made a similar statement.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said in anticipation of last year's Paris climate summit.

"This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."

The plan is to allow Third World countries to emit as much carbon dioxide as they wish, (like China does) -- because, as Edenhofer said,
"in order to get rich one has to burn coal, oil or gas" -- while at the same time restricting emissions in advanced nations. This will, of course, choke economic growth in developed nations, but they deserve that fate as they "have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community," he said. The fanaticism runs so deep that one professor has even suggested that we need to plunge ourselves into a depression to fight global warming.

Stop being the dumb asses that the UN is punishing. This is the plan. OUT OF THEIR OWN MOUTHS. OUR money, OUR resources to anyone but us. WE get chocked to death by the EPA. Soon the UN will be pissed off that we still have clean water, and will insist that it also go to whomever they choose.

A couple of things. First off, in this article, there are no outside references, so actually checking the truthfulness is impossible. Secondly this is the sentence that makes me frown.Nicholas Stern, who "said that emission reductions of more than 1% per year had only ever been associated with economic recession or upheaval." How do you come to conclusions of something that hasn't happened yet. Since no actual reduction has been reported yet. So he's basically spit balling it. This makes it an assumption, not science.

Here are two that have "put up". They are the UN officials in charge of "Climate Control". GET 'EM!

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.
So what is the goal of environmental policy? "We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer.


Now get her:
Last year, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, made a similar statement.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said in anticipation of last year's Paris climate summit.

"This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."

The plan is to allow Third World countries to emit as much carbon dioxide as they wish, (like China does) -- because, as Edenhofer said,
"in order to get rich one has to burn coal, oil or gas" -- while at the same time restricting emissions in advanced nations. This will, of course, choke economic growth in developed nations, but they deserve that fate as they "have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community," he said. The fanaticism runs so deep that one professor has even suggested that we need to plunge ourselves into a depression to fight global warming.

Stop being the dumb asses that the UN is punishing. This is the plan. OUT OF THEIR OWN MOUTHS. OUR money, OUR resources to anyone but us. WE get chocked to death by the EPA. Soon the UN will be pissed off that we still have clean water, and will insist that it also go to whomever they choose.

What does this have to do with CO2 absorption spectra you brown-stained panties.

Do you think rude comments lend credence to your arguments? The don't. Watch how to make a point without the disgusting affronts:
The answer to your question is some gases do, and some don't. As for the "global warming" scam to redistribute our wealth, how does letting everyone but us burn our coal as much as they want ( with no precipatrons in place to help clean the environment, like we have) help restrict CO2 emissions?
Global warming has nothing to do with CO2 absorption. Volcanoes have nothing to do with global warming. Farting has nothing to do with the intensity of solar flares, hair spray won't change a thing. The sun determines our climate and always has, and always will.

Global warming has to do with CO2 absorption.

If you say no...only God does...then you're a fucking satanist.

Again, misstatements don't become correct statements by adding an insult to the end of them. Global warming has nothing to do with CO2 absorption. There were no people rushing to burn coal to end the first ice age in an effort to save T-Rex. It ended because the sun.

The curious thing about ice ages is that the temperature of Earth's atmosphere doesn't stay cold the entire time. Instead, the climate flip-flops between what scientists call "glacial periods" and "interglacial periods" caused by the sun and our orbit whether it be circular, or oval.
The garbage you have been fed had to be altered from global warming, to climate change because science DID NOT support the greenhouse effect. How many officials worldwide have to tell you it is phony before you admit you have been had?

And then there is this little bit of science to really screw with your head:

Crippled Atlantic currents triggered ice age climate change

The last ice age wasn’t one long big chill. Dozens of times temperatures abruptly rose or fell, causing all manner of ecological change. Mysteriously, ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica show that these sudden shifts—which occurred every 1500 years or so—were out of sync in the two hemispheres: When it got cold in the north, it grew warm in the south, and vice versa. Now, scientists have implicated the culprit behind those seesaws—changes to a conveyor belt of ocean currents known as the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC).

These currents, which today drive the Gulf Stream, bring warm surface waters north and send cold, deeper waters south. But they weakened suddenly and drastically, nearly to the point of stopping, just before several periods of abrupt climate change, researchers report today in Science. In a matter of decades, temperatures plummeted in the north, as the currents brought less warmth in that direction. Meanwhile, the backlog of warm, southern waters allowed the Southern Hemisphere to heat up.

AMOC slowdowns have long been suspected as the cause of the climate swings during the last ice age, which lasted from 110,000 to 15,000 years ago, but never definitively shown. The new study “is the best demonstration that this indeed happened,” says Jerry McManus, a paleo-oceanographer at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, and a study author. “It is very convincing evidence,” adds Andreas Schmittner, a climate scientist at Oregon State University, Corvallis. “We did not know that the circulation changed during these shorter intervals.”

 

[The Irish Ram]

Concentrations of CO2 follow warming phases, they don't cause the phases.

 

[SSDD]

I hate that these whacko cult-Christians drag Jesus's name through the mud with their stupidity.

I believe Christ is God but I don't limit God to such stupid shit like "humans can't cause Global Warming".

God made the Universe, and he made it so that Humans are its Shepherds and we are destroying the Earth according to God's plans.

And Science proves that.

Oh looky .. AN ATHEIST, SHIT STAIN FOOL who doesn't know shit about CO2 or why it does not cause the earth to warm...

Way to go retard.. You have shown us that your cult AGW crap cant be supported with reasoned logic and that you must resort to adhom attacks and fallacy to support your position..

He is a fine example of warmist thinking taken to its logical conclusion...What else can they end up as other than barking mad religious zealots spewing their particular version of the accepted dogma...

 

[Muhammed]

I'm seriously fighting some stupid holocaust deniers that don't believe there are experiments that prove CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

So take it here, tell the WHOLE forum what you holocaust deniers believe about CO2.

Do you believe CO2 absorbs longwave radiation or not?

Put up or shut up and eat shit.

It's called a trace gas for a reason, dumbass. It constitutes less than 1% of the atmosphere. However, It is vital to our survival. Biology 101.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that it is some sort of threat?

Are you too narrow minded to comprehend that CO2 is plant food.



CO2 is the green gas.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Muhammad is correct.
Most of CO2 produced on earth does not escape into the atmosphere. The oceans collect 50% more CO2 than the atmosphere, and produces 16 times as much CO2 than humans produce.
To save the earth from CO2 we need to drain the oceans into the volcanoes.

 

[forkup]

I hate that these whacko cult-Christians drag Jesus's name through the mud with their stupidity.

I believe Christ is God but I don't limit God to such stupid shit like "humans can't cause Global Warming".

God made the Universe, and he made it so that Humans are its Shepherds and we are destroying the Earth according to God's plans.

And Science proves that.

My problem is. If you love science as you claim, being a creationist has to make you uncomfortable. In my opinion theirs only 2 places that God is a conceivable hypothesis. That's before the Big Bang and how did life start on Earth. In all other areas, science has a perfectly valid and testable explanation.

No science does not.
Science is only as valid and testable as their next discovery. Einstein was convinced that there were only 3 dimensions. Hubble introduced him to the 4th. Until now science has convinced you that there were only 4. Hawking changed that. Who will change us next? Kaku? One of our leading scientists just exclaimed that what he believes he has discovered will upset everything science has believed, and convinced you of.
I am more than comfortable with creation. Because I am more than comfortable with God's explanation.
There was a whole lot that went on from the time He created heaven and earth, and the time the Holy Spirit moved to create light. Why was light needed? Because there was an UNNATURAL darkness that needed to be removed. Lucifer had been kicked out of Heaven and cut to the ground:

Isaiah 14:12
The Fall of Lucifer - “How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground,

It was not created that way. It became that way. To understand that you need to revert back to the Septuigent.

To me, claiming that the fact, that what we know, changes in science invalidates science in itself is a weird argument. Einstein didn't think there where 3 dimensions, he got the idea of 4, time being the fourth one. That was the basis of his work, thinking of time as a fourth dimension. Now, you also seem to muddle a few concepts in science in order to spell out your argument. First of, Einstein didn't proof most of his theories. So what Einstein did was come out with hypothesis, then he and other scientist looked for ways to proof those hypothesis, by testing those hypothesis. For instance Einstein theory of general relativity was proven by predicting that if his hypothesis was correct light should deflect in a predictable way if he was correct. It did ,so at this point the hypothesis graduates to a theory. That's not the end of the process, as science comes out with other tests, that theory has to pass them. If it doesn't, then science has to figure out why this is the case, in that way theories get refined and sometimes albeit rarely discarded. It's a cumulative process where each separate discovery brings new questions. That is the exact opposite from creationism, it starts from what they believe a truth (the bible) and then tries to find a way to proof it. It however doesn't predict or test, instead it tries to discredit, or ignore, what we have tested and predicted if it conflicts with their belief. Hence claiming to love science and being a creationist is a contradiction in terms.

 

[forkup]

Here are two that have "put up". They are the UN officials in charge of "Climate Control". GET 'EM!

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.
So what is the goal of environmental policy? "We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer.


Now get her:
Last year, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, made a similar statement.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said in anticipation of last year's Paris climate summit.

"This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."

The plan is to allow Third World countries to emit as much carbon dioxide as they wish, (like China does) -- because, as Edenhofer said,
"in order to get rich one has to burn coal, oil or gas" -- while at the same time restricting emissions in advanced nations. This will, of course, choke economic growth in developed nations, but they deserve that fate as they "have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community," he said. The fanaticism runs so deep that one professor has even suggested that we need to plunge ourselves into a depression to fight global warming.

Stop being the dumb asses that the UN is punishing. This is the plan. OUT OF THEIR OWN MOUTHS. OUR money, OUR resources to anyone but us. WE get chocked to death by the EPA. Soon the UN will be pissed off that we still have clean water, and will insist that it also go to whomever they choose.

A couple of things. First off, in this article, there are no outside references, so actually checking the truthfulness is impossible. Secondly this is the sentence that makes me frown.Nicholas Stern, who "said that emission reductions of more than 1% per year had only ever been associated with economic recession or upheaval." How do you come to conclusions of something that hasn't happened yet. Since no actual reduction has been reported yet. So he's basically spit balling it. This makes it an assumption, not science.

Secondly this is the sentence that makes me frown.Nicholas Stern, who "said that emission reductions of more than 1% per year had only ever been associated with economic recession or upheaval." How do you come to conclusions of something that hasn't happened yet. Since no actual reduction has been reported yet.

View attachment 89354

Looks like the reduction in 2009 was much more than 1%.

U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report: 1990-2014 | Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions | US EPA

Lol, so if I get it correctly, you are claiming there's a connection between the reduction in Greenhouse Gas emissions and the mortgage crisis? I personally believe that to be a stretch. And btw in 2002 the dot com bubble burst and emissions where going up then. So trying to tie up the 2 gets tricky right off the bat.

Lol, so if I get it correctly, you are claiming there's a connection between the reduction in Greenhouse Gas emissions and the mortgage crisis?

The economy tanked, less CO2 was released.
Why is that hard to believe?
There was a smaller drop in 2000-2001, when the dotcom bubble burst. It wasn't 2002.

You are right that is logical, my obvious question then would be, how does this help your argument? You just admitted that greenhouse reduction was an effect, not a cause of the recent recessions. Making the article and this Nicolas Stern quoted, dishonest. Furthermore I want to point out that the article didn't deny Global warming but tries to question the motives of the scientist researching it. So again how does the article help the deniers?

 

[The Irish Ram]

I hate that these whacko cult-Christians drag Jesus's name through the mud with their stupidity.

I believe Christ is God but I don't limit God to such stupid shit like "humans can't cause Global Warming".

God made the Universe, and he made it so that Humans are its Shepherds and we are destroying the Earth according to God's plans.

And Science proves that.

My problem is. If you love science as you claim, being a creationist has to make you uncomfortable. In my opinion theirs only 2 places that God is a conceivable hypothesis. That's before the Big Bang and how did life start on Earth. In all other areas, science has a perfectly valid and testable explanation.

No science does not.
Science is only as valid and testable as their next discovery. Einstein was convinced that there were only 3 dimensions. Hubble introduced him to the 4th. Until now science has convinced you that there were only 4. Hawking changed that. Who will change us next? Kaku? One of our leading scientists just exclaimed that what he believes he has discovered will upset everything science has believed, and convinced you of.
I am more than comfortable with creation. Because I am more than comfortable with God's explanation.
There was a whole lot that went on from the time He created heaven and earth, and the time the Holy Spirit moved to create light. Why was light needed? Because there was an UNNATURAL darkness that needed to be removed. Lucifer had been kicked out of Heaven and cut to the ground:

Isaiah 14:12
The Fall of Lucifer - “How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground,

It was not created that way. It became that way. To understand that you need to revert back to the Septuigent.

To me, claiming that the fact, that what we know, changes in science invalidates science in itself is a weird argument. Einstein didn't think there where 3 dimensions, he got the idea of 4, time being the fourth one. That was the basis of his work, thinking of time as a fourth dimension. Now, you also seem to muddle a few concepts in science in order to spell out your argument. First of, Einstein didn't proof most of his theories. So what Einstein did was come out with hypothesis, then he and other scientist looked for ways to proof those hypothesis, by testing those hypothesis. For instance Einstein theory of general relativity was proven by predicting that if his hypothesis was correct light should deflect in a predictable way if he was correct. It did ,so at this point the hypothesis graduates to a theory. That's not the end of the process, as science comes out with other tests, that theory has to pass them. If it doesn't, then science has to figure out why this is the case, in that way theories get refined and sometimes albeit rarely discarded. It's a cumulative process where each separate discovery brings new questions. That is the exact opposite from creationism, it starts from what they believe a truth (the bible) and then tries to find a way to proof it. It however doesn't predict or test, instead it tries to discredit, or ignore, what we have tested and predicted if it conflicts with their belief. Hence claiming to love science and being a creationist is a contradiction in terms.

New discoveries in science often invalidate what science previously thought. All through history science has found the need to evolve. There was no hint of the necessity of a big bang until Einstein realized that going back in time would cause the universe to contract to a singular point.

No, Einstein did not know there was a 4th dimension. Hubble showed it to him through a telescope. He had no choice but to include it and called it the bane of his existence. What he realized was that the forward movement of the stars meant that they had a beginning in the past. He thought they were static. Hubble proved to him that they were not.

A theory becomes law if the theoretical experiment that produced the original results can be recreated in separate labs or environments. I understand fully the steps of scientific protocol. That others may concur with a theory, does not make it law. Proving the theory, independently, is the scientific criteria. The theory of evolution remains a theory regardless of how many scientists are convinced the theory is probably correct. The discovery of DNA shoots the hell out of that theory, btw.


Once again, there is 0 contradiction between science and the Bible. The Bible says you should understand science by studying Genesis. God is correct.
Nahmanides (1194–1270), studied Genesis and determined that there were at least 10 dimensions. Look how long it took for scientists to uncover the other 6 without the Bible. Same conclusion, different methods. It will take quite a while for "science" to realize the characteristics of dimensions, but when they do I'll take you right back to the spot where Bible/scientifically inclined readers discovered that dimensions can be stretched, torn, rolled up like a scroll, or burned.
The Bible describes earth as an orb, yet look how long everyone thought if they got to close to the edge, they would fall off the earth. Imagine trying to convince them that the earth was spinning like a top!

As we speak a revered scientist has announced that he believes he can prove there is a God, scientifically. To which God will have replied in advance, "Blessed are those who knew by faith..".

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here are two that have "put up". They are the UN officials in charge of "Climate Control". GET 'EM!

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.
So what is the goal of environmental policy? "We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer.


Now get her:
Last year, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, made a similar statement.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said in anticipation of last year's Paris climate summit.

"This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."

The plan is to allow Third World countries to emit as much carbon dioxide as they wish, (like China does) -- because, as Edenhofer said,
"in order to get rich one has to burn coal, oil or gas" -- while at the same time restricting emissions in advanced nations. This will, of course, choke economic growth in developed nations, but they deserve that fate as they "have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community," he said. The fanaticism runs so deep that one professor has even suggested that we need to plunge ourselves into a depression to fight global warming.

Stop being the dumb asses that the UN is punishing. This is the plan. OUT OF THEIR OWN MOUTHS. OUR money, OUR resources to anyone but us. WE get chocked to death by the EPA. Soon the UN will be pissed off that we still have clean water, and will insist that it also go to whomever they choose.

A couple of things. First off, in this article, there are no outside references, so actually checking the truthfulness is impossible. Secondly this is the sentence that makes me frown.Nicholas Stern, who "said that emission reductions of more than 1% per year had only ever been associated with economic recession or upheaval." How do you come to conclusions of something that hasn't happened yet. Since no actual reduction has been reported yet. So he's basically spit balling it. This makes it an assumption, not science.

Secondly this is the sentence that makes me frown.Nicholas Stern, who "said that emission reductions of more than 1% per year had only ever been associated with economic recession or upheaval." How do you come to conclusions of something that hasn't happened yet. Since no actual reduction has been reported yet.

View attachment 89354

Looks like the reduction in 2009 was much more than 1%.

U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report: 1990-2014 | Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions | US EPA

Lol, so if I get it correctly, you are claiming there's a connection between the reduction in Greenhouse Gas emissions and the mortgage crisis? I personally believe that to be a stretch. And btw in 2002 the dot com bubble burst and emissions where going up then. So trying to tie up the 2 gets tricky right off the bat.

Lol, so if I get it correctly, you are claiming there's a connection between the reduction in Greenhouse Gas emissions and the mortgage crisis?

The economy tanked, less CO2 was released.
Why is that hard to believe?
There was a smaller drop in 2000-2001, when the dotcom bubble burst. It wasn't 2002.

You are right that is logical, my obvious question then would be, how does this help your argument? You just admitted that greenhouse reduction was an effect, not a cause of the recent recessions. Making the article and this Nicolas Stern quoted, dishonest. Furthermore I want to point out that the article didn't deny Global warming but tries to question the motives of the scientist researching it. So again how does the article help the deniers?

You are right that is logical, my obvious question then would be, how does this help your argument?

My argument was that I've known that recessions reduce emissions.
What did you think my argument was?

So again how does the article help the deniers?

Which article do you mean? Could you link it again?

 

[forkup]

I hate that these whacko cult-Christians drag Jesus's name through the mud with their stupidity.

I believe Christ is God but I don't limit God to such stupid shit like "humans can't cause Global Warming".

God made the Universe, and he made it so that Humans are its Shepherds and we are destroying the Earth according to God's plans.

And Science proves that.

My problem is. If you love science as you claim, being a creationist has to make you uncomfortable. In my opinion theirs only 2 places that God is a conceivable hypothesis. That's before the Big Bang and how did life start on Earth. In all other areas, science has a perfectly valid and testable explanation.

No science does not.
Science is only as valid and testable as their next discovery. Einstein was convinced that there were only 3 dimensions. Hubble introduced him to the 4th. Until now science has convinced you that there were only 4. Hawking changed that. Who will change us next? Kaku? One of our leading scientists just exclaimed that what he believes he has discovered will upset everything science has believed, and convinced you of.
I am more than comfortable with creation. Because I am more than comfortable with God's explanation.
There was a whole lot that went on from the time He created heaven and earth, and the time the Holy Spirit moved to create light. Why was light needed? Because there was an UNNATURAL darkness that needed to be removed. Lucifer had been kicked out of Heaven and cut to the ground:

Isaiah 14:12
The Fall of Lucifer - “How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground,

It was not created that way. It became that way. To understand that you need to revert back to the Septuigent.

To me, claiming that the fact, that what we know, changes in science invalidates science in itself is a weird argument. Einstein didn't think there where 3 dimensions, he got the idea of 4, time being the fourth one. That was the basis of his work, thinking of time as a fourth dimension. Now, you also seem to muddle a few concepts in science in order to spell out your argument. First of, Einstein didn't proof most of his theories. So what Einstein did was come out with hypothesis, then he and other scientist looked for ways to proof those hypothesis, by testing those hypothesis. For instance Einstein theory of general relativity was proven by predicting that if his hypothesis was correct light should deflect in a predictable way if he was correct. It did ,so at this point the hypothesis graduates to a theory. That's not the end of the process, as science comes out with other tests, that theory has to pass them. If it doesn't, then science has to figure out why this is the case, in that way theories get refined and sometimes albeit rarely discarded. It's a cumulative process where each separate discovery brings new questions. That is the exact opposite from creationism, it starts from what they believe a truth (the bible) and then tries to find a way to proof it. It however doesn't predict or test, instead it tries to discredit, or ignore, what we have tested and predicted if it conflicts with their belief. Hence claiming to love science and being a creationist is a contradiction in terms.

New discoveries in science often invalidate what science previously thought. All through history science has found the need to evolve. There was no hint of the necessity of a big bang until Einstein realized that going back in time would cause the universe to contract to a singular point.

No, Einstein did not know there was a 4th dimension. Hubble showed it to him through a telescope. He had no choice but to include it and called it the bane of his existence. What he realized was that the forward movement of the stars meant that they had a beginning in the past. He thought they were static. Hubble proved to him that they were not.

A theory becomes law if the theoretical experiment that produced the original results can be recreated in separate labs or environments. I understand fully the steps of scientific protocol. That others may concur with a theory, does not make it law. Proving the theory, independently, is the scientific criteria. The theory of evolution remains a theory regardless of how many scientists are convinced the theory is probably correct. The discovery of DNA shoots the hell out of that theory, btw.


Once again, there is 0 contradiction between science and the Bible. The Bible says you should understand science by studying Genesis. God is correct.
Nahmanides (1194–1270), studied Genesis and determined that there were at least 10 dimensions. Look how long it took for scientists to uncover the other 6 without the Bible. Same conclusion, different methods. It will take quite a while for "science" to realize the characteristics of dimensions, but when they do I'll take you right back to the spot where Bible/scientifically inclined readers discovered that dimensions can be stretched, torn, rolled up like a scroll, or burned.
The Bible describes earth as an orb, yet look how long everyone thought if they got to close to the edge, they would fall off the earth. Imagine trying to convince them that the earth was spinning like a top!

As we speak a revered scientist has announced that he believes he can prove there is a God, scientifically. To which God will have replied in advance, "Blessed are those who knew by faith..".

But Einstein had a major issue with Newton’s theory: It wasn’t consistent with his own special theory of relativity, which predicted that space and time were relative, forming a four-dimensional continuum called spacetime.May 29, 1919: A Major Eclipse, Relatively Speaking
Sorry you are incorrect.t was Georges Lemaître, a Belgian Catholic priest and physicist, who found that Hubble's observations supported the Friedmann model of an expanding universe based on Einstein's equations for General Relativity,Edwin Hubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
a scientific law is the description of an observed phenomenon. It doesn't explain why the phenomenon exists or what causes it. The explanation of the phenomenon is called a scientific theory. It is a misconception that theories turn into laws with enough research.What Is a Law in Science? | Definition of Scientific Law In other words a law in science has less value then a theory. So again you are incorrect. I'm perfectly willing to continue this conversation but it probably belongs in the science or religion section of the forum.