Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
...another divide & conquer i$$ue that was never meant to end???
Is the subject of Climate Change/GW just another divide & conquer i$$ue that was never meant to end??? I mean the divide & conquer i$$ues definitely keep the profe$$ional politician$ in office for a lifetime!
BB, your quote just netted you a homerun with the freakin' BASES LOADED!!!Is the subject of Climate Change/GW just another divide & conquer i$$ue that was never meant to end??? I mean the divide & conquer i$$ues definitely keep the profe$$ional politician$ in office for a lifetime!
View attachment 370408
...another divide & conquer i$$ue that was never meant to end??? I mean the divide & conquer i$$ues definitely keep the profe$$ional politician$ in office for a lifetime!
Yes it is....another divide & conquer i$$ue that was never meant to end???
It's not a political issue.
There is no science involved with AGW. Science does not address the unquantified/undefined.The fact that conservatives keep trying to make it one doesn't change that. The science is what it is,
Define "significant". Define "global warming".and it says that humans are causing significant global warming.
Show me a model for "Greenhouse Effect" that does not conflict with currently standing laws of science.
define "significant". Define "global warming".
Buzzwords are summarily dismissed. You have made no argument.
Show me a model for "Greenhouse Effect" that does not conflict with currently standing laws of science.
We've been over this before many times. You're hilariously ignorant of the most basic things about the laws of thermodynamics.
When I see that the smartest people in the world disagree with me, I could think "Hmmm. It's almost certain that I'm wrong, so I should educate myself more.", or I could think "I AM INCAPABLE OF ERROR, THEREFORE THE WHOLE WORLD MUST BE CONSPIRING AGAINST ME!".
Not being a paranoid narcissist, I go with the first option. Deniers always go with the second.
define "significant". Define "global warming".
Buzzwords are summarily dismissed. You have made no argument.
To save time, let's just assume I've posted the numbers, and you've squealed that it's all a fraud, and that I've pointed out how that's the action of a hardcore cultist. No need to go through all of that again. Proceed from there.
... and you still haven't learned anything...Show me a model for "Greenhouse Effect" that does not conflict with currently standing laws of science.
We've been over this before many times.
Inversion Fallacy. This is your issue, not mine.You're hilariously ignorant of the most basic things about the laws of thermodynamics.
Define "the smartest people in the world"... Who are you even referring to? That's right, YOU don't even know... This is simply a false authority fallacy and a bogus position assignment, both leading into an invalid proof fallacy and likely also a bulverism fallacy. You aren't a big fan of logic, are you?When I see that the smartest people in the world disagree with me, I could think "Hmmm. It's almost certain that I'm wrong, so I should educate myself more.", or I could think "I AM INCAPABLE OF ERROR, THEREFORE THE WHOLE WORLD MUST BE CONSPIRING AGAINST ME!".
More logic denying... Insults, buzzwords, false dichotomy, etc...Not being a paranoid narcissist, I go with the first option. Deniers always go with the second.
... but you haven't... The only numbers you can post are numbers that someone made up out of their head (numbers of type randU)... To claim that randU numbers are data is a logical fallacy.To save time, let's just assume I've posted the numbers,
... and explained to you precisely WHY that is, to which you form no valid counterarguments...and you've squealed that it's all a fraud,
YOU are the cultist, and your calling me a cultist does not refute my arguments. You have not addressed the issue of not enough thermometers... you have not addressed the issue of data bias... you have not declared/justified a variance, nor have you calculated a margin of error from that variance...and that I've pointed out how that's the action of a hardcore cultist.
We are still at the same point...No need to go through all of that again. Proceed from there.
Yes, you post computer derived fiction and claim it is real. It isn't, it is FICTION.
Inversion Fallacy. This is your issue, not mine.
... but you haven't... The only numbers you can post are numbers that someone made up out of their head (numbers of type randU)...
To claim that randU numbers are data is a logical fallacy.
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth to any usable accuracy. We simply do not have enough thermometers to do so.
You have not addressed the issue of not enough thermometers... you have not addressed the issue of data bias... you have not declared/justified a variance, nor have you calculated a margin of error from that variance...
You are forming no arguments... You are just making blind accusations like a good little religious zealot does... I told you what you need to do for mathematics... I've told you that you cannot create energy out of nothing (1st LoT), cannot trap heat or make it flow in reverse (2nd LoT), cannot increase temperature while decreasing radiance (Stefan Boltzmann Law), and other things... Provide me with whatever model you claim to be "correct" and I will utterly destroy it.Inversion Fallacy. This is your issue, not mine.
It's not debatable that you're dogshit-ignorant of thermodynamics. That's would be why you're just crying at me now. You made a crazy positive claim, so you're obligated to support it, but you won't.
So either put up or shut up. Tell everyone exactly how climate models violate the laws of thermodynamics.
... but you haven't... The only numbers you can post are numbers that someone made up out of their head (numbers of type randU)...
And you fall back on conspiracy weeping again, like a good cultist.
To claim that randU numbers are data is a logical fallacy.
But nobody does that. You're just making crap up again. If you're not lying, you'll be able to back up your kook claim there. Please proceed, or admit that you lied.
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth to any usable accuracy. We simply do not have enough thermometers to do so.
Yes, yes, we've also established that you're hilariously ignorant of basic statistics and well as being hilariously ignorant of thermodynamics.
You have not addressed the issue of not enough thermometers... you have not addressed the issue of data bias... you have not declared/justified a variance, nor have you calculated a margin of error from that variance...
Of course I have. You just didn't like the answers, so you pretended not to see them. Such gutlessness is typical of hardcore cultists.
You are forming no arguments...
I told you what you need to do for mathematics...
I've told you that you cannot create energy out of nothing (1st LoT),
cannot trap heat or make it flow in reverse (2nd LoT),
cannot increase temperature while decreasing radiance (Stefan Boltzmann Law),
Provide me with whatever model you claim to be "correct" and I will utterly destroy it.
People (and plants) are going to be shocked after all these centuries of success that greenhouse trapping of heat can't be done.You are forming no arguments... You are just making blind accusations like a good little religious zealot does... I told you what you need to do for mathematics... I've told you that you cannot create energy out of nothing (1st LoT), cannot trap heat or make it flow in reverse (2nd LoT), cannot increase temperature while decreasing radiance (Stefan Boltzmann Law), and other things... Provide me with whatever model you claim to be "correct" and I will utterly destroy it.
Yes, you post computer derived fiction and claim it is real. It isn't, it is FICTION.
You've been telling that stupid lie for years. It doesn't stink any less with age. So why tell it?
Oh, I see. You were brainwashed by stupid propaganda. You know it. Everyone knows it. At this stage, even the most hardcore deniers have come to realize how they've been pushing cult propaganda all these years. They're just in too deep to ever say it, as that would require admitting that the dirty liberals had been right about everything for all those years.
So sad. They'll live out the rest of their lives as a cultists. Perhaps they can all move in together in a commune in some remote area, where they never have to look at facts again.
What is your real name? Ed Hominem?Inversion Fallacy. This is your issue, not mine.
It's not debatable that you're dogshit-ignorant of thermodynamics. That's would be why you're just crying at me now. You made a crazy positive claim, so you're obligated to support it, but you won't.
So either put up or shut up. Tell everyone exactly how climate models violate the laws of thermodynamics.
... but you haven't... The only numbers you can post are numbers that someone made up out of their head (numbers of type randU)...
And you fall back on conspiracy weeping again, like a good cultist.
To claim that randU numbers are data is a logical fallacy.
But nobody does that. You're just making crap up again. If you're not lying, you'll be able to back up your kook claim there. Please proceed, or admit that you lied.
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth to any usable accuracy. We simply do not have enough thermometers to do so.
Yes, yes, we've also established that you're hilariously ignorant of basic statistics and well as being hilariously ignorant of thermodynamics.
You have not addressed the issue of not enough thermometers... you have not addressed the issue of data bias... you have not declared/justified a variance, nor have you calculated a margin of error from that variance...
Of course I have. You just didn't like the answers, so you pretended not to see them. Such gutlessness is typical of hardcore cultists.
Oh, I see. You were brainwashed by stupid propaganda.
Because it's not a lie. Provide a link to a single global warming study that isn't computer model derived.
GO.
What is your real name? Ed Hominem?
Someone who believes the “Climate Change” hoax is accusing someone else of being “brainwashed”.