$1B Climate Change Denial Industry: Getting Rich Telling Lies: open discussion

[Into the Night]

I get that you have never looked into it and are willing to accept the debunked "97%" gang with eyes closed.
But if you ever do you will find that only theory and models support this.
There is one greenhouse gas capable of producing the greenhouse effect. Trouble is its not CO2.

Science is theories. Falsifiable theories to be exact. It has models associated with those theories also. Among those theories are the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. These theories say that there is no gas or vapor that is capable of warming the Earth. It simply isn't possible.

You are referring to computer models, which are not science, nor are based on science. Any idiot can write a program to generate lists of impressive looking numbers.

You are quite correct in pointing out the debunked 97% number. This was generated out of bad math. Science does not use consensus anyway. Consensus is only used in religions and politics.

 

[Into the Night]

annoyingmouse thinks he's not blocked. lol

He isn't. You think that anonymoose is actually censured!

 

[archives]

You mean the geocentric theory is still valid?

Copernicus and Galileo had "no proof?"

 

[Into the Night]

Scientists know better than to claim proof of something which is not proven in the literal scientific sense, which is different than the common sense.

Some do, some don't. This is a compositional error involving people as the class: bigotry.

Both evolution and AGW are essentially proven.

Science has no proofs. Science is an open functional system. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

Neither the Theory of Evolution, nor the Theory of Global Warming are falsifiable. They are not proven, nor are they science.

The Theory of Global Warming is a void argument. The phrase 'global warming' itself has not yet been defined. Thus, it is not a theory at all since it is not a valid argument. It is a fallacy.

At least the Theory of Evolution still stands as a theory. It's just that its not a scientific one. It never was. Neither is the Theory of Creation nor the Theory of Abiogenesis.

Science simply takes an agnostic view to these theories. It simply doesn't address them. They can neither be proven True or False. Science demands that a theory have tests available that could prove it False. No theory is ever proven True.

If you want to have a theory about Global Warming, you must first DEFINE 'global warming'.

 

[Rune]

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth (or anything else).

* You can't create energy out of nothing.
* You can't make heat flow from a colder gas to a warmer surface.
* You can't reduce the radiance of Earth by 'trapping' heat and have the Earth warm at the same time.

We don't burn fossils for fuels. Fossils don't burn. We burn carbon based fuels such as coal, oil, or natural gas. CO2 is incapable of warming the Earth.

What is being made out of nothing?
No one is claiming that.

Who said heat was flowing from a colder gas to a warmer surface?

You last bullet point is self contradictory and indicates a comple misunderstanding of heat.

Your last post proves you are a hypocrite since they are entirely faith based.

 

[Celticguy]

Science has no proofs. It's an open functional system. It does, however, have theories. These theories must be falsifiable.

It is not possible for any two theories of science to conflict with each other. One or both of them must be falsified.

The theories in question concerning CO2 are quite simple. They are:

* The 1st law of thermodynamics. It is not possible to create energy out of nothing. Increased temperature is increased thermal energy. CO2 has no capability to violate this law.
* The 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is not possible to heat a warmer surface using a colder gas, such as CO2. Heat only flows from hot to cold, never reverse.
* The Stefan-Boltzmann law. It is not possible to have something like CO2 trap or slow heat. Such an action would necessarily reduce the radiance of Earth while the temperature is increasing. According to this law: radiance = Boltzmann's constant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4. Both Boltamann's constant and emissivity are constants. Radiance is proportional to temperature, never the reverse.

That said, CO2 does absorb certain frequencies of infrared light emitted by the surface (according to the same S-B law I just mentioned). Air is also in contact with the surface. It is heated by the surface. Absorption of surface emitted infrared light is just another way for the surface to cool itself by heating the air.

Both the surface and the air itself is mass. All mass radiates according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The heated air radiates just as the surface does. ALL of it radiates into space. CO2 cannot in turn heat the surface that heated the CO2. The CO2 is still colder than the surface, and heat does NOT flow 'uphill', not even by radiance.

No molecule or atom will accept a photon that has less energy than the molecule or atom already has. To that photon, it is transparent or reflective. The photon is NOT absorbed. If a photon IS absorbed, it is utterly destroyed. ALL of it's energy is converted into another form. For infrared light, that other form is typically thermal energy. Thermal energy also converts to light (electromagnetic energy). This is known as 'blackbody' radiance and follows the Stefan-Boltzmann law equation.

Existing theories of science say that CO2 has absolutely NO capability to warming anything, including the Earth. No gas or vapor has this capability.

Yup.
And di hydrogen oxide is the lone "greenhouse" gas that can accomplish greenhouse effect because it alone can change its state in free atmosphere. It CAN absorb the energy long enough to redirect back to a cooler earth.
But man cannot be implicated so the rest had to be manufactured to support the scam.

 

[Into the Night]

Thanks for your answer. You did not provide a link to any scientific article proving man made climate change.
This tells me you do not rely on science but rely on liberal political consensus based on an agenda. And please show me where scientists claim proof of AGW. Like you failed to provide a link to a scientific article I doubt you'll be able to find where a, as in one scientist, claims proof of AGW. Many believe it, many don't and IMO truly objective scientists would admit he simply doesn't know. That's all we have for now.
Evolution is a viable theory based on fossil records that correlate with DNA evidence. Unfortunately it will probably never become Scientific Law but there are many good theories that are not Law.
AGW is a hypothesis which has never had consistent verifiable testing to become Scientific Theory, much less Scientific Law. It certainly has never been proven. I can tell you've had no scientific background otherwise you would never say AGW is proven without backing it up with something other than a liberal political consensus. If it has I'd like to see it, at minimum in one peer reviewed scientific article. An article from Highlights doesn't count. Just one, that's all I require.
And you saying it's proven counts for nothing.

This is close but not in the gold.

AGW is neither a theory nor a hypothesis. The phrase 'global warming' has not yet been defined. It is not possible to have a theory about an undefined word or phrase, since a theory is also an argument. It is an explanatory argument.

A hypothesis stems from an existing theory. Theories do not come from hypothesis, but the other way around. A hypothesis is a question about an existing theory. An example is the null hypothesis of a theory.

A theory is a theory from moment it is thought up. Science requires a theory to be falsifiable. That means it must survive tests designed to destroy it (tests against the null hypothesis of a theory). Those tests must be specific and produce specific results.

There is no voting bloc in science to graduate a theory from 'hypothesis' to 'theory'. A theory is a theory from the moment it is thought up. No theory is ever proven True.

 

[archives]

Some do, some don't. This is a compositional error involving people as the class: bigotry.

Science has no proofs. Science is an open functional system. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

Neither the Theory of Evolution, nor the Theory of Global Warming are falsifiable. They are not proven, nor are they science.

The Theory of Global Warming is a void argument. The phrase 'global warming' itself has not yet been defined. Thus, it is not a theory at all since it is not a valid argument. It is a fallacy.

At least the Theory of Evolution still stands as a theory. It's just that its not a scientific one. It never was. Neither is the Theory of Creation nor the Theory of Abiogenesis.

Science simply takes an agnostic view to these theories. It simply doesn't address them. They can neither be proven True or False. Science demands that a theory have tests available that could prove it False. No theory is ever proven True.

If you want to have a theory about Global Warming, you must first DEFINE 'global warming'.

So you are saying the geocentric theory is still valid given that "no theory is ever proven true"

 

[Into the Night]

Hello anonymoose,



Conservatives don't require proof that they are personally at risk of being attacked by a criminal. They go ahead and buy a gun just in case. The are hoping for the best, but preparing for the worst. Because hoping for the best while preparing for the worst, without proof, is wisdom.



I was watching a nature show on PBS featuring Sir David Attenborough. He said it is proved. Proof enough for ME!

I am guessing conservatives just can't watch nature shows any more. Nearly all of them talk about climate change these days.

David Attenborough is a talented photographer. Science has no proofs. It is YOU that is talking about 'climate change'. I'm just asking to you to DEFINE 'climate change'. What exactly IS it? Remember, you cannot define a word with itself.

 

[Into the Night]

The deniers will just move the goalposts.

What goalposts? Void argument.

They don't want to accept reality,

Buzzword. You do not know what 'reality' is. I do. I know the definition of 'reality' and where it comes from. It stems from a branch of philosophy.

don't want to change, so they simply deny.

You are describing yourself again. It is YOU that won't change. It is YOU that won't recognize theories of science. You simply deny them. It is YOU that won't recognize mathematics. You simply deny it. It is YOU and your religion that is intolerant of change.

They know nothing will happen to them in the immediate sense. Sort of like instant gratification.

Nothing will happen. It can't.

'I don't like the message! Make it go away!'

This is YOU again. It is YOU that tries to censure people to make them go away.

News flash.

It's not GOING away.

Get used to it.

That's right. That's why I started the parallel thread. I invite open discussion, unlike YOU.

You're a hypocrite.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

scientists are still people, who can be coerced to lie, or incented to lie. they have been.

 

[archives]

David Attenborough is a talented photographer. Science has no proofs. It is YOU that is talking about 'climate change'. I'm just asking to you to DEFINE 'climate change'. What exactly IS it? Remember, you cannot define a word with itself.

Noticed you didn't address my question on the geocentric theory

Nevertheless, you want definitions;

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

 

[Into the Night]

It is all around us for those who wish to see it. Reefs dying, increased storms, ice melting, increased fires, drought, floods, sea level rising.

* Reefs are not dying. They are just fine. I still enjoy looking at them.
* Void argument fallacy. What is a 'storm'? The number of hurricanes has not increased. See the National Hurricane Data Center.

The majority of science telling us it is real.

There's that old buzzword again. Science is a set of theories. Those theories tell us that 'greenhouse effect' is not possible.

But you don't have to believe.
That is your right. No problem. We don't need you. Cling to what you want to believe.

Science isn't a religion. It is not a belief. It is a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Science also told us man would fly. Lots of skeptics refused to believe that too.

Science told us no such thing. The theories that developed to describe flight are simply that; theories.

The development of flight was largely an engineering problem, not a science problem. We already knew that birds, mammals, and insects could fly.

The climate change Denial Industry went to school at the Big Tobacco school of propaganda.

There isn't a 'denial industry'. Just another buzzword from you.

Very effective. Too bad for humanity. Their efforts are delaying our response. That's gonna make it worse.

Response to what? There is nothing to respond to.

This shouldn't even BE political.

This is YOU again. It is YOU that is making it political. You're a hypocrite.

Science isn't political. It simply is.

 

[Into the Night]

Today is the first day of summer.

It's the summer solstice, the longest day of the year.

Welcome to Summer. Of course if you happen to live in the southern hemisphere, welcome to Winter.

That was always confusing to me. Seems like the longest day of the year would occur in the MIDDLE of summer.

Nope. It is the beginning of summer by definition. It is how we define the word 'Summer'.

Why does most of the heat FOLLOW the longest day of the year? Why doesn't the heat build up in direct proportion to the lengthening of the days, and then become reduced as the days begin to get shorter? That would be logical.

The oceans. They are being heated right now by the Sun in the northern hemisphere. They will reach their highest temperatures in about a couple of weeks. That's when we get our hottest weather. Water has a high specific heat index. It takes a lot of energy to heat it one degree in a fixed amount of time.

It's because heat takes time to flow. It doesn't happen in the snap of a finger.

It happens in the snap of a finger. Your fingers produce heat when you snap them.

Lots of heat takes lots of time to flow.

Nope. It begins flowing immediately when there's a difference of temperature and some form of coupling between the differences of temperature.

That's why when you put a turkey in the oven it takes a long time to cook all the way inside. You can't tell from the outside, so we use a cooking thermometer to know. It might be really hot on the outside, but the inside is still cold and uncooked. The heat has to work it's way in.

The heat required to cook a turkey is minimal compared to the heating of the oceans every summer!

When the Earth is exposed to additional heating

From where? Where is this additional heating? Remember, it's WINTER in the southern hemisphere.

because CO2 traps the radiation from escaping the atmosphere,

You cannot trap heat. You cannot trap light. You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.

it takes a long time to heat up the Earth and the seas.

The Earth is more than just the northern hemisphere, dumbass.

Takes a long time to to work it's way in.

To where?

That's a big problem for climate change.

Define 'climate change'. You are still trying to use the meaningless buzzword. You have not yet defined it.

It's a delayed reaction. The industrial age has been around for a long time, but we are just now beginning to realize the reaction to that action. And even if we stop pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere, the heat is still with us because of the delayed reaction.

The oceans heat up and cool down every year in a hemisphere, dude. Only takes a couple of weeks or so.

The best thing we could do would actually be to not only stop emitting CO2, but to actually begin sucking it OUT of the atmosphere.

CO2 has absolutely no capability to warm the Earth. No gas or vapor does.

Even though the worst effects of climate change have yet to begin,

Define 'climate change'. What are the effects of a meaningless buzzword, besides inanity?

if we want to reduce the effect,

I would certainly like to reduce your inanity. However, I invite open discussions, unlike YOU.

we have to at least begin reducing our CO2 output pronto.

Why? CO2 has no capability to warm the Earth.

Like, yesterday, would be good.

Got a time machine?

The sooner we do it, the more reduction of the effect.

What effect?

This makes it easy for the propaganda to say it's not happening so why worry.

The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law is not propaganda.

Stupid, yes, but that's what they've got.

I'll stick with these theories of science. You can stick with your religion.

Just as stupid as all the people who refused to believe that smoking causes cancer.

It doesn't. There are people that have smoked until they were 99 years old, having never caught cancer.
It DOES cause lung damage though. Plus it makes you stink, it's expensive, and it consumes much of your time to be wasted smoking.

Makes me recall how when science was new,

Science has no age.

and tried to explain the concept of a gaseous substance,

It has no problem explaining the properties of a gaseous substance.

people had a hard time believing in something they could neither see nor feel.

Only those that deny science, like you.

But it was just as real as climate change.

Define 'climate change'. A buzzword isn't real, other than that the buzzword exists.

 

[anonymoose]

This is close but not in the gold.

AGW is neither a theory nor a hypothesis. The phrase 'global warming' has not yet been defined. It is not possible to have a theory about an undefined word or phrase, since a theory is also an argument. It is an explanatory argument.

I stand corrected on this. Since "climate change" and "global warming" have not been defined, it's impossible for AGW to be a hypothesis. In fact, I'd argue that it's not even an explanatory arguement since it's attempt to explain something that has yet to be defined.

A hypothesis stems from an existing theory. Theories do not come from hypothesis, but the other way around. A hypothesis is a question about an existing theory. An example is the null hypothesis of a theory.

A theory is a theory from moment it is thought up. Science requires a theory to be falsifiable. That means it must survive tests designed to destroy it (tests against the null hypothesis of a theory). Those tests must be specific and produce specific results.

There is no voting bloc in science to graduate a theory from 'hypothesis' to 'theory'. A theory is a theory from the moment it is thought up. No theory is ever proven True.

It can be confusing.

Theories, Hypotheses, and Laws
https://www.visionlearning.com/en/library/Process-of-/49/Theories-Hypotheses-and-Laws/177/reading

 

[Into the Night]

Hello Celticguy,



Check out my new thread on a big fail of Capitalism, and how Socialism had to come to the rescue.

Thanks. I'll probably end of paralleling it too.

Insurance companies began pulling out of coastal areas to reduce their exposure to damage from climate change storms.

Define 'climate change'. How is a coastal storm any different from any other coastal storm?

People couldn't even BUY homeowners insurance.

Sure they can. They still do.

Mortgage companies stopped writing loans.

They still write loans.

It impacted real estate sales. It was bad. Something had to be done.

Guess what? You can still buy coastal real estate. Still pretty costly too.

The answer was government-run property insurance. Two states have it. Guess who controls those States? Republicans!

Pretty much ever State in the union has this.

IS that priceless?

No, that is clueless.

THERE IS YOUR PROOF

Of what? Your lousy research?

What in the world could POSSIBLY cause pro-capitalism REPUBLICAN States to install government-run SOCIALIST INSURANCE???

Government isn't capitalism. There are no 'republican' States or 'democrat' States. States are just people and a government.

Climate Change.​

That's what.

Define 'climate change'.

 

[Into the Night]

Thats nice.
Sealevels have been rising at a consistant rate for as long as they have measured it.

It is not possible to measure a global sea level. There is no reference point.

AT A CONSISTANT RATE.

Unknown.

Some costal states got stupid and let people build where they had no business building and then those big sand bars shifted out from under the houses.

Bingo. This is right on the bullseye.

We vacation in the states you are referring to and have for decades. The missus has a cousin down there as well. I know this story very well.
Now about CO2...
Thats the issue.

Why?

 

[Into the Night]

CO2 is incapable of heating the Earth. Heat does not flow from cold to hot; it only flows from hot to cold. See the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


There is no way to accurately measure the temperature of the Earth. We don't have near enough thermometers to even begin such an analysis. See statistical mathematics.

^^^Assertions.
You have already proven you have no qualifications or training in science, that you merely parrot what you read on rightwing blogs, and that you fundamentally do not even understand science:
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...enial-Runs-Red-and-Blue&p=2947253#post2947253

Nothing you claim, assert, and state can be trusted.

He's right on both counts. Your resort to bulverism is nothing more than a denial of science.

* You can't create energy out of nothing.
* You can't heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.
* You cannot store or trap heat.
* You cannot store or trap light.
* You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
* You cannot reduce the radiance of Earth and increase it's temperature at the same time.

You cannot just discard the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

 

[Into the Night]

Lemme guess. They've been measuring sea level since the industrial age began.

Not possible to measure a global sea level. No reference point.

 

[Into the Night]

Yup.
And di hydrogen oxide is the lone "greenhouse" gas that can accomplish greenhouse effect because it alone can change its state in free atmosphere. It CAN absorb the energy long enough to redirect back to a cooler earth.
But man cannot be implicated so the rest had to be manufactured to support the scam.

Nope. Water vapor is just like anything else in the atmosphere. You cannot heat a warmer surface with a colder vapor.

No gas or vapor has the capability to heat the Earth.