i'm just aware that there are scientists who believe in man-made climate change who are also aware of the laws of physics and have knowledge of mathematics.
One can be a scientist and have a religion as well. You conveniently have
Into the Night here, who believes in Christianity and who is also aware of the laws of physics and has knowledge of mathematics. He can answer all of your questions about Christianity without resorting to calling it "
thettled thienth." You, on the other hand, refuse to cut away that problematic aspect of your religious faith. Your tireless efforts to establish your religion as science runs you through an endless cycle of shifting physics violations from which you cannot escape. You'll notice that Christians don't relegate themselves to rotating through physics violations; they don't have to. Christians declare
all of their miracles to be "miracles" and don't insist on trying to explain any of them within the laws of physics that they are seemingly breaking. When Christians talk about Jesus walking on water, they celebrate it as a miracle. They don't try to explain it in terms of water's cohesive tension that allows one to skip stones off the surface. You on the other hand, point to the miracles of your faith, and you rush to state that no one is claiming any violation is occurring, i.e. you rush to deny that the miracles of your faith are, in fact, miracles. You need to maintain the self-delusion that your religion is
thettled thienth.
But let's return to the point of
Into the Night being a religious individual who understands science and math. He can discuss his theism within the context of his faith, and can discuss science independently of his religion. You, on the other hand, are scientifically illiterate and mathematically incompetent, and you are trying to integrate your religion into science. Any rational adult will immediately realize that this will not work out well for you. You are not capable of discussing science and you aren't capable of learning any science when it goes against your WACKY religious dogma. Your faith is an entire package of physics violations wrapped in an overarching violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. You are doomed to remaining scientifically illiterate and regurgitating loony crap. You have been taught a lot of science for free here on JPP, and had many of your egregious errors corrected as a helpful courtesy, yet you have only resisted and complained. Who does that? Never even so much as a "thank you."
I will reiterate that you made a shit-poor decision to adopt such a religion. Nonetheless, I wish you the best of luck in dealing with the confusion it causes you.
I mean, you already tried to apply the Pythagorean Theorem to a circle, so.....
You have already denied the meaning of the word "apply." Your religion has taught you that hijacking words is a sign of devotion.
Ok. I don't know if anyone is claiming that there's a single climate for the entire earth.
It is sufficient that
you are claiming it. You are the one in the conversation.
I'm still waiting for some kind of evidence/support for your claims about those laws
This is about the 30th time you have committed this burden-shifting fallacy. You are the one affirmatively claiming
Global Warming; you bear the full burden to support it. When the laws of thermodynamics, Stefan-Boltzmann and others hammer a few boxes of 20d nails into your religion's coffin, you don't get to suddenly play Judge ZenMode and demand physics be proven in your court of law. Everything you have been taught about science in this forum has been correct and your religion has its share of miracles. Your inability to accept that your religion is a religion or that miracles necessarily violate physics does not somehow impose requirements onto science, I'm sorry.
Oh, and science is not
Into the Night's opinion. It's not anybody's opinion. If you don't like the way science kills your religion dead then you need to falsify it. You do not get to demand that
Into the Night somehow prove to your satisfaction that science works.
I never said any of the laws you've mentioned don't exist.
It is exactly what you "say" every time you
deny them. Do you know what the word "deny" means? If you deny Stefan-Boltzmann, you are effectively stating that you don't believe it exists. Every time you claim that a reduction in earth's radiance causes an increase in earth's temperature, you are denying Stefan-Boltzmann, and how many times have you made that claim? Over a dozen, right? That's how many times that you have said that Stefan-Boltzmann doesn't exist without using those words. How many times have you claimed an increase in earth's temperature without accounting for the additional energy, i.e. leaving one to conclude that it is being magically created out of nothing (from mere redistributions of existing energy)? How many times? More than a dozen as well. That's how many times you have denied the 1st law of thermodynamics, i.e. claimed that the law doesn't exist without using those words. How many times have you insisted that the way that atmospheric CO2 "interacts" with solar energy causes it to warm the lithosphere and the ocean? Also more than a dozen times? This is a denial of the 2nd LoT and is your assertion that it does not exist, again, without using those words.
I'm still waiting for evidence/support for your claims.
How many times have you repeated this fallacy?
