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

[Into the Night]

Hello Celticguy,



The proof is there but it involves believing in science.

Does that make it a problem?

Science is not a belief or a religion. It simply is.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. No more, no less.

Science does not use supporting evidence. Religions do.
Science does not use consensus. Religions and politics do.
Science does not require degrees, certificates, licenses, or any other Holy Blessing. Religions do.
Science has no power of prediction. Theories of science explain, but they cannot predict. Religions have prophets. Science turns to math, a closed functional system, to gain the power of prediction.
Science has no conflicting theories of science. Religions often conflict with existing theories of science.

The Church of Global Warming is a religion.

It denies existing theories of science.
It denies mathematics.
It tries to use consensus to prove it's case.
It tries to use Holy Blessings to prove it's case.
It has a scripture (much of which is published by the Church of Karl Marx).
It has a High Priesthood, known as climate 'scientists'. There is no science for climates. There is no such thing as a global climate either.

You deny science. You deny mathematics. You deny the linkage between the Church of Global Warming and the Church of Karl Marx.

[Into the Night]

Carbon dioxide has been experimentally proven beyond any shadow of a doubt to have greenhouse gas properties. This has been known for a century, it is known by all informed people, and Exxon's own scientists knew it when they secretly concluded four decades ago that burning fossil fuels and adding CO2 to the atmosphere would cause the planet to relentlessly warm.

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.

[Into the Night]

If this is true the scientific evidence should be availble. Perhaps even readily availble. And by scientific evidence i mean an actual repeatable demonstration.

You will never find it.

Science is not evidence. It is not demonstrations, either repeatable or not. Science is nothing more than a set of falsifiable theories.

What makes a theory falsifiable? Just what is a theory in the first place?

A theory is simply an explanatory argument. An argument is simply a set of predicates and a conclusion.

There are many theories. Some falsifiable (theories of science), and some that are not (the basis for many religions).

To be falsifiable, a test must be available to try to destroy the theory. That test must be available, practical to conduct, be specific, and produce a specific result. If the theory survives such a test, it is automatically part of the body of science. As long as it can continue to survive such tests, it remains a theory of science. It is never proven True. A theory remains a theory forever, or until it is falsified by failing such a test.

Unfalsifiable theories are ones that have no such test available. They will also remain theories forever. There is nothing to falsify them. Since all theories begin as circular arguments, or arguments of faith, that means an unfalsifiable theory remains an argument of faith forever.

Science only has falsifiable theories. It uses no unfalsifiable theory. It is not data. It is not an observation. It is not a license or degree. It is not a consensus. It is just the set of falsifiable theories themselves.

[Rune]

A classic example of the type of Doom and Gloom predicted by the Church of Global Warming.

There is no mass extinctions occurring. The elephants and the bees are obviously still here and doing just fine.

Arguing that a mass extinction event is going to take place due to global warming is again ignoring several important things:

* It's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
* No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
* The Sun's output hasn't change significantly. The distance from the Earth to the Sun hasn't change significantly.

Again, the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann laws are simply discarded to preach the Doom and Gloom.

Oh wow.
We are in the midst of the most major mass extinction event of all time.

How could you not know this?

FYI 40% of all bees died last year, giraffes were just added to the endanger ed species lists and elephants are in severe danger.

[Into the Night]

It just means you are uninformed and should not be participating in this conversation, if it is news to you that science has experimentally shown and unequivocally proven that CO2 has greenhouse gas properties. This was proven about a century ago.


Its not my job to teach and educate you about widely known and understood scientific principles of earth science and atmospheric science. Especially principles that have been known about for about a century.

Science has no proofs. It is an open functional system. It just turn to a closed functional system, such as mathematics, to even gain the power of prediction, for only in a closed functional system does a proof exist. With the power of proof comes the power of prediction.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are denying the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

CO2 does absorb certain frequencies of infrared light, but this is nothing more than the surface cooling itself by heating the atmosphere anyway.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.

[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.