Page 147 of 164 FirstFirst ... 4797137143144145146147148149150151157 ... LastLast
Results 2,191 to 2,205 of 2448

Thread: Why Should Anyone Believe in Global Warming?

  1. #2191 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2023
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    825
    Thanks
    21
    Thanked 102 Times in 79 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 4 Times in 3 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IBDaMann View Post
    First, I take it that you believe that any coal was ever alive. You're not thinking this through, i.e. you're walking into a "gotcha!"
    That and the fact that I spent years looking at coal samples through a microscope, tracking individual plant cell walls and tracheids...looked like a photograph of a modern plant in many cases.

    Foreshadowing: I will be raking you over the coals over your stupid premise that when living things die, they somehow defy the second law of thermodynamics and miraculously rot into a higher form of energy. I will pick you apart over your stupid assumption that when living things die, they somehow develop the ability to dig downward through the earth, kilometers below the fossil record, until they reach impermeable rock, at which time they develop the ability to drill through that rock until they reach the other side and somehow rot into a much higher form of energy.

    Start asking me to teach you, or start explaining why you don't know the answer to your own question.
    OK, so you got nothing.

  2. #2192 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    6,716
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,815 Times in 2,129 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 56 Times in 52 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LiAlSi2O6 View Post
    That's all well and good until he has to explain porphyrn rings and other chlorophyll-derived biomarkers.
    Nope. You're the one that has to explain why they must be "biomarkers" when they obviously aren't. Your scientific illiteracy is comedy gold. Well, I'm waiting for an explanation. I'm also waiting for your explanation of why you don't know how hydrocarbons form, aside from your eagerness to absorb Wikipedia disinformation. I should just call you "Cypress."

    Quote Originally Posted by LiAlSi2O6 View Post
    As for coal, well that's an easy one.
    Yeah, it should be too easy according to you. I am still waiting for you to provide an example of living coal. You were stupid enough to start following AProudLefty as he led you astray, so belly up to the bar and give an example of living coal, or of living hydrocarbons.

    Obituary: Crudey McOilerson

    It is with heavy hearts and oily tissues that we announce the untimely demise of Crudey McOilerson, the man comprised entirely of petroleum and other hydrocarbons. Crudey slipped away from this world, leaving behind a slick legacy that will be remembered for generations to come.

    Born deep beneath the fossil record, Crudey was totally pumped when he entered this world, with every spark of life turning him into a man on fire. From the very beginning, he had a burning desire ... well, he had a burning desire. He will always be remembered as the man who could give any party an octane boost, and as the fuel that once was alive, so very alive.

    Crudey lived an active life of adventure, bypassing the mere half-pipes and traversing exclusively the full pipelines from Texas, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Alaska, and others. Having teamed up with partners Fischer and Tropsch, Crudey poured his heart out for NASCAR, yet always remaining refined and "straight run." Back in his priming youth, he could always get the engines started, as it were, even in sticky situations..

    Crudey was a man of great depth, whose word was as solid as impermeable rock and whose blood was definitely thicker than water, even without any detergents. The cause of death was a fatal intake stroke. He will be sorely missed by plantlife all over the globe who fondly remember his ability to feed even the pickiest of stromata.

    In lieu of flowers, the family requests that donations be made to American Association of Petroleum Geologists, where Crudey held a staunch, lifelong advocacy. It's what Crudey would have wanted.

    As we say goodbye to Crudey McOilerson, let us remember him as an example of the inflammable spirit that burns within us all. May his memory flicker forever in the eternal flame of our hearts.

    Rest in peace, Crudey. May you find eternal solace in the great carbon cycle in the sky ... and lithosphere and hydrosphere.
    Global Warming violates the 1st LoT by claiming a magical creation of thermal energy out of nothing, in the form of a temperature increase, which is somehow caused by a magical substance.
    Greenhouse Effect violates Stefan-Boltzmann and black body science by claiming that an increase in earth's temperature is somehow caused by a decrease in earth's radiance.
    Greenhouse Effect violates the 2nd LoT by claiming that the cooler atmosphere somehow heats the warmer earth's surface.

  3. #2193 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    6,716
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,815 Times in 2,129 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 56 Times in 52 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LiAlSi2O6 View Post
    OK, so you got nothing.
    Great, you don't have to offer an explanation for why you don't know how hydrocarbons form. I'm happy to leave it as you don't know and you don't want to get raked over the coals for being a scientifically illiterate moron.

    Fair enough. The offer stands, though. Ask me to teach you and I'll teach you.
    Global Warming violates the 1st LoT by claiming a magical creation of thermal energy out of nothing, in the form of a temperature increase, which is somehow caused by a magical substance.
    Greenhouse Effect violates Stefan-Boltzmann and black body science by claiming that an increase in earth's temperature is somehow caused by a decrease in earth's radiance.
    Greenhouse Effect violates the 2nd LoT by claiming that the cooler atmosphere somehow heats the warmer earth's surface.

  4. #2194 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2023
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    825
    Thanks
    21
    Thanked 102 Times in 79 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 4 Times in 3 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IBDaMann View Post
    Nope. You're the one that has to explain why they must be "biomarkers" when they obviously aren't.
    Couple points:

    1. Yes, porphyrin rings are parts of chlorophyll, so biological by definition.
    2. You are unlikely to create porphyrn rings through simple thermal maturation of abiotic hydrocarbons.

    Your scientific illiteracy is comedy gold.

    I get your "schtick" and I have to say it's a bit boring. You never really impress with your knowledge but you sure do hammer this schtick like it's somehow clever.

    Well, I'm waiting for an explanation. I'm also waiting for your explanation of why you don't know how hydrocarbons form, aside from your eagerness to absorb Wikipedia disinformation. I should just call you "Cypress."
    Cypress wouldn't know anything about geochemistry.

    Yeah, it should be too easy according to you. I am still waiting for you to provide an example of living coal.
    Coal forms after the plants have died. So no living coal. Unless you want to look at some algae which might one day become cannel coal.


    The fun thing about coal is you can look at it and SEE THE LITERAL PLANT STRUCTURES from the leaves and woody parts. You can even see the "tracheids" in the plant cells in coal.

  5. #2195 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    6,716
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,815 Times in 2,129 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 56 Times in 52 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LiAlSi2O6 View Post
    1. Yes, porphyrin rings are parts of chlorophyll, so biological by definition.
    Nope. Porphyrin rings are created in many ways. One way happens to via the production of chlorophyll. Many others ways are realized in geological, and not biological, processes, e.g. the ones that create hydrocarbons.

    Quote Originally Posted by LiAlSi2O6 View Post
    2. You are unlikely to create porphyrn rings through simple thermal maturation of abiotic hydrocarbons.
    Porphyrin rings are guaranteed to be produced under the geological conditions that produce porphyrin rings. It's how chemistry works.

    Quote Originally Posted by LiAlSi2O6 View Post
    I get your "schtick" and I have to say it's a bit boring.
    I've gotten a good taste of your schtick and it's quite disappointing.

    Quote Originally Posted by LiAlSi2O6 View Post
    You never really impress with your knowledge but you sure do hammer this schtick like it's somehow clever.
    You never get anything right, but you hammer your schtick like you are somehow fooling people.

    Quote Originally Posted by LiAlSi2O6 View Post
    Cypress wouldn't know anything about geochemistry.
    I don't think he knows anything about anything ... except how to copy-paste.

    Quote Originally Posted by LiAlSi2O6 View Post
    Coal forms after the plants have died. So no living coal.
    Exactly my point. There is no fuel that was ever alive, i.e. there has never been a living fuel.

    I tend to not discuss coal so much because I focus on hydrocarbons, the world's best renewable energy source. However, you were going to explain why you don't know that hydrocarbons are renewable. I'm all ears (eyes).

    Quote Originally Posted by LiAlSi2O6 View Post
    The fun thing about coal is you can look at it and SEE THE LITERAL PLANT STRUCTURES from the leaves and woody parts.
    Yes, the impressions are fossils. Impressions aren't combustible and cannot be burned as fuel. No fossils are burned as fuel, and no fossils are sold commercially as fuel. Coal, which is carbon, also has impurities to some extent; those don't burn either. Only the carbon, i.e. the coal, burns. Carbon is not a fossil. Carbon is not alive.

    Why do you not know that hydrocarbons are renewable? Are you asking me to teach you?
    Global Warming violates the 1st LoT by claiming a magical creation of thermal energy out of nothing, in the form of a temperature increase, which is somehow caused by a magical substance.
    Greenhouse Effect violates Stefan-Boltzmann and black body science by claiming that an increase in earth's temperature is somehow caused by a decrease in earth's radiance.
    Greenhouse Effect violates the 2nd LoT by claiming that the cooler atmosphere somehow heats the warmer earth's surface.

  6. #2196 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2023
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    825
    Thanks
    21
    Thanked 102 Times in 79 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 4 Times in 3 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IBDaMann View Post
    Nope. Porphyrin rings are created in many ways. One way happens to via the production of chlorophyll. Many others ways are realized in geological, and not biological, processes, e.g. the ones that create hydrocarbons.
    Then you'll have no problem showing me evidence to that effect. Reaction pathways and actual cases where it has happened. Thanks in advance.

    I tend to not discuss coal so much because I focus on hydrocarbons
    Why?

    Why do you not know that hydrocarbons are renewable?
    Probably because I did my graduate degrees focusing on organic geochemistry.

  7. #2197 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    6,716
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,815 Times in 2,129 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 56 Times in 52 Posts

    Default Hydrocarbons are the world's best renewable energy source

    Quote Originally Posted by LiAlSi2O6 View Post
    Then you'll have no problem showing me evidence to that effect.
    Sure, but now you have two questions to answer: 1) why you don't know that hydrocarbons are renewable and 2) why you are unable to find anything on your own regarding geological porphyrin formation and regarding porphyrin catalysts for hydrocarbon fuels. If I point you in the direction of Jean-Michel Savéant and his research on using porphyrin systems to synthesize hydrocarbon fuels, would you similarly not be able to find anything?

    Just to expand your horizons, before I mention the chemistry involved, read the following article from the journal Nature:

    Nature
    Porphyrin Abiogenesis from Pyrrole and Formaldehyde under Simulated Geochemical Conditions
    Published: 07 October 1967
    G. W. HODGSON & B. L. BAKER
    Nature volume 216, pages29–32 (1967)

    Abstract
    Experiments with gas mixtures intended to simulate primeval atmospheres have yielded a great many types of chemicals of biological interest. It has now been shown that metal porphyrin complexes are commonly produced in these experiments.
    Quote Originally Posted by LiAlSi2O6 View Post
    Why?
    Because hydrocarbons are the world's best renewable energy source, so I focus mostly on those.

    Quote Originally Posted by LiAlSi2O6 View Post
    Probably because I did my graduate degrees focusing on organic geochemistry.
    I'm getting the strong impression that someone bamboozled you with a lot of fast talk and sold you a worthless piece of paper.
    Global Warming violates the 1st LoT by claiming a magical creation of thermal energy out of nothing, in the form of a temperature increase, which is somehow caused by a magical substance.
    Greenhouse Effect violates Stefan-Boltzmann and black body science by claiming that an increase in earth's temperature is somehow caused by a decrease in earth's radiance.
    Greenhouse Effect violates the 2nd LoT by claiming that the cooler atmosphere somehow heats the warmer earth's surface.

  8. #2198 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2022
    Posts
    2,029
    Thanks
    50
    Thanked 288 Times in 232 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 29 Times in 29 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IBDaMann View Post


    The election was stolen as I watched. I can't unobserve what I observed.
    What did you observe? How many fraudulent ballots were found? How many of the nonsensical stories panned out?

    BTW, based on this new revelation combined with your views on climate change, it's clear that you are a far-right nutter butter pretending to be something else.
    "If someone doesn’t value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide that proves they should value evidence."

  9. #2199 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    6,716
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,815 Times in 2,129 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 56 Times in 52 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZenMode View Post
    BTW, based on this new revelation combined with your views on climate change, it's clear that you are a far-right nutter butter pretending to be something else.
    You are coming off having tipped your king for something like the 45th time. You have to set up the board before we can play again.

    What science do you submit supports Global Warming?
    Global Warming violates the 1st LoT by claiming a magical creation of thermal energy out of nothing, in the form of a temperature increase, which is somehow caused by a magical substance.
    Greenhouse Effect violates Stefan-Boltzmann and black body science by claiming that an increase in earth's temperature is somehow caused by a decrease in earth's radiance.
    Greenhouse Effect violates the 2nd LoT by claiming that the cooler atmosphere somehow heats the warmer earth's surface.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to IBDaMann For This Post:

    gfm7175 (02-29-2024)

  11. #2200 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2022
    Posts
    2,029
    Thanks
    50
    Thanked 288 Times in 232 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 29 Times in 29 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IBDaMann View Post
    You are coming off having tipped your king for something like the 45th time. You have to set up the board before we can play again.

    What science do you submit supports Global Warming?
    Nice try. The question was why we should believe in global warming. The explanation of how certain gasses could contribute to climate change has been explained repeatedly. Youtube videos demonstrating how CO2 interacts with energy, which aligns with the belief of how climate change would work, have been posted. Your game is that you believe you can just say "That's not true. That's a lie. That's a parlor trick. That doesn't happen. That doesn't exist." etc and make it true. I could very easily use your approach, and we could go round and round for years. You say "Climate change violates the first rule of thermodynamics".

    I say "No it doesn't". You say "Yes it does"

    I say "No it doesn't". You say "Yes it does"

    I say "No it doesn't". You say "Yes it does"

    I say "No it doesn't". You say "Yes it does"

    I say "No it doesn't". You say "Yes it does"


    and on and on for as long as we're all alive. That's a game I'm not willing to play because your mind is closed by confirmation bias and politics.... and very likely some serious trolling. This is evidenced by your claims of "seeing" a stolen election.
    "If someone doesn’t value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide that proves they should value evidence."

  12. #2201 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    6,716
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,815 Times in 2,129 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 56 Times in 52 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZenMode View Post
    Nice try. The question was why we should believe in global warming.
    Close. The question is why any rational adult should believe in Global Warming. I'm willing to stipulate that gullible scientific illiterates will obediently believe whatever they are instructed to believe. But rational adults require a rational basis for belief. You, as well as all other warmizombies and climate lemmings, insist that Global Warming is somehow not a WACKY religion and that it is thettled thienth. This places the burden of rational support squarely on your shoulders.

    Please commence with your explanation of said rational basis.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZenMode View Post
    The explanation of how certain gasses could contribute to climate change has been explained repeatedly.
    The correct spelling is "gases." The word "gasses" is a verb and is what Hitler had done to the Jews.

    You used the word "could." That's a foul and gets your argument tossed. There is no could'a/would'a/should'a in science and is not a part of any rational basis. I have mentioned this before.

    You have never unambiguously defined "Climate Change" in any way that doesn't violate science or the rules of either math, logic or English grammar. There is currently no rational basis for any rational adult to believe the bizarre, mystical and often hysterically hilarious religious dogma of Climate Change.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZenMode View Post
    Youtube videos demonstrating how CO2 interacts with energy,
    ... and never explaining the increase in average global equilibrium temperature that serves as the fundamental assumption of your religion, to which you refer as "thettled thienth."

    You still have yet to explain your dogmatically mandated doctrine of increasing average global equilibrium temperature without any additional energy, without violating physics. Presently, you are stuck in a persistent semantics-shifting fallacy in which you violate the 1st LoT, then shift to violating Stefan-Boltzmann (while simultaneously announcing that you aren't violating the 1st LoT ... anymore), and when it is pointed out that you are violating Stefan-Boltzmann, you shift to violating the 2nd LoT (while simultaneously announcing that you aren't violating Stefan-Boltzmann ... anymore), and then you shift back to violating one of the other two, then you shift again, and again and again ... ad infinitum. Eventually you will achieve the dishonesty trifecta ... otherwise known as the "warmizombie tri-state" ... whereby you are violating all three at the same time while simultaneously claiming that you aren't violating any of them. I'm already selling tickets to the event.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZenMode View Post
    Your game is that you believe you can just say "That's not true. That's a lie. That's a parlor trick. That doesn't happen. That doesn't exist." etc
    Nope. Your game is to continue flailing in your scientific illiteracy and to continue claiming that physics is somehow my mere opinion. This is why you never even get out of the starting gate. You have relegated yourself to simply regurgitating what others tell you to believe.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZenMode View Post
    I could very easily use your approach,
    Nope. The moment you declare science to be false without having falsified it, you tip your king.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZenMode View Post
    ... and we could go round and round for years.
    You are already doing that with your constant semantic-shifting and pivoting.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZenMode View Post
    You say "Climate change violates the first rule of thermodynamics".
    Nope. You need to pay attention. I point out that your claim of a temperature increase without additional energy violates thermodynamics.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZenMode View Post
    That's a game I'm not willing to play because your mind is closed by confirmation bias and politics....
    Now you are projecting. You won't abandon your religion. I'm not the one telling anyone what to believe. I'm the one asking you and other warmizombies for a rational basis for your WACKY beliefs. All any warmizombie has provided are physics violations, bad math, faulty logic and grammatical errors.

    Global Warming violates the 1st LoT by claiming a magical creation of thermal energy out of nothing, in the form of a temperature increase, which is somehow caused by a magical substance.
    Greenhouse Effect violates Stefan-Boltzmann and black body science by claiming that an increase in earth's temperature is somehow caused by a decrease in earth's radiance.
    Greenhouse Effect violates the 2nd LoT by claiming that the cooler atmosphere somehow heats the warmer earth's surface.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to IBDaMann For This Post:

    gfm7175 (02-29-2024)

  14. #2202 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2022
    Posts
    2,029
    Thanks
    50
    Thanked 288 Times in 232 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 29 Times in 29 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IBDaMann View Post
    Close. The question is why any rational adult should believe in Global Warming. I'm willing to stipulate that gullible scientific illiterates will obediently believe whatever they are instructed to believe. But rational adults require a rational basis for belief. You, as well as all other warmizombies and climate lemmings, insist that Global Warming is somehow not a WACKY religion and that it is thettled thienth. This places the burden of rational support squarely on your shoulders.

    Please commence with your explanation of said rational basis.


    The correct spelling is "gases." The word "gasses" is a verb and is what Hitler had done to the Jews.

    You used the word "could." That's a foul and gets your argument tossed. There is no could'a/would'a/should'a in science and is not a part of any rational basis. I have mentioned this before.

    You have never unambiguously defined "Climate Change" in any way that doesn't violate science or the rules of either math, logic or English grammar. There is currently no rational basis for any rational adult to believe the bizarre, mystical and often hysterically hilarious religious dogma of Climate Change.


    ... and never explaining the increase in average global equilibrium temperature that serves as the fundamental assumption of your religion, to which you refer as "thettled thienth."

    You still have yet to explain your dogmatically mandated doctrine of increasing average global equilibrium temperature without any additional energy, without violating physics. Presently, you are stuck in a persistent semantics-shifting fallacy in which you violate the 1st LoT, then shift to violating Stefan-Boltzmann (while simultaneously announcing that you aren't violating the 1st LoT ... anymore), and when it is pointed out that you are violating Stefan-Boltzmann, you shift to violating the 2nd LoT (while simultaneously announcing that you aren't violating Stefan-Boltzmann ... anymore), and then you shift back to violating one of the other two, then you shift again, and again and again ... ad infinitum. Eventually you will achieve the dishonesty trifecta ... otherwise known as the "warmizombie tri-state" ... whereby you are violating all three at the same time while simultaneously claiming that you aren't violating any of them. I'm already selling tickets to the event.


    Nope. Your game is to continue flailing in your scientific illiteracy and to continue claiming that physics is somehow my mere opinion. This is why you never even get out of the starting gate. You have relegated yourself to simply regurgitating what others tell you to believe.


    Nope. The moment you declare science to be false without having falsified it, you tip your king.


    You are already doing that with your constant semantic-shifting and pivoting.


    Nope. You need to pay attention. I point out that your claim of a temperature increase without additional energy violates thermodynamics.


    Now you are projecting. You won't abandon your religion. I'm not the one telling anyone what to believe. I'm the one asking you and other warmizombies for a rational basis for your WACKY beliefs. All any warmizombie has provided are physics violations, bad math, faulty logic and grammatical errors.

    Nothing you posted refutes what I said. Neither does parsing my words. Trolling.... gaslighting..... confirmation bias. Different roads to the same destination - you have no ability/desire to have a useful conversation and are wasting my time.
    Last edited by ZenMode; 03-01-2024 at 07:29 AM.
    "If someone doesn’t value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide that proves they should value evidence."

  15. #2203 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    6,716
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,815 Times in 2,129 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 56 Times in 52 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZenMode View Post
    Nothing you posted refutes what I said.
    Everything you have said has been refuted multiple times each by multiple people.

    Quote Originally Posted by ZenMode View Post
    Neither does parsing my words.
    Stupid comment. Parsing words is really the only way to refute words on an internet forum.

    You have no ability/desire to have a useful conversation and are wasting bandwidth.

    Global Warming violates the 1st LoT by claiming a magical creation of thermal energy out of nothing, in the form of a temperature increase, which is somehow caused by a magical substance.
    Greenhouse Effect violates Stefan-Boltzmann and black body science by claiming that an increase in earth's temperature is somehow caused by a decrease in earth's radiance.
    Greenhouse Effect violates the 2nd LoT by claiming that the cooler atmosphere somehow heats the warmer earth's surface.

  16. #2204 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2022
    Posts
    2,029
    Thanks
    50
    Thanked 288 Times in 232 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 29 Times in 29 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IBDaMann View Post
    .

    You have no ability/desire to have a useful conversation and are wasting bandwidth.

    [IMG][/IMG]
    No I'm not.
    "If someone doesn’t value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide that proves they should value evidence."

  17. #2205 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    6,716
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,815 Times in 2,129 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 56 Times in 52 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZenMode View Post
    No I'm not.
    Then start engaging in rational conversation.

    If you claim an increase in temperature, you are claiming an increase in thermal energy because only thermal energy can provide temperature to matter. You have yet to account for any additional energy. You always imply that said temperature increase just simply happens spontaneously, without any further explanation. Ergo, energy is magically appearing somehow, and you attribute this to CO2.

    Your argument is therefore that CO2 creates energy out of nothing, in violation of the 1st LoT, and that this magically created energy is what is responsible for the increase in earth's average global equilibrium temperature.

    Of course, every time this is laid out for you, you bitch and moan that you never said this. Yes you did. You claim a temperature increase. You won't ever account for the additional energy needed to cause that temperature increase. You lose.

    If you wish to start accounting for that additional energy, the floor is yours. Take it away.
    Global Warming violates the 1st LoT by claiming a magical creation of thermal energy out of nothing, in the form of a temperature increase, which is somehow caused by a magical substance.
    Greenhouse Effect violates Stefan-Boltzmann and black body science by claiming that an increase in earth's temperature is somehow caused by a decrease in earth's radiance.
    Greenhouse Effect violates the 2nd LoT by claiming that the cooler atmosphere somehow heats the warmer earth's surface.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 502
    Last Post: 10-20-2023, 06:25 PM
  2. New study debunks global warming causing current global freezing
    By Cancel 2018.1 in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-23-2018, 05:41 PM
  3. Updated Global Temperature: No global warming for 17 years, 6 months
    By cancel2 2022 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 03-28-2014, 10:42 AM
  4. Global Warming Again!
    By DamnYankee in forum Sports, Hobbies & Pictures
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-04-2010, 06:26 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-28-2009, 10:52 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •