The So Called Deadly Climate Obsession of Governments, written by an idiot

[AProudLefty]

Your schtick is no longer interesting. Give it up. Talk like an adult for a change.

Now that you know what he is, Gfm is his alter-ego. There is a serious possibility he has MPD and a schizo.

[Into the Night]

I clearly know more about thermo than the other poster.

Denying the laws of thermodynamics is not 'knowing about thermodynamics', dude. You deny the laws of thermodynamics.

Who measures the earth's temperature?

That's what he asked. Now I will ask him to watch how you evade the question.

Are you not familiar with Global Warming?

Evasion. Answer the question put to you. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. No gas of vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.

They use something called a temperature anomaly. It shows CHANGE in temperature without having to have the raw temperature.

Evasion. Base rate fallacy. You cannot measure a change without taking absolute measurements at least twice.

Of course you don't seem to know much about this topic in any technical detail.

Complexity fallacy.

For some reason the world's experts on this topic disagree with you.

Void authority fallacy. Name your 'experts'. You cannot get away with denying mathematics by claiming 'experts'. 'Expert' worship.

Sure everyone knows the sun is the primary energy source, but the earth's surface temperature is NOT solely due to the sun. Without greenhouse gases at all the earth's surface would have near blackbody temperatures.

Buzzword fallacy. There is no such thing as 'blackbody temperatures'. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

But it doesn't. Even if we had a full oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere...without GHG's the temperature would be much lower at the surface.

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

The key problem in AGW is NOT the absolute temperature.

You cannot measure a change without at least TWO absolute measurements. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

The earth's been hotter in the distant past.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. You weren't alive in the distant past and no thermometers existed then.

But rather the change in climate as it impacts our society.

Climate cannot change. It has no temperature. It doesn't impact anything. Redefinition fallacy (weather<->climate).

Rapid change won't work well for a very large society. We can't adapt fast enough.

Did you know people routinely fly from tropical or temperate areas to the Antarctica and back? They seem to adjust quite well. Did you know that people like to climb mountains? They adjust quite well also. Did you know we have this thing called 'seasons'? People adjust to that throughout the year quite well. Did you know that temperature can vary as much as 80 deg F EACH DAY in some areas? People live in those areas too!

The whole problem is one of RATE, not absolutes.

Base rate fallacy.

[Into the Night]

Sounds like you just made up a conspiracy theory. Good for you.

So if someone tells you something and you don't understand what they say do you USUALLY just make up stuff and accuse them of wrongdoing?

The Democrat party is a conspiracy. The Church of Global Warming is a conspiracy. The Church of Green is a conspiracy.

[AProudLefty]

Denying the laws of thermodynamics is not 'knowing about thermodynamics', dude. You deny the laws of thermodynamics.

That's what he asked. Now I will ask him to watch how you evade the question.

Evasion. Answer the question put to you. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. No gas of vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.

Evasion. Base rate fallacy. You cannot measure a change without taking absolute measurements at least twice.

Complexity fallacy.

Void authority fallacy. Name your 'experts'. You cannot get away with denying mathematics by claiming 'experts'. 'Expert' worship.

Buzzword fallacy. There is no such thing as 'blackbody temperatures'. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

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

You cannot measure a change without at least TWO absolute measurements. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. You weren't alive in the distant past and no thermometers existed then.

Climate cannot change. It has no temperature. It doesn't impact anything. Redefinition fallacy (weather<->climate).

Did you know people routinely fly from tropical or temperate areas to the Antarctica and back? They seem to adjust quite well. Did you know that people like to climb mountains? They adjust quite well also. Did you know we have this thing called 'seasons'? People adjust to that throughout the year quite well. Did you know that temperature can vary as much as 80 deg F EACH DAY in some areas? People live in those areas too!

Base rate fallacy.

Hey Birdman, explain what Earth's temperature is.

[domer76]

Says the man who never, EVER backs up his scientific theories with links to unbiased sources (that I have seen).

But you probably take the word of Jordan Peterson - a shrink with ZERO training on the subject?
Over actual 'climate scientists'.
https://www.pedestrian.tv/entertainm...limate-change/


As I have said, many times, I think global warming is a thing.
But not nearly as bad as the doom-and-gloomers make it out to be.
And I think governments should stay OUT of it.
And leave it to the public...no matter how bad it gets.

On one side - it's the 'sky is falling', far left.
And on the other side - it's the COMPLETE DENIAL, far right.
Both of you are wrong.
And both of you - in different ways - are WRECKING things for the rest of us.


Let the citizens decide what is what.
And what to do about it.
NOT the governments.
Or psychologists who know NOTHING about the environment...like Jordan Peterson and his incel followers.

Here’s the thing about global warming, climate change or whatever you want to call it. Around the world, these types of things become a serious humanitarian threat and security threat to many countries, including ours. Drought, floods, continuing catastrophic events gives way to starvation, disease, economic strife, massive population shift. On and on.

For governments to ignore or not be involved in the consequences of such events is irresponsible.

[Saint Guinefort]

Statistical mathematics requires the use if unbiased raw data. Cooked data is not allowed.

I'm guessing you don't process data at all in your job. No one is using "cooked" data, but I don't know what you THINK you are pointing to in this case.

ALL biasing influences in collecting the data must be identified

You have a simpleton view of statistics. Statistics is how we figure out if bias is present in the data. Yes, you want to eliminate as much bias as possible in your data but you just type things out that sound like you randomly googled topics and picked out words from a word cloud.

Statistical mathematics also requires the declaration and justification of a variance,

Where do you GET this stuff? Variance is part of the data. What do you mean by "declaration and justification"???? Variance is actually measured FROM the data.

You don't know ANY of this stuff, do you?

Biasing influences in collecting temperature data are primarily time and location grouping.

How many people on here think this poster has ever read Karl et al's 1980's era papers on debiasing temperature data? LOL.

Time bias is because storms move.

Are you trying to talk about Time of Observation bias? Because that's real but I don't know what you are talking about....

Honestly so much of what you post is pure unadulterated crap mixed in with occasional science points (never dealt with correctly, but present) that it's fascinating to think you wasted your time typing it all out. It's impressive that someone could be this ignorant of science, but the fact that you COMMIT to the act and type it all out is beyond amazing.

Kudos for sticking with this "ignorant moron" act.

[Into the Night]

Says the person who thinks a crystal is higher entropy than a melt. LOL.

It does, in thermodynamics.

Says the person who doesn't know that the Second Law only applies to isolated systems. LOL.

It doesn't.

AND YOU MISSED THE PART ABOUT ISOLATED SYSTEMS.

Fixation. Buzzword fallacy.

You wouldn't last a day in a p chem class.

Science isn't a class. I happen to be a chemist.

Wrong.

The presence of a gas is not work, dumbass. Saying 'wrong' won't change that.

God your post is mostly just wrong wrongness.

Bulverism fallacy.

I wonder how someone could be so fractally wrong on EVERYTHING

Bulverism fallacy.

while attempting to sound really scientific.

Inversion fallacy.

That's why I think you are Poe-ing here. I think you actually DO know this stuff

I do. You don't.

but you are trying to mock the idiots who don't

I'm not mocking anyone. You do, though.

so you turn every single concept in science upside down

It is YOU ignoring many theories of science.

to look like a moron in order to lay some attack at the feet of the Denialists.

It is YOU denying science and mathematics. I deny the Church of Global Warming...utterly. This fundamentalist style religion uses only tyranny as the 'solution'.

Either that or you are ASTOUNDINGLY ignorant. It's like you have "anti-knowledge".

Bulverism fallacy. Argument of the Stone fallacies.

[Into the Night]

Your schtick is no longer interesting. Give it up. Talk like an adult for a change.

Inversion fallacy.

[Into the Night]

Is there any part of chemistry or science that you DO understand?


https://refrigeranthq.com/refrigerant-2/hydrocarbons/



Like I said, the whole act is getting boring.

RQAA

[Into the Night]

Now that you know what he is, Gfm is his alter-ego. There is a serious possibility he has MPD and a schizo.

YALSA. Psychoquackery. No argument presented. Trolling.

[Into the Night]

Hey Birdman, explain what Earth's temperature is.

RQAA

[Into the Night]

Here’s the thing about global warming, climate change or whatever you want to call it. Around the world, these types of things become a serious humanitarian threat and security threat to many countries, including ours. Drought, floods, continuing catastrophic events gives way to starvation, disease, economic strife, massive population shift. On and on.

For governments to ignore or not be involved in the consequences of such events is irresponsible.

Government cannot control the weather. It is quite fruitless to try.

[Trumpet]

Into the Scum belongs on your ignore list.

[AProudLefty]

RQAA

Since you never explained "Earth's temperature", I will do the work for you.

There is no "Earth's temperature". Temperatures vary across the world, obviously. Local and global averages are calculated over days, weeks, months and years to get the general idea of variations across the world.

[Into the Night]

I'm guessing you don't process data at all in your job.

All the time. My business manufactures instrumentation for industry, aerospace, medical and entertainment markets. They are sold worldwide. Yes...my business is organized as a corporation.

No one is using "cooked" data,

I will take this as argument 1.

but I don't know what you THINK you are pointing to in this case.

...wait for it...

You have a simpleton view of statistics.

Nah. You just deny statistical math.

Statistics is how we figure out if bias is present in the data.

No it isn't. No bias is ALLOWED in the raw data.

Yes, you want to eliminate as much bias as possible in your data but you just type things out that sound like you randomly googled topics and picked out words from a word cloud.

Illiteracy: Proper nouns must be capitalized. I do not use Google. There is no such thing as a 'word cloud'. Buzzword fallacy.

Where do you GET this stuff?

Physics. Chemistry. Mathematics. Logic. Philosophy. All the places that YOU deny and discard.

Variance is part of the data.

NO IT ISN'T!

What do you mean by "declaration and justification"????

Just what I said.

Variance is actually measured FROM the data.

NO IT ISN'T.

You don't know ANY of this stuff, do you?

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself again.

How many people on here think this poster has ever read Karl et al's 1980's era papers on debiasing temperature data? LOL.

I will use this as argument 2. You cannot use cooked data. You have now locked yourself in a paradox. You are being irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.

Are you trying to talk about Time of Observation bias? Because that's real but I don't know what you are talking about....

Another paradox. Irrational.

Honestly so much of what you post is pure unadulterated crap

Argument of the Stone fallacy. Bulverism fallacy.

mixed in with occasional science points (never dealt with correctly, but present)

Discard of science.

that it's fascinating to think you wasted your time typing it all out.

Argument of the Stone fallacy.

It's impressive that someone could be this ignorant of science, but the fact that you COMMIT to the act and type it all out is beyond amazing.

Argument of the Stone fallacy.

Kudos for sticking with this "ignorant moron" act.

Argument of the Stone fallacy. Bulverism fallacy.