Climate change causes fruit bats to fall from trees and wallabees to keel over dead

He is a man of science who trolls the internet posting antiscience and excoriates every real scientist
who posts real science in peer reviewed high impact scholarly journal articles by authors from all the
highly esteemed institutions of higher learning who have been provided grants by the largest governments
on the planet to study the particular question while he is unqualified to even submit a grant application.



He's that kind of scientist. :chuckle:

He’s had a hard on for me ever since I pointed out the dishonesty of his posts on the radiative forcing constant and its effect on the predicted delta T. He thinks he’s the only one who can understand the science and can bullshit his way through it.
 
It would be nice to hear both sides of the argument but commentators like Chuck Todd have banned opposing views on this show.
 
Oh my god the cost of groceries. Thanks Trump.
I hit a pot hole on an interstate. Thanks Trump
I have to pay taxes. Thanks Trump
The temperature was -11 in International Falls MN like every year. Thanks Trump
An illegal killed a cop. Thanks Trump
So much black on black crime. Thanks Trump
I have a boil on my ass. Thanks Trump

Trump you are the cause of every bad thing that happens in this world. You are also the cause of the stupidity of some on this forum.
 
Trump in two short years you have caused so much change in the climate that the world will end soon.

It is possible the climate change is due to 30 years of hot air from Pelosi and 20 years of hot air by Schumer.
 
He’s had a hard on for me ever since I pointed out the dishonesty of his posts on the radiative forcing constant and its effect on the predicted delta T. He thinks he’s the only one who can understand the science and can bullshit his way through it.

You don't understand it, and I haven't the patience to suffer fools like you gladly. I dislike you because you're a nasty cunt and pretty much have been since the day you arrived here. You are also loathed by many others on here, and would have topped the most obnoxious poll if you didn't have the likes of CFM and TDAK around.
 
Last edited:
You don't understand it, and I haven't the patience to suffer fools like you gladly. I dislike you because you're a nasty cunt and pretty much have been since the day you arrived here. You are also loathed by many others on here, and would have topped the most obnoxious poll if you didn't have the likes of CFM and TDAK around.

Sad cunt. You got challenged by somebody who actually has a science background superior to yours.
 
link


and dude

why would ANYONE take an internets posters claims over the vast majority of scientists

For one thing, you are making up numbers. For another, many of the 'scientists' you refer to are climate 'scientists', that deny science. They are not scientists. For a third, no society or academy owns science. Science is not a society or an academy. It is no university nor government agency. It is not even scientists. It is not people at all.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
 
For one thing, you are making up numbers. For another, many of the 'scientists' you refer to are climate 'scientists', that deny science. They are not scientists. For a third, no society or academy owns science. Science is not a society or an academy. It is no university nor government agency. It is not even scientists. It is not people at all.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

link to all this ass dripping you are claiming
 
I did a google search...
global warming denies 1st 2nd laws of thermodynamics stephan-boltzmann law


Take your pick folks. Believe the post with a sentence that starts with "The Church of Global Warming" and an actual law of thermodynamics or believe the umpteen articles you can choose from explaining it doesn't violate the law (one saying it is a "perversion" of the law)...

Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law (page 2 ...

www.climate-debate.com/.../greenhouse-gases-do-not-violate-the-stefan-boltzmann-la...

Sep 15, 2017 - You have also tried to warm the surface using a colder gas by conduction. .... TheStefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics agree with ...... the mathematics ofprobability, or the mathematics of statistics. ...... You deny the energy conservation laws, and with it, the 1st law of thermodynamics.More results from www.climate-debate.com

One synopsis

[FONT=&]No argument with the second law of thermodynamics here, that one seems to be on pretty solid ground! But the train of logic above has a subtle problem in its over statement of the constraints this law places on energy flow. Given a warmer and a cooler body exchanging energy either through convection or through radiation, the fact is, energy is constantly being exchanged in both directions. The second law of thermodynamics does not apply to individual photons, it applies to the net flow of energy in the entire system. How could it be otherwise?
[/FONT]

(And of course, a FOX article showed up under the above search.
Fox Commentator Distorts Physics - Scientific American Blog Network
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/degrees-of.../fox-commentator-distorts-physics/



PS I'm a psych major so I don't shit about all of this but it is probably best not to include the THE CHURCH OF GLOBAL WARMING if you want anyone to take you seriously.




No, the 2nd law is not a net flow. It can and does apply to individual molecules and photons. No molecule will accept a photon of less energy than the molecule already has. No absorption will take place. The molecule is effectively transparent to that photon. This is from quantum physics.

Heat flows only one way. From hot to cold. You can't heat the warmer surface using a colder gas. You cannot reduce entropy in any system.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law is:

radiance = SBconstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4

This means that if temperature increases, radiance MUST increase. It also means that if radiance is reduced, temperature MUST also reduce. The 'greenhouse' gas model reduces radiance and increases temperature at the same time. That is not possible.

The 1st law of thermodynamics essentially brings forward the concept of conservation of energy into thermal energy. It essentially declares thermal energy to be energy, and therefore subject to the conservation of energy law itself. CO2 is not a source of energy. It takes energy to warm the Earth. The Sun is not putting any additional energy than before. You are essentially attempting to create energy out of nothing, in violation of the 1st law.

I will call it the Church of Global Warming. All religions, regardless of what they are, are based on some initial circular argument, with arguments extending from that. The other word for the circular argument is 'faith'. Circular arguments are not themselves a fallacy, but failing to recognize one for what it is DOES become the fallacy. The usual method is to try to prove a circular argument. This is what a fundamentalist does.

The Church of Global Warming is a fundamentalist style religion. It denies science (specifically the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law), and mathematics (specifically probability and statistical math). This religion stems from the Church of Green (the psuedo-ecologists trying to 'save the planet'). That in turn stem from the Church of Karl Marx. The Church of Global Warming is nothing less than an attempt to implement socialism worldwide, under the guise of 'saving the planet'.
 
No, the 2nd law is not a net flow. It can and does apply to individual molecules and photons. No molecule will accept a photon of less energy than the molecule already has. No absorption will take place. The molecule is effectively transparent to that photon. This is from quantum physics.

Heat flows only one way. From hot to cold. You can't heat the warmer surface using a colder gas. You cannot reduce entropy in any system.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law is:

radiance = SBconstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4

This means that if temperature increases, radiance MUST increase. It also means that if radiance is reduced, temperature MUST also reduce. The 'greenhouse' gas model reduces radiance and increases temperature at the same time. That is not possible.

The 1st law of thermodynamics essentially brings forward the concept of conservation of energy into thermal energy. It essentially declares thermal energy to be energy, and therefore subject to the conservation of energy law itself. CO2 is not a source of energy. It takes energy to warm the Earth. The Sun is not putting any additional energy than before. You are essentially attempting to create energy out of nothing, in violation of the 1st law.

I will call it the Church of Global Warming. All religions, regardless of what they are, are based on some initial circular argument, with arguments extending from that. The other word for the circular argument is 'faith'. Circular arguments are not themselves a fallacy, but failing to recognize one for what it is DOES become the fallacy. The usual method is to try to prove a circular argument. This is what a fundamentalist does.

The Church of Global Warming is a fundamentalist style religion. It denies science (specifically the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law), and mathematics (specifically probability and statistical math). This religion stems from the Church of Green (the psuedo-ecologists trying to 'save the planet'). That in turn stem from the Church of Karl Marx. The Church of Global Warming is nothing less than an attempt to implement socialism worldwide, under the guise of 'saving the planet'.

Jo Nova is a climate sceptic and pretty clued up on thermodynamics, you would be wise to read this!

The second law does not say a cold object cannot pass heat to a warmer object, it states that NET heat flow is always from warmer to colder.

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/05/wh...oesnt-break-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/
 
you people on the right don't like science

or math


or history


its why the sociopaths with money can make you do and say stupid things
 
Sorry but that's just not right, I am a man of science and that's not grounded in truth. Having said that there is a possible mechanism where the second law can be violated!


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161020131909.htm

Sorry dude, you are bringing forth a mechanism that is nothing more than a denial of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Entropy can only increase or stay the same in any closed system. That system MUST be closed. That means you cannot consider any energy source or sink outside that system. If you do so, that is a different system, and you are making a false equivalence fallacy. There is no such thing as a 'local' system in the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

In other words, your refrigerator, which appears to reduce entropy by creating a cold spot in a warm room, is not. The energy required to RUN that refrigerator MUST be considered, and that includes the power plant, the wiring, the fuel to run that power plant, etc. Now you are no longer just talking about a room the refrigerator happens to be sitting in. It is a different system that has nothing to do with the first system. The system MUST be closed. Entropy can only increase or stay the same in any system.

Attempts to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics essentially is an attempt to construct a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd order.

Claims to be a 'man of science' or any other credential is meaningless on blind forums such as this one. There is no way to prove your claim, and no argument based on such a claim can stand. In other words, there is always someone that doesn't believe you. Since you fell for this particular parlor trick, I assume you are not a man of science at this point. I don't believe you.
 
Back
Top