Global warming and the end

[eclipsenow]

Eclipsenow has already demonstrated that he does not understand even the basics of science, so you are wasting your time in trying to educate him as to what constitutes scientific investigation. To him, the words "peer reviewed" are a magic ticket to explaining anything.

Better than trusting in 500 year old maps to 'prove' that there was no ice on Antarctica! I pretty much accept the peer-reviewed process as the 'truth will out' as they say. Your attempts so far to discredit climate science have been laughable... a list of old numbers from SOME source SOME where that I am just to 'trust' discredits climate science.
(How do I know you were'nt a bit tired one day and just plain downloaded some state's temperature averages instead of the national average? How do I know you didn't just click on the wrong link? Yet the way you RAVE about such a pathetic 'source' shows that you've got NOTHING!)

 

[interpreter]

Although I do not agree with your interpretation, I have to ask, just how do you propose to reverse anything God ever said would happen?

The only way you could do that is if you were more powerful than God.

Just because God said it will happen does not mean that it was caused by God. Man created global warming. Man can, and must, end it for the sake of our children.

 

[Biblewriter]

Just because God said it will happen does not mean that it was caused by God. Man created global warming. Man can, and must, end it for the sake of our children.

If you are correct that God said it will happen, then nothing you do can change it. It will happen, no matter what you do.

 

[Aijalon]

eclipsenow, so if a peer reviewed journal says people are born gay, do you accept that? Do you accept all peer reviewed journals as truth?

 

[interpreter]

If you are correct that God said it will happen, then nothing you do can change it. It will happen, no matter what you do.

It has already happened. It is now time to reverse global warming.

 

[eclipsenow]

eclipsenow, so if a peer reviewed journal says people are born gay, do you accept that? Do you accept all peer reviewed journals as truth?

That debate is not settled, and it's not the same as science that WAS settled in the 1820's by Joseph Fourier, and has been confirmed ever since by countless lab tests on the Radiative Forcing properties of CO2.
Read this whole wiki, and when you find solid reasons to disagree with the science, get back to me. Because you'll have proved that the moon is made of cheese.
Radiative forcing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Biblewriter]

That debate is not settled, and it's not the same as science that WAS settled in the 1820's by Joseph Fourier, and has been confirmed ever since by countless lab tests on the Radiative Forcing properties of CO2.
Read this whole wiki, and when you find solid reasons to disagree with the science, get back to me. Because you'll have proved that the moon is made of cheese.
Radiative forcing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We have already been through this, and yo have refused to listen.

 

[eclipsenow]

We have already been through this, and yo have refused to listen.

I'm not the one who's refused to listen to the peer-reviewed science.

Meanwhile, there's a photo of the north pole in the last few days, and the buoy is floating in water. (Santa has no where to park his sleigh). I guess that's a conspiracy as well?

 

[Biblewriter]

I'm not the one who's refused to listen to the peer-reviewed science.

That's right. You are just the one that refuses to listen to other scientists who tell you that is nonsense.

Meanwhile, there's a photo of the north pole in the last few days, and the buoy is floating in water. (Santa has no where to park his sleigh). I guess that's a conspiracy as well?

Actually, that photo was taken more than five degrees south of the North Pole. The article linked below says 85 degrees north, but the map shows it at about 83 degrees north. And melting in the North Pole regions is nothing new. It often happens in the summer times. I can personally remember the first United States Nave nuclear submarine, the U.S.S. Natalus havong broken through the ice at the North Pole when I was a child. That would have been impossible if the ice was very thick.

The Lake at the North Pole, How Bad Is It? | Climate Central

 

[eclipsenow]

That's right. You are just the one that refuses to listen to other scientists who tell you that is nonsense.

You're not a climate scientist. Next!

Actually, that photo was taken more than five degrees south of the North Pole. The article linked below says 85 degrees north, but the map shows it at about 83 degrees north. And melting in the North Pole regions is nothing new. It often happens in the summer times. I can personally remember the first United States Nave nuclear submarine, the U.S.S. Natalus havong broken through the ice at the North Pole when I was a child. That would have been impossible if the ice was very thick.

yeah, the multi-year sea ice is EXACTLY the same as when you were a child!

 

[Aijalon]

I just read your signature and until I finished reading it I thought you were suggesting that the word is going to become a DUNE and we would need to go underground and live in moisture suits and turn our eyes blue with drugs. Funny.

As to scientists.... I wish you would get to an understanding that scientists are very often wrong about very big things. Smoking was at one time advertised as beneficial for digestion by scientists. Often scientists band together and form ideologies around thier science in order to manufacture the legitimacy of thier ideas. The outsiders are ostracized because they don't drink the Kool-Aid.

And if someone observes and says, "hey listen, these other scientists are on to something" the propagandists will say things like "you can't talk, you're not a scientist". So in this way they silence oposition and manufacture consensus in the name of progress.

Sometimes all you really need is a common sense ability to see through the BS. Some people have that ability, some don't

For instance. The White House covered up the Benghazi incident because the implications of the truth were too serious for the ultimate goal of destroying Syria. We now understand that the "consulate" was actually primarily used as a CIA base for funneling weapons to Syrian rebels. A person with a sense for BS can see very early on that there is indeed a real cover up going on. The first lie is the clue, the lie about a video causing a random riot. The false narrative.

In the case of global warming the false narrative is that the warming is caused by humans, when there is no evidence for this. We have a vidoe - as it were - of the ice caps melting. So why is this? The ocean currents are the reason, it is not global temperatures. It isn't a tiny fraction of atmospheric CO2.

 

[eclipsenow]

I just read your signature and until I finished reading it I thought you were suggesting that the word is going to become a DUNE and we would need to go underground and live in moisture suits and turn our eyes blue with drugs. Funny.

As to scientists.... I wish you would get to an understanding that scientists are very often wrong about very big things. Smoking was at one time advertised as beneficial for digestion by scientists. Often scientists band together and form ideologies around thier science in order to manufacture the legitimacy of thier ideas. The outsiders are ostracized because they don't drink the Kool-Aid.

And if someone observes and says, "hey listen, these other scientists are on to something" the propagandists will say things like "you can't talk, you're not a scientist". So in this way they silence oposition and manufacture consensus in the name of progress.

Sometimes all you really need is a common sense ability to see through the BS. Some people have that ability, some don't

For instance. The White House covered up the Benghazi incident because the implications of the truth were too serious for the ultimate goal of destroying Syria. We now understand that the "consulate" was actually primarily used as a CIA base for funneling weapons to Syrian rebels. A person with a sense for BS can see very early on that there is indeed a real cover up going on. The first lie is the clue, the lie about a video causing a random riot. The false narrative.

In the case of global warming the false narrative is that the warming is caused by humans, when there is no evidence for this. We have a vidoe - as it were - of the ice caps melting. So why is this? The ocean currents are the reason, it is not global temperatures. It isn't a tiny fraction of atmospheric CO2.

So many words, so few that are actually on topic.

Does your 'theory' of oceans warming the ice-caps include a source for that warming, if it's not coming from all the extra anthropogenic CO2 that every decent physics lab on the planet says it is? Come on pal, if you're going to deny the demonstrable Radiative Forcing that ANY decent physics lab on the PLANET can confirm, and if you're going to deny the overwhelming climate consensus of EVERY scientific institute on the planet (that increased CO2 has trapped heat in the atmosphere and this is warming the oceans), then you've got to have a good counter-hypothesis. What is else is warming the oceans? What drives your ocean warming & cooling hypothesis? How long will this continue? Do you have previous examples of the ocean warming and cooling according to this hypothesis? Has your 'theory' accurately predicted ocean warming & cooling events in the past?

I'm sure you'll be right back to me with answers.

In the meantime, this is what the rest of the planet accepts as demonstrably proven science. So grab a cup of your unicorn milk as you munch on some moon-cheese, and have a good long read of the following, which may in fact help you come back to the real world.
Radiative forcing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This next wiki may also help you. Please name any real scientific institutions that actually disagree with climate change science.
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Biblewriter]

So many words, so few that are actually on topic.

Does your 'theory' of oceans warming the ice-caps include a source for that warming, if it's not coming from all the extra anthropogenic CO2 that every decent physics lab on the planet says it is? Come on pal, if you're going to deny the demonstrable Radiative Forcing that ANY decent physics lab on the PLANET can confirm, and if you're going to deny the overwhelming climate consensus of EVERY scientific institute on the planet (that increased CO2 has trapped heat in the atmosphere and this is warming the oceans), then you've got to have a good counter-hypothesis. What is else is warming the oceans? What drives your ocean warming & cooling hypothesis? How long will this continue? Do you have previous examples of the ocean warming and cooling according to this hypothesis? Has your 'theory' accurately predicted ocean warming & cooling events in the past?

I'm sure you'll be right back to me with answers.

In the meantime, this is what the rest of the planet accepts as demonstrably proven science. So grab a cup of your unicorn milk as you munch on some moon-cheese, and have a good long read of the following, which may in fact help you come back to the real world.
Radiative forcing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This next wiki may also help you. Please name any real scientific institutions that actually disagree with climate change science.
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spare us this nonsense about what "EVERY scientific institute on the planet" says, and about "what the rest of the planet believes." We have already proved this is simply not true.

Your side only comes up with these false assertions by claiming that anyone who does not drink their Kool-aid is not a real scientist.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Spare us this nonsense about what "EVERY scientific institute on the planet" says, and about "what the rest of the planet believes." We have already proved this is simply not true.

Your side only comes up with these false assertions by claiming that anyone who does not drink their Kool-aid is not a real scientist.

One can not argue with the omniscient!

I think the reason I'm not getting it is; it's not penetrating either my tinfoil hat... or his.

 

[eclipsenow]

Spare us this nonsense about what "EVERY scientific institute on the planet" says, and about "what the rest of the planet believes." We have already proved this is simply not true.

Your side only comes up with these false assertions by claiming that anyone who does not drink their Kool-aid is not a real scientist.

So you'd get a plumber to do brain surgery on you, or a carpenter to service your car, or an astronomer to diagnose and operate on your cancer?

There are areas of speciality we work with in this society, and this applies to science as well.

 

[Biblewriter]

So you'd get a plumber to do brain surgery on you, or a carpenter to service your car, or an astronomer to diagnose and operate on your cancer?

There are areas of speciality we work with in this society, and this applies to science as well.

And I would not get a high school dropout to advise me on what is and is not science.

 

[eclipsenow]

And I would not get a high school dropout to advise me on what is and is not science.

Ha ha! Wrong again. I didn't 'drop out' but just chose a different subjects to yours. (Advanced Diploma in welfare, etc, which might have given me some insights into the real reasons you're projecting all sorts of phobias and fears onto climate science.)

But somehow you're the one rejecting the majority of modern peer-reviewed climate science, and embarrassing our Lord as you do so. Christians should care about this stuff! It's going to hurt so many people (assuming the Lord doesn't return tonight, or any other time before climate change works its worst).

I know many Christians in science, and it must be something about American politics that blinds you guys so bad because most of my Christian mates in science respect climate science. But hey, you can't help it, you were born into a dispensationalist republican family. It's not your fault.

 

[Quantum Paradise]

Climate change may be taking place, but that is something else entirely. Global warming, on the other hand, is a fraud. It isn't very hard to see, anyone who is paying the least bit attention can see that. Makes sense, considering how Earth's temperature "rise" is by no means anything substantial whatsoever. Just using the term "global warming" is fraudulent in itself.

 

[Biblewriter]

Ha ha! Wrong again. I didn't 'drop out' but just chose a different subjects to yours. (Advanced Diploma in welfare, etc, which might have given me some insights into the real reasons you're projecting all sorts of phobias and fears onto climate science.)

But somehow you're the one rejecting the majority of modern peer-reviewed climate science, and embarrassing our Lord as you do so. Christians should care about this stuff! It's going to hurt so many people (assuming the Lord doesn't return tonight, or any other time before climate change works its worst).

I know many Christians in science, and it must be something about American politics that blinds you guys so bad because most of my Christian mates in science respect climate science. But hey, you can't help it, you were born into a dispensationalist republican family. It's not your fault.

I knew you were not a high school drop out. But you have demonstrated that you have a level of scientific understanding on a par with a high school dropout. That is, practically zero.

Your entire knowledge of science is "peer reviewed scientists say...."

 

[eclipsenow]

Climate change may be taking place, but that is something else entirely. Global warming, on the other hand, is a fraud. It isn't very hard to see, anyone who is paying the least bit attention can see that. Makes sense, considering how Earth's temperature "rise" is by no means anything substantial whatsoever. Just using the term "global warming" is fraudulent in itself.

That sounds like a worldview or political opinion. The absence of any peer-reviewed links to any scientific counter-theory whatsoever shows it to be just that.