Global warming/antiglobal warming=warring religions?

[Theo]

You bring up a long-refuted paper (from 2007) as support for your blanket claim about AGW?

I was asking for a specific such as the CO2/water vapor ratio, or whatever you see as problematic; but not a simplistic "it must be false" proclamation.

 

That was some paper: :phones:

 

 

Gerlich? Finally, a physicist! But....

Cato, and the Exxon-funded George C. Marshall Institute? That's a good resume (said sarcastically).

===

 

The paper "refutes" and "rules out" a lot of accepted science, but never explains why or how.

===

 

No wonder it was so easy to respond to:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf

"Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect"

 

The conclusion specifically addresses Gerlich and Tscheuschner's "more extravagant claims...."

 

~ :)

 

This scientific paper - and the laws of Thermodynamics - has not been disproved. If it is so easy to "respond," as you say, then where is the math? Where is the beef? All I see is "opinion." That's not science. That's ideology, and ideology has no place in Science. This is the whole point behind what is happening in Climategate.

 

Many people, many scientists, are very upset about all this, and for very good reason. There are lives at stake, and trillions involved and the science is not only poor, but bad science.

 

Understand this: in order for climate science to save face, which it has lost because of the acts of a inner core group of AGW proponents, and the IPCC, it is unwise to continue to force ideology onto Science. It is a very, very bad thing to do. Children are being taught a lie which the laws of Thermodynamics proves is a lie.

 

Moreover, it is very distasteful for those who have bought into AGW and put all their eggs into this basket to continue to try to demean, shout down, and debase the astrophysical and geophysical laws that govern the Earth's climate. It is not a bad thing to admit that one is wrong, and to learn from one's mistakes.

 

In fact, those who are able to do so - to admit that they were in error - are helping themselves to remain true to Science. Those who are unable to do this are not fit to remain in science, and are clearly unfit to promote things that have been proven to be impossible as AGW is impossible because of the laws of Thermodynamics.

 

Opinions are not scientific facts. Ideology is not science.

 

However, it is very bad to continue along a path that shows that the people one believed in have been engaged in scientific fraud, to the point of using ideology to block out the Thermodynamic truths that govern our planet's climate.

 

What that shows is ideology - not Science. I prefer the Truth - not ideology, nor do I lean towards those who would force down the throats of the population of this planet a lie that is not true, and is mathematically impossible.

 

So, I ask, again - where is the proof that AGW is valid because the laws of Thermodynamics says AGW is impossible on Earth. See - http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

[Essay]

This scientific paper - and the laws of Thermodynamics - has not been disproved. If it is so easy to "respond," as you say, then where is the math?

 

Maybe if you took longer than 5 minutes to whip back with a response, you would have seen the math. Did you even look? I quoted from your link; maybe you could quote from my citation, instead of saying something which demonstrates you have not looked at the link yet.

 

 

Where is the beef? All I see is "opinion." That's not science. That's ideology, and ideology has no place in Science.

 

Your citation is nothing but opinion and ideology, and you seem to spout nothing but opinion and ideology yourself.

Can't you talk about a specific???

What is it about AGW that would violate thermodynamics?

What is it about thermodynamics that makes AGW impossible (in your view).

 

What that shows is idiotology - not Science.

 

....

Yep....

 

~ :phones:

[Moontanman]

Theo, I have to ask because it seems you are saying that the contents of the atmosphere have nothing to do with the temperature of the earth. Is this what you are saying? Are you saying that because CO2 is less a determining factor than water vapour it cannot influence Weather?

[Eclipse Now]

Help, I accidentally clicked the little red button on Essay's rep... sorry Essay! I clicked the BIG green one to make up for it.

 

Can moderators PLEASE close this thread as it looks like we are discussing Theo's paper in a number of threads at once, and if that ain't trolling, I don't know what is.

[Moontanman]

yes, close this thread down please.

[Theo]

Theo, I have to ask because it seems you are saying that the contents of the atmosphere have nothing to do with the temperature of the earth. Is this what you are saying? Are you saying that because CO2 is less a determining factor than water vapour it cannot influence Weather?

 

Hi Moontanman, The contents of our atmosphere has everything to do with temperature, but this is solar-forced. CO2 lags behind temperature rise, and that is solar-forced. Therefore CO2 is solar-forced.

 

We, as human beings cannot change the climate - the Sun does that for us very well, and has done so since the beginning of time.

 

Water vapor is driven by the oceans, more or less, which are the engines of the Earth's climate, and the oceans are solar-forced. I forecasted ENSO (El Nino) for this time several years ago, and now El Nino is here. It affects 50% of the planet, and if you look to what is happening right now in California, you will see just how powerful El Nino can be.

 

All we can do is to forecast long-range, and to "dress for the climate," so to speak, so we can prepare for the climate changes that are inevitable on Earth. We cannot "reverse" anything when it comes to the climate.

 

We also can learn to live cleaner, and greener, and not to pollute. But, we cannot link what we do pollution-wise onto "global climate change" - only the Sun can do that - not humanity - http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060807.html

 

See Top Climate Events - http://www.john-daly.com/topevnts.htm

 

All influences from the weather are astronomically driven. That is how I forecast long-range. All climate begins in space, and that is the reason why it is important to monitor the conditions of space. According to my forecast, we are in the 30th year of solar-driven global warming, with about six (6) years to go.

 

We are seeing cooler anomalies throughout the world, and in my forecast, we start a 36-year global cooling cycle about the year 2016, and this cycle will peak in the mid-2030s. We are going to witness and experience stronger storms, that in a global cooling climate means trouble. We still have time to prepare, but must refit our structures and weatherize our homes to withstand this colder global climate.

 

But CO2 is not a problem for the earth, and the earth cannot turn into a "greenhouse" - that is impossible according to the laws of thermodynamics. We are lucky to have these laws because it is the reason why the Earth is livable, and without the Sun we all would be dead. All the energy our planet requires comes from the Sun. That is why I monitor the Sun closely.

[Moontanman]

The contents of the atmosphere has everything to do with temperature, and this is solar-forced. CO2 lags behind temperature rise, and that is solar-forced. We, as human beings cannot change the climate - the Sun does that for us very well, and has done so since the beginning of time.

 

All we can do is to learn to live cleaner, and greener, and not to pollute. But, we cannot link what we do pollution-wise onto "global climate change" - as only the Sun can do this.

 

All influences from the weather are astronomically driven. That is how I forecast long-range. All climate begins in space, and that is the reason why it is important to monitor the conditions of space.

 

But CO2 is not a problem for the earth, and the earth cannot turn into a "greenhouse" - that is impossible according to the laws of thermodynamics. We are lucky to have these laws because it is the reason why the Earth is livable, and without the Sun we all would be dead. All the energy our planet requires comes from the Sun. That is why I monitor the Sun closely.

 

So you are saying that no matter what we do we cannot have any influence on the weather? Only an increase in solar radiation can raise the temps of the earth? Then why was the Earth much warmer when the sun was much dimmer?

[REASON]

The contents of the atmosphere has everything to do with temperature, and this is solar-forced.

 

In what way do the contents of the atmosphere affect temperature?

[Theo]

So you are saying that no matter what we do we cannot have any influence on the weather? Only an increase in solar radiation can raise the temps of the earth? Then why was the Earth much warmer when the sun was much dimmer?

 

We cannot change the laws of physics. We cannot change the Sun. The Sun has many influences on the Earth, even during minimum. And, the Sun was at minimum for sunspots. The Sun has so many direct impacts on our planet that it is mind-boggling. Everything we need comes from the Sun. Without it, the Earth would be a ball of frozen ice with no life.

 

This is our Sun - http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060807.html

 

We do not influence the weather on a global scale, only the Sun can do this, and does it very, very well. We cannot raise or lower the temperature of the Earth. All of humanity, even if it tried, could not do it.

 

All we can do is to forecast, to prepare, and to dress for the weather. That is where our power is on this planet. By knowing what kind of global climate is ahead, we can prepare, and refit. We cannot stop it from raining, from snowing, we cannot stop the jet streams, we cannot stop the winds. We cannot stop storms, hurricanes, cyclones, and we cannot raise or lower the temperature of the planet. All this is solar-forced.

[Eclipse Now]

Theo is spreading his ridiculous anti-science PDF through multiple threads at the one time.

 

Surely that qualifies as trolling? People seem to think so, his stats bar hit 5 red in one day!

 

This one is the 'warring religions' post, and the other one was climategate. No idea which thread should address the PDF, but if the moderators wanted to make a call and close one, then we might see just how many times Theo repeats the same assertions without addressing the SAME questions in reply. THEN we'd get an idea just how much this guy is spreading his own version of religious dogma against any of the scientific evidence we share with him.

[Buffy]

As this thread is an instructive historical record of the decline of modern civilization due to anti-science zealotry, and that we're sure both sides presented all their most convincing arguments, we leave this thread for posterity.

 

But it's being closed because it's well past it's Use By date.

 

If you've got more climate stuff to argue, open new threads folks.

 

I assure you, Mrs. Buttle, the Ministry is very scrupulous about following up and eradicating any error. If you have any complaints which you'd like to make, I'd be more than happy to send you the appropriate forms, :phones:

Buffy