• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NPR: 2017 Warmest Non-El Nino Year On Record

Lord of Planar said:
Does a blanket keep you warm?

Maybe you should just go naked in the winter. Afterall, your contention is the same pscience that would contend your clothes and coat aren't holding in any heat.
Click to expand...

The old 'Magick Blanket' argument again. *sigh*
This is a false equivalence fallacy.

It is not possible to trap or retain heat. Blankets and coats work by reducing heat, not trapping it. Your body is burning food to produce thermal energy. A coat or a blanket allows your body to not lose that energy as fast, which means you can maintain your own body temperature. The heat loss doesn't overcome your own ability to produce thermal energy.

Putting a blanket on a rock will not make the rock warmer. The Earth is not producing thermal energy like you do. What the Earth IS producing (within its own interior) ALREADY has a pretty effective blanket, called solid rock, which turns out to be a pretty effective insulator.

CO2 actually conducts thermal energy better than almost any other gas in the atmosphere. It is not an insulator. It is also a gas, and part of the atmosphere. It participates in convective heating (allowing the surface to cool by heating the atmosphere and dissipating its energy over a wider area).

ALL of it radiates, the surface (most of it), the atmosphere, everything. ALL of it is radiating into space. Neither CO2 nor water inhibit that in any way. No gas inhibits that in any way.

CO2 (and water) does absorb certain frequencies of infrared light. Absorption is not warming the Earth. It is just another way for the surface to cool itself by heating the atmosphere. All it means is that instead of the surface radiating that energy away, the atmosphere does instead.

The Magick Blanket argument attempts to create a one-way insulation around the Earth. It violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics by decreasing entropy. It violates the 1st law of thermodynamics by assuming energy is created out of a non-energy source.

There is no Magick Blanket in the atmosphere. Neither CO2 nor water have the capability to trap thermal energy. It is not possible to trap heat. It is not possible to trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
 
Threegoofs said:
Many independent lines of evidence demonstrate that the world is warming and that human activity is the primary cause.
Click to expand...

You are denying the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. There is no 'forcing'. CO2 is not capable of warming the Earth. Neither is water vapor. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

There is no evidence. You are just assuming people that say there is. Supporting evidence is not used in science. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
Assigning the 'cause' to humans or any other source is manufacturing data (actually metadata) as well. Assignment of data by manufacturing metadata is the same thing as manufacturing data. No one is able to determine where CO2 is being emitted from. It is all speculation.

Nothing has falsified the laws of thermodynamics nor the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You can't just ignore these theories of science.
 
Jack Hays said:
Warming? Certainly, for a time.
Click to expand...
Unknown. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
Jack Hays said:
Human caused? Not much evidence.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
Jack Hays said:
Nir Shaviv: "[FONT="]Using historic variations in climate and the cosmic ray flux, one can actually [/FONT][URL="http://www.sciencebits.com/OnClimateSensitivity%20"]quantify empirically[/URL][FONT="] the relation between cosmic ray flux variations and global temperature change, and estimate the solar contribution to the 20[/FONT][FONT="]th[/FONT][FONT="] century warming. This contribution comes out to be 0.5±0.2°C out of the observed 0.6±0.2°C global warming (Shaviv, 2005)."[/FONT]
Click to expand...
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
 
Into the Night said:
You are denying the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. There is no 'forcing'. CO2 is not capable of warming the Earth. Neither is water vapor. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

There is no evidence. You are just assuming people that say there is. Supporting evidence is not used in science. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
Assigning the 'cause' to humans or any other source is manufacturing data (actually metadata) as well. Assignment of data by manufacturing metadata is the same thing as manufacturing data. No one is able to determine where CO2 is being emitted from. It is all speculation.

Nothing has falsified the laws of thermodynamics nor the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You can't just ignore these theories of science.
Click to expand...

Many independent lines of evidence demonstrate that the world is warming and that human activity is the primary cause.
 
Threegoofs said:
Many independent lines of evidence demonstrate that the world is warming and that human activity is the primary cause.
Click to expand...

And yet you cannot produce any citations for those lines of evidence.
 
Threegoofs said:
IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

It’s all there.
Click to expand...

Political statements made by political organizations do not falsify the laws of thermodynamics nor the Stefan-Boltzmann law, nor change the rules of statistical mathematics.

You are just quoting scripture of the Church of Global Warming.

Try to define 'climate change'. It doesn't even mean anything. It can only be defined by itself. It's a buzzword.
 
Threegoofs said:
IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

It’s all there.
Click to expand...

Most Americans do not realize that the IPCC is an organization which was established by the UN and its board of directors is appointed by the UN and its dogma is fashioned by the UN, not by global researchers. The various reviewers and committees who examine all research reported to the body are commissioned by the UN and their appointees and no material passes review without the UN appointees' approval. That is why there are such wide gaps on some points between what actual researchers find and what the IPCC reports.

The IPCC, therefore, is a body which propagates politically biased scientific dogma backed by edited and/or manipulated scientific data.
 
Last edited:
Into the Night said:
This is a fallacy known as Pascal's Wager. He once tried to use it to prove the existence of God.
Click to expand...


Ironically you refer to something relating to proving religion. We are talking about science.
 
Lord of Planar said:
There are lots of misinterpretations from the papers. The IPCC takes equivocation in papers as fact. NASA's climate section is not run or edited by scientists, so they have some shady information. As for your 3rd item... 270 pages... It's an interpretation of papers. I suspect it suffers from the uncertain interpretations from papers that equivocate.
Click to expand...

What I find amusing is your claims hold no weight, no evidence nor any facts. I can simply deny everything someone tells me but that holds nothing unless you back it up with evidence.

You seem to think you know a lot about these papers and the issue but fail to support your claims with anything but opinion. Ironically we are discussing science and science is based primarily around theory and proving that theory with evidence.

Quite simply I wouldn't trust your claims, at the present, any more than what a five year old would tell me about these papers. And for good reason.
 
Into the Night said:
The IPCC is not a political organization??? :lamo
Click to expand...

Once again...its intergovernmental. Its a multilateral treaty to be precise set up by the United Nations. That however doesn't matter, its the credibility of the information produced and nature of what is produced all of which is affirmed to be reliable and truthful.
 
goldkam said:
Once again...its intergovernmental. Its a multilateral treaty to be precise set up by the United Nations. That however doesn't matter, its the credibility of the information produced and nature of what is produced all of which is affirmed to be reliable and truthful.
Click to expand...

A political agency with an agenda is reliable and truthful??? :lamo Sorry dude, the IPCC doesn't falsify any theory of science! They deny science AND mathematics!
 
Jack Hays said:

[h=1]The planet is experiencing an unexplained major cooling and scientists are ignoring it.[/h]By Javier A most remarkable climate phenomenon is taking place under our very noses without anybody paying attention to it. As nearly everybody knows, the planet is warming. Since its short-term rate of temperature change hasn’t changed much, the warming is essentially accomplished because the planet spends less time cooling than warming. Therefore, periods of…
Continue reading →
Click to expand...

No one knows if the planet is warming, cooling, or just staying the same. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
 
Into the Night said:
You think studying whether dogs align themselves to the Earth's magnetic field to pee isn't stupid research???
Click to expand...

Don't dogs also get funny about where they pee during sunspots or solar flares, or something like that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom