Bullet to the head of the AGW hoax?

[Gipper]

I could give you my address so you could gun me down. Would that make you happy?

So you admit you are Marxist who promoted the big lie.

Please tell us why?

 

[citizenzen]

So you admit you are Marxist who promoted the big lie.

No. I'm a capital 'L' liberal who believes in science.

But I do understand that you often get the two confused.

 

[palerider]

No. I'm a capital 'L' liberal who believes in science.

I believe the capital 'L" more aptly denotes liar. You have shown that you do not believe in science at all, but favor pseudoscience with a political agenda. You have been presented with science that shows the theory to be flawed but reject it out of hand claiming that you lack the knowledge required to determine the verasity of the evidence and yet, with the same self admitted ignorance, you believe a group of scientists who have admitted to manipulating, and hiding data in order to achieve a predetermined result.

Whether or not you believe in science is about to be determined. I have a question for you that you can not answer with a lie, and no answer at all will be an answer.

Upon which physical law do you base your acceptance and belief of AGW theory?

I have looked at all of the known physical laws and simply can't find one that supports the theory. Most scientists acknowledge that there are about 18 known physical laws at work in the universe. There are a certain number that can be discounted out of hand because there is clearly no practical connection between them and AGW theory.

Archimedes’ principle, for example dealing with fluid pressure and floating bodies has no practical application to AGW theory as well as Kepler’s three laws of planetary motion. If I am mistaken, by all means explain my error.

Newton’s three laws of motion don't apply and neither do Euler's laws of rigid body motion. Newton’s law of universal gravitation lends no support at all. and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle can be scratched from the list as irrelavant.

Neither the Conservation of mass law, the Conservation of momentum law, the Conservation of angular momentum law, or the Charge conservation law answer either.

Boyle's Law dealing with the pressure and volume of ideal gasses has any practical application associated with anthropogenic global warming and neither do Charles's law or the Ideal Gas Law.

Einstein's General Relativity and Special Relativity don't lend any support either. Newton's Laws of motion don't offer any hope as they were replaced with Einstein's laws and none of the Electromagnetic Laws seem to answer either.

The Quantum laws such as Matter wavelength and the Schrödinger equation don't help climate scientists suppor their theory and we already tossed out the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Navier-Stokes equations dealing with fluid dynamics don't help and neither do any of the radiation laws; Planck's law of black body radiation, Wien's law, or Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Avogadro's law certainly doesn't help out any nor does Buys-Ballot's law.

So which laws might lend support to AGW theory?

Newton’s law of cooling may offer a glimmer of hope, but alas, it does not and neither does the Law of conservation of energy. Joule’s first and second laws are no help and of the four laws of thermodynamics, AGW theory flies directly in the face of the second.

The Conservation of energy law offers no support to the idea that adding CO2 to the atmosphere can create warming and alas, neither do any of the chemical laws. The Zeroth law of thermodynamics doesn't help either.

The charts I presented at the beginning of this thread and the following article on the CO2 absorption spectrum, the reall bullet to the head of AGW theory rule out the most likely physical law to support AGW theory, Beer-Lambert law dealing with the absorption of light.

The Beer-Lambert law states states that there is a logarithmic dependence between the transmission (or transmissivity), T, of light through a substance and the product of the absorption coefficient of the substance, α, and the distance the light travels through the material (i.e. the path length), ℓ. The absorption coefficient can, in turn, be written as a product of either a molar absorptivity of the absorber, ε, and the concentration c of absorbing species in the material, or an absorption cross section, σ, and the (number) density N of absorbers.

If the Beer-Lamber law applied to AGW theory, then in the absorption spectra taken by both the IMG and TES satellites in 1997 and 2006 respectively would show a decrease in longwave radiation reflected from the surface of the earth back into space. That was not the case indicating that the CO2 present in 1970 had already reached its saturation point and no additional CO2 would result in the absorption of additional longwave radiation resulting in warming.


I am a scientist (biochemistry) and as a result, I read a rather large number of scientific papers and studies. When presenting a theory, the first thing a presenter tries to do is link his theory to one or more of the physical laws as either a predictive mechanism or support for his theory. I have read a fair amount of the pseudoscience generated by your priests and to date, have not seen the first attempt by any of them to link their theory to a natural law. I have to wonder if such a thing might elicit some suspicion in you.

I have read a goodly number of scientific papers using various physical laws to debunk and dismiss AGW theory, but none referencing physical laws in support. Now you have stated that you believe in science so am guessing that you have read enough literature produced by your priests to convince you that their AGW theory has merit.

Can you name a physical law upon which you base your belief and confidence in AGW theory or, as I suspect, do you simply accept it because it meshes nicely with your political leanings?

But I do understand that you often get the two confused.

You have claimed a belief in science. Here is your chance to step up and prove that claim. Upon which physical law do you base your support and acceptance of AGW theory as plausable? Silence on your part will be construed as prima facie evidence that contrary to your claim of a belief in science, you actually just go along with AGW theory because of your politics. I sincerly hope that you can name a physical law so that you don't have to come face to face with the fact that it is you who get the two confused and that your leanings are marxist in spite of your denial

 

[Gipper]

I believe the capital 'L" more aptly denotes liar. You have shown that you do not believe in science at all, but favor pseudoscience with a political agenda. You have been presented with science that shows the theory to be flawed but reject it out of hand claiming that you lack the knowledge required to determine the verasity of the evidence and yet, with the same self admitted ignorance, you believe a group of scientists who have admitted to manipulating, and hiding data in order to achieve a predetermined result.

Whether or not you believe in science is about to be determined. I have a question for you that you can not answer with a lie, and no answer at all will be an answer.

Upon which physical law do you base your acceptance and belief of AGW theory?


Can you name a physical law upon which you base your belief and confidence in AGW theory or, as I suspect, do you simply accept it because it meshes nicely with your political leanings?

You have claimed a belief in science. Here is your chance to step up and prove that claim. Upon which physical law do you base your support and acceptance of AGW theory as plausable? Silence on your part will be construed as prima facie evidence that contrary to your claim of a belief in science, you actually just go along with AGW theory because of your politics. I sincerly hope that you can name a physical law so that you don't have to come face to face with the fact that it is you who get the two confused and that your leanings are marxist in spite of your denial

Game, set, match...and check mate too.

For any scientist to claim AGW is a reality or a legitimate theory, is proof that scientist is a fool and not a scientist at all...

 

[citizenzen]

You have claimed a belief in science. Here is your chance to step up and prove that claim. Upon which physical law do you base your support and acceptance of AGW theory as plausable? Silence on your part will be construed as prima facie evidence that contrary to your claim of a belief in science, you actually just go along with AGW theory because of your politics. I sincerly hope that you can name a physical law so that you don't have to come face to face with the fact that it is you who get the two confused and that your leanings are marxist in spite of your denial

Here... I will make your day. I will offer you nothing but silence so you can continue to call me a liar, a hypocrite, a marxist... since that seems to spin your beanie.

But do me a favor. Stick around the forum for a while. Let's see where this issue is in 1, 5, 10 years. Let's watch as our understanding develops, as we get a clearer picture of what is going on.

And over time we'll continue the conversation and you'll have plenty of opportunity to call me more names. You probably haven't noticed how I've maintained a civil tone despite your vitriol. It doesn't matter. You teach me patience... how to withstand anger while not succumbing to it.

Thank you PR and Gipper, for giving me so many opportunities to learn.

You may commence now, with more name calling.

 

[Gipper]

Thank you PR and Gipper, for giving me so many opportunities to learn.

You may commence now, with more name calling.

I believe the name calling was accompanied by a great deal of scientific data by palerider destroying every single point you made.

So, please don't try to claim all we did was call you names.

 

[citizenzen]

So, please don't try to claim all we did was call you names.

Oh no. It was just an added bonus.

But I understand that inflicting pain is something of a recreational sport around here, so I don't begrudge you your opportunity to dole it out at your pleasure.

What does it say of you and PR that you can't seem to have a discussion without it?

maybe you should ask your pastor... if you have one.

 

[Gipper]

Oh no. It was just an added bonus.

But I understand that inflicting pain is something of a recreational sport around here, so I don't begrudge you your opportunity to dole it out at your pleasure.

What does it say of you and PR that you can't seem to have a discussion without it?

maybe you should ask your pastor... if you have one.

Oh please zen, quite with the sanctimonious chit chat.

I did not call you names or inflict pain other than asking you if you were a Marxist. And besides, you continued the debate long after PR destroyed all your points.

And we both know, many liberals are experts at name calling. For example, look what they have done to Palin and the Tea Party.

 

[palerider]

Here... I will make your day. I will offer you nothing but silence so you can continue to call me a liar, a hypocrite, a marxist... since that seems to spin your beanie.

I already knew those things. I also knew that silence would be your only answer. The fact is that no natural law supports AGW theory and yet, you believe.

But do me a favor. Stick around the forum for a while. Let's see where this issue is in 1, 5, 10 years. Let's watch as our understanding develops, as we get a clearer picture of what is going on.

AGW won't be an issue in a few years. Your church will have moved on to some other imminent crisis. My bet is overpopulation. Care to take me up on it.

And over time we'll continue the conversation and you'll have plenty of opportunity to call me more names. You probably haven't noticed how I've maintained a civil tone despite your vitriol. It doesn't matter. You teach me patience... how to withstand anger while not succumbing to it.

Instead of patience, you need to learn some basic science so you don't go through life playing the part of a dupe.

Thank you PR and Gipper, for giving me so many opportunities to learn.

You may commence now, with more name calling.

Not necessary. The relevant points have been proven. Now you play the part of the poor abused victim. To bad you don't realise who it is that is really victimizing you.

 

[samsara15]

You are a superb debater, pale. Do you ever wonder if you are really correct, or merely a better debater than your less qualified opposition, or does that sort of angst never bother you?

 

[palerider]

You are a superb debater, pale. Do you ever wonder if you are really correct, or merely a better debater than your less qualified opposition, or does that sort of angst never bother you?

If I weren't sure that I was correct, I wouldn't be making the argument. I don't make arguments that I can't support, and I don't generally get involved in debates where the facts don't clearly support one side or the other.

 

[samsara15]

and you never have any doubts? About abortion, AGW, evolution, the origin of petroleum, and more? Your self assurance is amazing.

 

[palerider]

and you never have any doubts? About abortion, AGW, evolution, the origin of petroleum, and more? Your self assurance is amazing.

I have studied the topics I debate deeply. Very deeply. Abortion is an open and shut case. Unborns are human beings and human beings have an inherent right to live. AGW is equally open and shut. No physical law supports the theory and the evidence against it is overwhelming.

We see overwhelming evidence for micro evolution but not a shred of evidence to support macro evolution. Should one believe that of all the fossil record we have found, that we have just missed any evidence for macro evolution? If and when evidence for it is found, I will alter my position. Today, however, the facts support me, not those who believe in macro evolution.

I am a biochemist and know of no rational, provable theory that accounts for turning dead plants and animals into petroleum while I know for sure that under conditions found in the mantle region of the earth, petrolem can be made. I know also that hydrocarbons exist in other places within our solar system where no plants or animals ever existed.

I operate entirely within the realm of fact. Prove a case with inarguable evidence and I will alter my position to reflect the facts. When one doesn't get emotionally invested in a position to the point that they will ignore fact in favor of what they wish, self assurance is a natural state.

 

[samsara15]

The fossil record, however, is there. Without macro evolution, how do you explain it? How do you explain the existence of homo erectus, Lucy, Neanderthal man?

 

[citizenzen]

It seems like most issues palerider has looked into are open and shut.

It seems to reflect his outlook in general.

Shut.