Jump to content

The new religious order of climate change.Believe or Deny!


WWWTT

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

When we have a major ice storm and power is lost; the energy we use is seen as a civil right yet people still feel the need to vigorously protest how the energy is extracted.

Nothing that a few back lashes will not solve!

WWWTT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just so that we're clear here, you're saying that a few hundred ppm of CO2 can raise the temperature of the other 999,700 ppm?

Yes.

When does the mass of CO2 300ppm= or > 999,700ppm N2,O2????

This question has poor grammar so I do not understand it.

And why isn't this incredible property being harnessed/exploited in any of our technologies???

The absorption spectra of different gasses is used in a wide number of ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying that 95% of the scientists are completely "independent"? (priests, bishops)

WWWTT

Nobody is completely independent, least of all priests and bishops. But when you have to search hard to find someone with some qualifications who tells you what you want to hear and that someone has an obvious conflict of interest, you should really take that as a sign that you might want to re-examine your views.

Or just keep your head in the sand and keep on wrecking the planet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just so that we're clear here, you're saying that a few hundred ppm of CO2 can raise the temperature of the other 999,700 ppm?

When does the mass of CO2 300ppm= or > 999,700ppm N2,O2????

And why isn't this incredible property being harnessed/exploited in any of our technologies???

Oh sorry, I just committed heresy!

WWWTT

Sounds like you need to read up a bit on the physics involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes.

This question has poor grammar so I do not understand it.

The absorption spectra of different gasses is used in a wide number of ways.

I do not believe it because from my understanding, global warming (allegedly) is the only example of this incredible phenomena!

Poor grammar, when does the mass of several hundred ppm of CO2 outweigh the mass of 999 700ppm comprised mostly of nitrogen followed by oxygen?

Show me an example where this incredible property of CO2 is being used in a technology, provide a link, substantiate your claim.

Global warming reminds me of this science!

http://ca.yhs4.search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7os2KtVSpy4A6XEXFwx.;_ylu=X3oDMTByMTNuNTZzBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkAw--/SIG=133imcf3l/EXP=1389730486/**http%3a//partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/050399sci-cold-fusion.html

Remember cold fusion???

Take a good look because that's where global warming's going to be in 20 years!

Or until all the believers in the holy scriptures have walked away.

WWWTT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody is completely independent, least of all priests and bishops. But when you have to search hard to find someone with some qualifications who tells you what you want to hear and that someone has an obvious conflict of interest, you should really take that as a sign that you might want to re-examine your views.

Or just keep your head in the sand and keep on wrecking the planet.

So in other words the 95% are not independent.

Thank you

You can go back now to enjoying your electricity and emitting CO2 every time you exhale!

Just like every other living organism on the planet.

WWWTT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like you need to read up a bit on the physics involved.

Actually this would fall more under chemistry!

Do you know what a "Quack" is Bonam?

http://ca.yhs4.search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7qN6LdVSzTYA2FAXFwx.;_ylu=X3oDMTBybjFrcjVnBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNARjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkAw--/SIG=11piccf5n/EXP=1389731322/**http%3a//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quackery

WWWTT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see the planet warming.

WWWTT

Maybe so - but also religious people also don't see evolution happening, or don't want to see. You're calling science a religion, but here you are admitting that you are basing your belief on your own perceptions and not data. That is religion.

As for cold fusion, you had two scientists publish a paper for which the results couldn't be replicated, it's not analogous situation at all. Many religious people try to quote some arcane science (like the amount of dust on the moon) to support their holy viewpoint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe so - but also religious people also don't see evolution happening, or don't want to see. You're calling science a religion, but here you are admitting that you are basing your belief on your own perceptions and not data. That is religion.

As for cold fusion, you had two scientists publish a paper for which the results couldn't be replicated, it's not analogous situation at all. Many religious people try to quote some arcane science (like the amount of dust on the moon) to support their holy viewpoint.

Oh so now you're labelling all scientists into one category. Kind of cavalier of you to do. I wouldn't put all scientists into this same category!

I do not see the climate or temperature changing at all in southern Ontario. The seasons haven't changed in any way other than the minor fluctuations that are normal.

This is called examining evidence!

Evidence is used in courts all over the world!

Where is the evidence?

If you think that the evidence is based entirely on a theory, then that would be the religion, not believing in something that has no tangible evidence is not a religion.

Sorry, but your new order religion based on global warming has to pass the same test as any other science and provide independently reproducible results so that the evidence may be examined!

Think that only two scientists believe in cold fusion?

Thou asked, so thou shall receive!

http://ca.yhs4.search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7pJwVtVSiG0AvQEXFwx.;_ylu=X3oDMTByMTNuNTZzBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkAw--/SIG=135qa6dpp/EXP=1389741808/**http%3a//scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/11/25/cold-fusion-is-it-possible-is/

Lots of scientists out there wanted to believe this myth!

WWWTT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh so now you're labelling all scientists into one category. Kind of cavalier of you to do. I wouldn't put all scientists into this same category!

You're calling *a* science a religion.

I do not see the climate or temperature changing at all in southern Ontario. The seasons haven't changed in any way other than the minor fluctuations that are normal.

And, as I said, look wherever you like. Also: If it makes you feel better, then don't bother to look at global temperature data over time. This is another sign of your religiosity - you're comforted by staying in your bubble of facts without challenging yourself.

This is called examining evidence!

Indeed it is. It even has a name: *anecdotal* evidence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

Sorry, but your new order religion based on global warming has to pass the same test as any other science and provide independently reproducible results so that the evidence may be examined!

And then you descend into ad hominem ... so we are done ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poor grammar, when does the mass of several hundred ppm of CO2 outweigh the mass of 999 700ppm comprised mostly of nitrogen followed by oxygen?

Show me an example where this incredible property of CO2 is being used in a technology, provide a link, substantiate your claim.

Here you can do an experiment all by yourself to demonstrate the idea that a more opaque fluid will absorb more EM radiation. <_<

You will need:

- Some tap water

- 2 cups (preferably transparent, glass cups should do)

- A light source (preferably either the Sun or an incandescent light bulb cause they emit black body radiation)

- Some food colouring (black is preferable)

- A thermometer

1. Pour an equal amount of water to each of the cups

2. Add some food colouring to one of the cups

3. Place both cups under a light source

4. Wait say an hour

5. Come back and measure the temperatures of the water in the cups.

The water with food colouring will have a higher temperature.

Edit: note that the radiative greenhouse effect is due to the atmosphere being more opaque to radiation from the earth compared to radiation from the sun.

Edited by -1=e^ipi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're calling *a* science a religion.

And, as I said, look wherever you like. Also: If it makes you feel better, then don't bother to look at global temperature data over time. This is another sign of your religiosity - you're comforted by staying in your bubble of facts without challenging yourself.

Indeed it is. It even has a name: *anecdotal* evidence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

And then you descend into ad hominem ... so we are done ...

No sorry, you're wrong, again!

The belief that global warming is occurring, in my opinion, is on par with a religion.

Those at the centre are USING alleged scientific data, derived from the research of so many scientists.

But who are those scientists, what are their credentials and most of all, who are paying them.

The more questions you ask, the better.

But I find that the followers of this new cult aren't into asking questions, are they?

Oh and by the way, you sound like American Woman.

WWWTT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here you can do an experiment all by yourself to demonstrate the idea that a more opaque fluid will absorb more EM radiation. <_<

You will need:

- Some tap water

- 2 cups (preferably transparent, glass cups should do)

- A light source (preferably either the Sun or an incandescent light bulb cause they emit black body radiation)

- Some food colouring (black is preferable)

- A thermometer

1. Pour an equal amount of water to each of the cups

2. Add some food colouring to one of the cups

3. Place both cups under a light source

4. Wait say an hour

5. Come back and measure the temperatures of the water in the cups.

The water with food colouring will have a higher temperature.

Edit: note that the radiative greenhouse effect is due to the atmosphere being more opaque to radiation from the earth compared to radiation from the sun.

Man I hope you're not a scientist!

So where in your experiment do we measure the ppm?

Lets actually reproduce what is going on and see if we get the same results.

Or you can go on with your blind faith.

WWWTT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is this relevant to whether or not the water with food colouring warms faster? As long as the ppm is non-zero it will warm faster (ppm will only affect by how much).

You don't seem very concerned with details are you?

And that is very central to the new religious order of global warming faith!

WWWTT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No sorry, you're wrong, again!

The belief that global warming is occurring, in my opinion, is on par with a religion.

Right - but you haven't addressed my point that real scientists use data to come up with their conclusions. So like the crazed street corner preacher you keep repeating the same slogan "climate science is religion".

Give me a real reason, until then I don't see this conversation going anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The second one was a correction on the first. I like to correct myself when I'm wrong.

Ok then I thought that may the case.

Anyways, it is the research and data that I do not believe is tangible evidence.

There is a big difference in flying in an airplane and thinking, man this is great that the physics principle of lift could be used to design a passenger jet and fly me across the world and looking at a map of the world with red spots!

WWWTT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right - but you haven't addressed my point that real scientists use data to come up with their conclusions. So like the crazed street corner preacher you keep repeating the same slogan "climate science is religion".

Give me a real reason, until then I don't see this conversation going anywhere.

But you don't question who these scientists are and their qualifications?

You have a lot of faith brother.

WWWTT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...