Weather station in Antarctica records high of 65, the continent's hottest temperature ever

Yup, you got it. Climate Science is nothing more than a fundamentalist style religion, hating all Climate Deniers (and even hating Climate Skeptics, ie: those who profess the faith but do not find the situation to be "dire"). It is an absolute requirement of the faith that one cast aside their adherence to logic, science, and mathematics in favor of Settled Science. Of course, there is no such thing, as science is never ever "settled" because any theory of science could be falsified in an instant.

 

Yes they are. I have already explained how.

I have yet to be shown a way which does not violate the aforementioned laws of science for the reasons that I have already described.

 

Well said.

And when their science fails them they fabricate positions no one took to attack. Anything to avoid the reality of their failed religious belief system.

They've replaced curiosity with a hard core belief system with an adherence to the state above all else.

 

I just want to wrap my head around this bit of idiocy as best as I can.

Your argument is that it violates the Law of Thermodynamics for the Average Global Temperature of the Planet to Increase?

 

Just to be clear, you are embracing the notion that the theory of human induced climate change is a violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics?

 

Never made that claim.

Once again you are fabricating positions I never took because you cannot prove your belief that human based CO2 is the primary source of climate change.

This is your belief from page 1 and you run away each and every time you are asked for quotes from your own sources to prove it. Do you really think everyone doesn't see right through you Legal?

Your belief system died a horrible death on the pike of science so now you run around talking about anything but your own belief about human produced climate change.

 

and you were shown to be incorrect.

I've given you 4 different experiments showing you how they work. Your rebuttal has remained "nuh uh", which is invalid.

 

Thanks.

Yup. They will resort to many different logical fallacies. Fabricating positions of others is one such fallacy.

And in addition to my prior comment, what they mean by Settled Science actually has nothing to do with science at all. When they use that terminology, what they mean is "any element of their faith that contradicts logic and/or physics".

Precisely!

 

Yet another completely fabricated strawman on your part...

My actual position is that Greenhouse Effect violates the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Stefan Boltzmann Law.

 

So, you are asking me if Humans, sometime way off in the future, given hundreds of years of new technology and spaceships, etc, can alter the climate on Mars?

You watch too much Star Trek.

 

Sorry...so the Greenhouse Effect violates Laws of Thermodynamics?

Just on a smaller scale then, how does a Greenhouse not violate the Laws of Thermodynamics?

 

Well...you did like the post (#707) wherein he explicitly made that claim and then you responded (#728 ) with a "well said" to his other post about how Climate Change rejects science. So that's why I asked you to clarify your own position. Do you believe AGW violates the Laws of Thermodynamics?

And again, I have provided you several posts (643 and 665) and data points to back up the theory that human based CO2 is the primary source of the current global warming event.

But perhaps you feel the need to get triggered again by me quoting your demands? Perhaps you'd like to use another circular argument? Or Maybe you want to use another priest that has been dead for 400 years to justify your beliefs today?

ROFL.

 

Yes, that is what I am asking. Can you answer now?

 

No. I think you need to focus on the present and quit making up stuff to try and prove something you can't prove.

You are not Cpt. Kirk and this is not Star Trek.

 

You really can not give me an answer to that question?

 

Because he's ticking your tailside that's why

Yes you keep making that fake claim but when you are asked to quote any part of any article that states 5.25% of CO2 production by humans is primarily responsible for climate change you run. And you've done it again which is course is no surprise.

Nope I'm quite content knowing your belief system has been shattered into a million pieces simply by asking you to quote any of your flat earther links where they outright claim with proof that 5.25% of CO2 produced by humans is the primary source of climate change

 

Closer to Captain Garth from that series.

"I am master of the universe, and I must claim my domain."
– Garth of Izar, 2268 ("Whom Gods Destroy")

 

Why are you making up nonsense? That is what your "position" has come to?

 

You dodged the question. Do you believe that AGW violates the Laws of Thermodynamics?

You also resorted to your circular argument again where you demanded a quote that you already know is not contained in the article. You are using your own conclusion as your evidence. That is a logical fallacy.

The other mistake that you repeatedly make is by ignoring the fact that the source of climate change is the accumulation of CO2 in the upper atmosphere. Of the 5.25% that humans produce each year over the last 250 years, roughly 40% has remained in the upper atmosphere. Of the accumulated CO2 in the upper atmosphere that has taken place over the last 150 years, a very conservative estimate is that ~75% are from humans. In all likelihood, the number is probably closer to 95%. See post #643 and 665.

 

Just ignore your inability to understand why I am asking the question and answer it.

 

There's nothing to dodge. I never made that argument.

Exactly. Thank you for finally admitting your own sources don't back up your flat earther theory. Even when I said you could quote any of your flat earther articles that state 5.25% of CO2 production by humans is the primary cause of climate change even they won't back you.

Game. Set. Match.

 

But you did like his post where he made that claim, then you responded with a well said to his post, and then I asked you the question directly. Let's see if you'll dodge it again.

Do you believe that AGW violates the Laws of Thermodynamics?

*******n, you think me recognizing that you employed a Circular argument is a good thing for you?

Relatedly, you think that intentionally deleting segments of the post that actually address the idiocy of your theory looks good to anyone else?

And I love how you think saying "Game. Set. Match." (complete with a smiley face!) is a winning strategy. How many times have you made that statement in this thread?

 

Why don't you walk us through your fantasy of acclimatizing Mars, since you can't prove your theory on earth.

 

After you answer the question of whether you think humans could.

 

It's your fantasy, explain yourself.