Why I dislike the AGW cult

Nope, AGW rejects those things, and this is why...

LOGIC: AGW zealots reject logic because they form their argumentation around words which are circularly defined (such as "global warming" and "climate change"). Circular definitions do not work; they are meaningless, as they do not make reference to anything outside of themselves. Thus, any argumentation based on such a circular definition is a void argument.

SCIENCE: AGW zealots also reject science, typically rejecting the laws of thermodynamics as well as the stefan boltzmann law. They have two main arguments: the "magick blanket argument" and the "bouncing photon argument". These arguments attempt to make heat flow uphill (from cold to hot instead of hot to cold, in violation of the 2nd LoT), and also attempt to decrease radiance of Earth while increasing temperature of Earth (the SB Law states that radiance and temperature are directly proportional).

MATHEMATICS: AGW zealots reject mathematics when they claim that a "global temperature" can be accurately measured using current technology. In actuality, there is no way to accurately measure it. The Earth is about 197 million sq miles. NASA (if I recall correctly) makes claim to about 7,500 land based thermometers (which are NOT uniformly spaced nor are they simultaneously read by the same observer, as required by statistical mathematics, but for sake of argument, I will assume that they are). That would mean that each thermometer covers an area of approx. 26,266 sq miles, or similar to the size of West Virginia. Now, do you really think that one thermometer can accurately measure the temperature of anywhere within West Virginia? Obviously not... especially when one thinks about the range and variance of temperatures... Temperatures have been observed to range from -128deg F to 134deg F (262deg F range) and have been observed to vary by as much as 20deg F per MILE and 49degF per TWO MINUTES. This shows the importance of close proximity and simultaneous reading of thermometers to get any sort of semi-accurate result. Thus, in order to bring the margin of error down to +-10deg F, we would need approx. 200 million thermometers, many more than NASA's 7,500...

BUT, but what about magickal satellites??!! Well, satellites do not measure absolute temperature; they measure light. The issue with converting that light reading into a temperature reading is that we don't know the emissivity of Earth. We don't know how much light is a result of Earth's radiation nor how much is a result of starlight, moonlight, etc... In order to figure out the emissivity of Earth, we would need to know what we are trying to figure out in the first place, the temperature of Earth. Thus, a chicken and egg issue...

AGW is nothing more than a religion based on a circularly-defined buzzword. It is a void argument. It rejects laws of science. It rejects statistical mathematics. I'm not going to believe in a religion which requires me to reject logic, science, and mathematics...

 

Name one of the universities of the thousands out there that has classified AGW as a religion.
Woo woo. You’re smarter then NASA, right ?

 

Inversion Fallacy. YOU seem to know nothing about it.

Science is not a university nor is it a research facility. It is a set of falsifiable theories. Some of those theories of science, which AGW models outright reject, are the laws of thermodynamics and the stefan boltzmann law.

Inversion Fallacy.

Science is not an "accepted authority". It is a set of falsifiable theories.

 

Well, you must have been the kid in the back of class picking your nose during science class.

 

Do you actually know what you’re talking about or did you just make three big words up.

 

Appeal to False Authority Fallacy. Science is not a university. It is a set of falsifiable theories.

On this particular topic, yes... yes I am.


I will also note that you didn't attempt to refute any of the arguments that I made in post #351.

 

The problem with your view is that you ignore why the topic of coral reefs comes up.

The problem intense negative effects of AGW happen in the longer term
It is a problem where continuously additive changes make small changes that get bigger and bigger over time. This is called geometric increase


In this sort of scenario, the problem starts out with a small “tail”
Which is where we are now with AGW
Never the less, the skeptic community insists upon seeing near term disaster before considering this a serious problem. And people (0alarmists) like al gore earnestly seek to deliver hyperbolic warnings of near term disaster in order to provoke action on the problem

AGW talk about things like the coral reefs only is a a way to illustrate that;
Indications of AGW impacts are already becoming evident... because that is what skeptics demand.
And discussions of coral reefs and such are not intended to “prove” AGW. You do not prove a hyperbolic problem by looking at the tail of the curve

So lets be clear.... the nature of hyperbolic impacts is such that probably neither you nor I will live to suffer the true catastrophes.

Apparently your argument is that you are annoyed by warnings of catastrophe while we are still in the tail of a geometric problem... where such catastrophes and their causation will be small and disputable. But, again, these issues are not the proof of the problem.... merely an illustration that the problem is starting on its trip up a hyperbolic curve

 

So, you’re smarter then NASA on AGW because NASA thinks AGW is a religion. So, what else does NASA think is a religion.
So, what religion do you beleive in ?

 

I'm referring you to the science which stands in the way of your AGW religion...

 

Yes, I am.

No, they don't. They think AGW is science. They are wrong. It is a religion based on a circularly-defined buzzword.

Irrelevant.

 

I believe in numerous religions. One of them is Creationism. Another one of them is Christianity. Another one of them is Evolution, although my faith in that religion is weaker than others. I am more agnostic with regard to the Big Bang.

 

You you don’t believe in evolution. I didn’t know creationism was a religion. I thought it was a belief .

 

Thank you for illustrating my point that global warming hysteria sucks up all the oxygen in the room and causes real pollution and solutions to it to be ignored.

 

Nope, it’s plenty relevant. What else does NASA beleive in that’s a religion ? If NASA is engaged in religious beliefs, we should know them all.

 

Here is a list of religions. I don’t see AGW listed among them.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions

 

How can one believe in both creationism and evolution at the same time ?
Btw, I don’t see elvolution listed as a religion either. Wouldn’t evolution be capitalized if it were a religion ?

 

You know myself better than I do, then... While I do not believe that Natural Selection is the driver of Evolution, since Natural Selection was once a theory of science but has since been falsified, I still do have a semi-weak faith that Evolution is true.

Yes, it is. It makes an initial circular argument and has other arguments stemming from it.

You're correct here. While it is a religion, it is also a belief.

 

What buzzword is that ? What math does it reject ?

Again, I don’t see evolution or AGW listed as a religion.

 

You'd have to ask NASA then... I just know that one of their religious beliefs is AGW... They mistakenly refer to it as science.

 

Wikipedia article ignored on sight. I do not accept Wikipedia as a source. It is too often incomplete, incorrect, and can be edited by virtually anyone.

There is no "master list" of religions. A religion, as defined by philosophy, is "an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from it".

 

AGW is not based upon science ?
So, NASA thinks that global warming is a religion and not based upon science.

In the definition of religion, it gives reference to the belief in a supernatural power. What supernatural power would NASA beleive in ? China ?

 

Because those theories do not conflict with one other. Evolution is the belief that current life forms are a result of mutations of earlier life forms. Creationism is the belief that life on Earth resulted from the action of an intelligence.

Wikipedia does not have a "master list" of all religions; there is no such "master list".

 

"Global Warming" is one such buzzword. "Climate Change" is another. Their definitions don't make reference to anything outside of themselves. Circular definitions do not work.

See my post #351 for the mathematics being rejected. Specifically, statistical mathematics is being rejected.

Wikipedia does not have a "master list" of all religions. There is no such "master list".

 

Not at all. It actually rejects currently standing laws of science. See my post #351 for more detail.

The opposite, actually. NASA thinks that it is science. It is my claim that it is religion instead of science.

Religion is not defined by a dictionary. Religion is instead defined by philosophy.

Religion does not require belief in any supernatural power (such as god(s) or the like)...

 

Do you have a background in science ?