UN: Global warming 95% likely to be manmade
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
You must be an engineer. :roll:
All other things are never equal. You really are stupid eh? Now if there are absolutely no other factors the temperature will remain about the same but of course that depends on the size and wattage of the compressor motor and the size of the room. So like I said, you never have a situation where all things are equal. Come back when you get some real world smarts and leave the theoretical world behind.
Sadly, the science does respond to the funding, and as we saw with the UN and East Anglia University, the results can be bought
No it doesn't. I rather expect you to know the difference between science and politics, cap.
You must be an engineer. :roll:
All other things are never equal. You really are stupid eh? Now if there are absolutely no other factors the temperature will remain about the same but of course that depends on the size and wattage of the compressor motor and the size of the room. So like I said, you never have a situation where all things are equal. Come back when you get some real world smarts and leave the theoretical world behind.
Sorry, you're wrong. The temperature will not remain the same. It will heat up. The longer the door to the fridge is open, the warmer the room will get.
You're sitting here calling me stupid, and yet you're telling me you have a refrigeration ticket and had no idea that waste heat load is greater than the cooling in any refrigeration system.
Must you wear your ignorance like a badge of honour?
You must be an engineer. :roll:
All other things are never equal. You really are stupid eh? Now if there are absolutely no other factors the temperature will remain about the same but of course that depends on the size and wattage of the compressor motor and the size of the room. So like I said, you never have a situation where all things are equal. Come back when you get some real world smarts and leave the theoretical world behind.
The principle of a fridge is that it exchanges cold air for hot. In a closed room the air would exchange and be in a state of equalibrium except that the exchanger will produce more heat in it's operation. This heat will heat the room. Of course, if you vent out the hot air then the room should cool.
What this has to do with the fairy tail of man-made climate change is beyond me.
If you read back in thee thread, you can find the context.
Also, if you familiarize yourself with the debate, you'd find that there are not a lot of people calling AGW a fairy tale. Even the primary skeptics like Lindzen and Spencer, readily admit a role for humans in global warming. They just don't think it is necessarily alarming.
Last edited:
It is an unteresting and IMHO unproven theory. Not ready to drink the kool aid.
I've linked to probably hundreds of papers on this site, and many have been direct replies to you CM. In the end those who have already made up their minds won't care, and won't believe it anyways. It's human nature that I can link to the psychological studies for too...If they're feeling intrepid they might dig in and try to pick fault with one word in the reports I've linked to.
Really what specifically would you like to see Captain? The studies on the top of the atmosphere radiation budget? How about the studies showing the lower troposphere warming while the stratosphere above it cools? How about the isotope analysis showing the origin of the carbon dioxide?
The principle of the matter is a simple scientific fact that has been known for centuries that people in their ignorance think is made up now to get tax dollars. That's really the most idiotic line of denial there is on this subject.
That's how science works...I run a study, and my data refutes a null statistical hypothesis. I don't have some tool that says, yep, you're 100% correct, completely and conclusively proven.
That's just not how it works, and it never will. If you're going to make your living in this field, you have to accept that uncertainty that what you provide as evidence today may one day be shown to be incorrect.
It is telling us to investigate the corruption within science, not the method, but the religion. You see science, the religion, is full of humans and they like to do human things like run up gambling bills, drink till they publish, and of course invent drugs to befuddle themselves with.
Science is not above the human problem.
You're a religious man with a mission to convert the heathen masses.
I find it quite interesting myself, both from a science and public policy persepctive. Proof is a construct of logic. It doesn't exist in the natural sciences.
It is telling us to investigate the corruption within science, not the method, but the religion. You see science, the religion, is full of humans and they like to do human things like run up gambling bills, drink till they publish, and of course invent drugs to befuddle themselves with.
Science is not above the human problem.
Science is a religion in many ways. It's got its tenets and creed. It requries belief in the abstract.
But it differs from the more traditional religions in a significant way. The truths of religion are ancient and eternal. The truths of science are discovered and transitory. In order to practice science correctly, you must be prepared to surrender your world-view to a superior theory. This is something that humans do very poorly.
Um. . . no, it isn't. As you prove in your next paragraph.
That's not "a" difference. It's the antithesis of religion. Religion asserts that it has the sole, invariable, and inviolable truth. Science knows that a theory is only good until the data show otherwise.
Science is proven logic. It is considered proven when you can run the same test with the same parameters many times concluding with the same results. Then you have a scientific fact.
Belief without proof is called faith. Faith is religion. Unproven logic is theory which requires faith for belief ergo it is religion.
If you cannot provide proven logic in natural science (which really you can, just not for AGW) then it isn't science.
Now back to the historical fact....Where on this graph do you see us anywhere close to an average global temperature that we haven't seen before all of which were followed by cooling cycles?
Really we are at the cooler end of the climatic cycles over the last 10,000 years aren't we?
By conclusive, I mean no longer a THEORY.
Get back to me when you have that done... In fact, let me know when the doom-sayers can actually come up with a functional model.... Better yet, when they can lose the word "likely" in the phrase "UN: Global warming 95% likely to be manmade"
Is is made up to collect tax dollars... Has this reality somehow escaped you that ONLY the Western nations are expected to reduce AND transfer cash to DEVELOPING nations so they can affect whatever dumb-azz logic that will result in them bumping their consumption.... Not exactly a plan to save ole Mother Gaia now, is it?
Is any of this sinking in yet?
No that isn't how it works at all. See "Fallibilism." Or "Falsifiability." Or "null hypothesis."
No, that isn't how it works at all.
No that isn't how it works at all. The Theory of Relativity is unproven. The Theory of Evolution is unproven. The Theory of Gravity is unproven. Quantum Mechanics is a theory. All theories that are well known and used in science.
Well, first off, your graph doesn't show global temperature. It shows the temperature of Greenland. So you see, Nick, underlining and bolding the word "fact" doesn't make it any more factual, does it. The issue is the carbon dioxide concentration. The recent rise is not something that is cyclical.
Can you name me something in science that isn't a theory?
There is great debate and doubt about the utility about all of them. While their study has produced very many new questions I don't think they're near the debate ending hammer they once were.
You know what comes next, right? He starts talking about the "laws" of physics, unaware that these so-called "laws" are merely theories, and that the terminology is inexact. The language of science is mathematics, and putting science into words merely turns it into another tool for politics. Hence the global warming "debate."