Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[Toddsterpatriot]

..best to shut down the conversation rather than endlessly try to explain why there is no actual evidence to support the position.

The conversation isn't being shut down. It's simply being moved here.

.

The topic has been removed from the general discussion and relegated to a place where believers don’t have to experience the discomfort of being asked for evidence that they cannot produce.

It is censorship, it is being done for a specific reason, and it does effectively silence skeptics...

Personally I like having you around and I don't think you should be censored.

That said, you do spam a lot of threads that aren't relevant to your comments.

Also, you demand proof from others but are unwilling to produce any yourself.

He's learned one thing, every time he posted a source, it disproved his claims.
He'll never post another real source again.
That, combined with the fact that he's never had a source confirming his
one-way only flow of photons or his "objects stop radiating at equilibrium" silliness means he'll mostly just
whine and say, "I already disproved your claim".

 

[SSDD]

..best to shut down the conversation rather than endlessly try to explain why there is no actual evidence to support the position.

The conversation isn't being shut down. It's simply being moved here.

.

The topic has been removed from the general discussion and relegated to a place where believers don’t have to experience the discomfort of being asked for evidence that they cannot produce.

It is censorship, it is being done for a specific reason, and it does effectively silence skeptics...

Personally I like having you around and I don't think you should be censored.

That said, you do spam a lot of threads that aren't relevant to your comments.

Also, you demand proof from others but are unwilling to produce any yourself.

Your inability to provide observed measured evidence to support your point proves my point

 

[SSDD]

..best to shut down the conversation rather than endlessly try to explain why there is no actual evidence to support the position.

The conversation isn't being shut down. It's simply being moved here.

.

The topic has been removed from the general discussion and relegated to a place where believers don’t have to experience the discomfort of being asked for evidence that they cannot produce.

It is censorship, it is being done for a specific reason, and it does effectively silence skeptics...

Personally I like having you around and I don't think you should be censored.

That said, you do spam a lot of threads that aren't relevant to your comments.

Also, you demand proof from others but are unwilling to produce any yourself.

He's learned one thing, every time he posted a source, it disproved his claims.
He'll never post another real source again.
That, combined with the fact that he's never had a source confirming his
one-way only flow of photons or his "objects stop radiating at equilibrium" silliness means he'll mostly just
whine and say, "I already disproved your claim".

What a dreamer you are...an opinion added by an author after explaining what a physical law says hardly makes your point or disproves mine...but if such imaginings help you get your jollies......

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

..best to shut down the conversation rather than endlessly try to explain why there is no actual evidence to support the position.

The conversation isn't being shut down. It's simply being moved here.

.

The topic has been removed from the general discussion and relegated to a place where believers don’t have to experience the discomfort of being asked for evidence that they cannot produce.

It is censorship, it is being done for a specific reason, and it does effectively silence skeptics...

Personally I like having you around and I don't think you should be censored.

That said, you do spam a lot of threads that aren't relevant to your comments.

Also, you demand proof from others but are unwilling to produce any yourself.

He's learned one thing, every time he posted a source, it disproved his claims.
He'll never post another real source again.
That, combined with the fact that he's never had a source confirming his
one-way only flow of photons or his "objects stop radiating at equilibrium" silliness means he'll mostly just
whine and say, "I already disproved your claim".

What a dreamer you are...an opinion added by an author after explaining what a physical law says hardly makes your point or disproves mine...but if such imaginings help you get your jollies......

Cool story bro.

And sources that back up your equilibrium fantasy?

 

[flacaltenn]

That's what this thread is for.. CONTAIN those rodeos in THIS thread

here we go again.....

THIS thread is for the folks in that latter category who are just fillibustering EVERY GW thread with their "alternative science"

what do you consider 'alt science'......??

~S~

Obviously for the purposes of this thread -- it would be denial of the 2 items in the title of this thread.. Denial that there even IS a GreenHouse efffect and that CO2 CANNOT be a GHouse gas and --- denial that gases can absorb and re-emit Infra Red photons that travel from a "cooler sky" to the "warmer surface"...

That last part is the Thermodynamics of Radiative heating that is just glossed over in most Thermo 101 courses, but it's solid theory in support of ALL the other laws of thermodynamics.. There's over 100 pages of repetitive debate on these things at the end of at least 20 threads in this forum -- if you care to sample the "debate"....

 

[flacaltenn]

So alt science is merely more propagandized science

thanks for clearing that up Wu

~S~

No not really what the poster said.. It's simply wrong.. But for some folks, it's less work to attack the basics of how this planet isn't a gigantic chillyburger, than it is to read all those papers on GW and DEBATE THAT... AND there's conspiracy quacks in the nether reaches of science that feed this crowd..

It's really OUTSIDE of just denying GWarming in any shape or fashion, it's more of "everything we know about the atmosphere and surface temperature equilibrium is wrong"...

 

[flacaltenn]

..best to shut down the conversation rather than endlessly try to explain why there is no actual evidence to support the position.

The conversation isn't being shut down. It's simply being moved here.

.

The topic has been removed from the general discussion and relegated to a place where believers don’t have to experience the discomfort of being asked for evidence that they cannot produce.

It is censorship, it is being done for a specific reason, and it does effectively silence skeptics...

Of course it's NOT censorship.. It's librarian duty.. USMB wants threads be unique. That means discussion has to be "on-topic"... Hijacking threads with the same shotgun assertions is illegal..

HOWEVER -- you're TOTALLY FREE to create your OWN threads on these assertions and argue as long as there is anybody to argue with... Or use THIS ONE...

How can that be censorship?

 

[flacaltenn]

The conversation isn't being shut down. It's simply being moved here.

.

The topic has been removed from the general discussion and relegated to a place where believers don’t have to experience the discomfort of being asked for evidence that they cannot produce.

It is censorship, it is being done for a specific reason, and it does effectively silence skeptics...

Personally I like having you around and I don't think you should be censored.

That said, you do spam a lot of threads that aren't relevant to your comments.

Also, you demand proof from others but are unwilling to produce any yourself.

He's learned one thing, every time he posted a source, it disproved his claims.
He'll never post another real source again.
That, combined with the fact that he's never had a source confirming his
one-way only flow of photons or his "objects stop radiating at equilibrium" silliness means he'll mostly just
whine and say, "I already disproved your claim".

What a dreamer you are...an opinion added by an author after explaining what a physical law says hardly makes your point or disproves mine...but if such imaginings help you get your jollies......

Cool story bro.

And sources that back up your equilibrium fantasy?

........................ and they''re off !!!!

To be fair -- these folks who have consumed the bad gas station shushi science are generally more knowledgeable about the details of GW that a large segment of the "warmers"... It's just that they've chosen the harder road to go about it..... Because they have to invent alternate reasons for how atmospheric physics works..

 

[SSDD]

Obviously for the purposes of this thread -- it would be denial of the 2 items in the title of this thread.. Denial that there even IS a GreenHouse efffect and that CO2 CANNOT be a GHouse gas and --- denial that gases can absorb and re-emit Infra Red photons that travel from a "cooler sky" to the "warmer surface"...

First, I have never said that there was no greenhouse effect...I have said that there is no radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science...second, I have never said that CO2 is not a so called greenhouse gas and have certainly never said that it doesn't absorb and emit radiation...and all of you warmers like to say that it emits radiation from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer earth, but don't seem to be able to provide a measurement of a discrete band of radiation moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface unless you use an instrument that is cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...

That last part is the Thermodynamics of Radiative heating that is just glossed over in most Thermo 101 courses, but it's solid theory in support of ALL the other laws of thermodynamics.. There's over 100 pages of repetitive debate on these things at the end of at least 20 threads in this forum -- if you care to sample the "debate"....

That last part isn't a theory...hell it is barely hypothesis and a piss poor one at that...the fact that you warmers don't like to admit is that there has not been a single peer reviewed, published paper in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to so called greenhouse gases...What sort of "solid" theory can't even point to a single published paper containing empirical data in its support?

And the reason there is 100 pages of debate is that it is the crux of the discussion...if you only allow discussion of models, you have nothing but a preacher spewing dogma to a congregation...when you shut down conversation about the failure of those models and why, you become a censor, a purveyor of dogma, and little more than a cult.

 

[SSDD]

So alt science is merely more propagandized science

thanks for clearing that up Wu

~S~

No not really what the poster said.. It's simply wrong.. But for some folks, it's less work to attack the basics of how this planet isn't a gigantic chillyburger, than it is to read all those papers on GW and DEBATE THAT... AND there's conspiracy quacks in the nether reaches of science that feed this crowd..

It's really OUTSIDE of just denying GWarming in any shape or fashion, it's more of "everything we know about the atmosphere and surface temperature equilibrium is wrong"...

Conspiracy quacks...great name calling... Can't bring yourself to simply say skeptics can you? And I note that you suggest that anyone who posts in this thread is a denier...you are going all in on the anti science rhetoric these days, aren't you?

 

[SSDD]

Of course it's NOT censorship.. It's librarian duty.. USMB wants threads be unique. That means discussion has to be "on-topic"... Hijacking threads with the same shotgun assertions is illegal..

Of course it is censorship...and it appears that USMB wants its threads to be unique, just like every other warmest site...and for any discussion that involves the AGW hypothesis, the TOPIC is whether the hypothesis is worth its weight in dirt.

HOWEVER -- you're TOTALLY FREE to create your OWN threads on these assertions and argue as long as there is anybody to argue with... Or use THIS ONE...

How can that be censorship?

Relegating the books to a locked room where one must accept being identified as a "denier" before entering is as effective as burning the books. It is a means of silencing critics...congratulations.

 

[fncceo]

I'm more than willing to debate any of the effects of man and nature on the climate. But, I reject the idea that piling huge mountains of money on politicians and bureaucrats is the solution to anything.

 

[SSDD]

To be fair -- these folks who have consumed the bad gas station shushi science are generally more knowledgeable about the details of GW that a large segment of the "warmers"... It's just that they've chosen the harder road to go about it..... Because they have to invent alternate reasons for how atmospheric physics works..

"these folks who have consumed the bad gas station shushi science"

You really are all in on the anti science denier rhetoric aren't you? Is one sort of name calling inherently better than another type of name calling? You want to be the thought police also and comment on the intent behind the name calling?

And since your models don't work...and the models are based on the physics you accept, it is clear that another road is necessary...and if you take some time to look at the history of science...getting science off a failed tangent and back onto the right path has always been a harder road...it isn't a road for sheep...or people who need to be part of a heard...and require that others agree with them....I am a bit surprised that you fall into that category even though you have always been a luke warmer.

 

[sparky]

Can't bring yourself to simply say skeptics can you?

More the players & their biases SSDD

They, as well as their influences , should be fairly obvious to anyone on top of the issue

~S~

 

[sparky]

getting science off a failed tangent and back onto the right path has always been a harder road..

Grabted, our scienecs can be imperical , but i see little real hard scientific opposition

Only 'alt science' propaganda , which is not science

thx


~S~

 

[SSDD]

getting science off a failed tangent and back onto the right path has always been a harder road..

Grabted, our scienecs can be imperical , but i see little real hard scientific opposition

Only 'alt science' propaganda , which is not science

thx


~S~

Unfortunately, there isn't much money in skepticism...there never has been and even skeptics have to eat. That is why it often takes a very long time to get science off its flawed tangents....a very long time indeed.

 

[sparky]

Unfortunately, there isn't much money in skepticism...there never has been and even skeptics have to eat

Polluters are the biggest skeptics , who have a LOT to loose ......

Trump buildings face millions in climate fines under new New York rules

According to data shared with the Guardian, eight Trump properties in New York City do not comply with new regulations designed to slash greenhouse gas emissions. This means the Trump Organization is on track to be hit with fines of $2.1m every year from 2030, unless its buildings are made more environmentally friendly.

According to city officials, the president’s eight largest New York properties pump out around 27,000 tons of planet-warming gases every ear, the equivalent of 5,800 cars

~S~

 

[sparky]

did someone mention sheepeople?

~S~

 

[cnm]

I'm more than willing to debate any of the effects of man and nature on the climate. But, I reject the idea that piling huge mountains of money on politicians and bureaucrats is the solution to anything.

Top denial. Kudos.

 

[Wuwei]

...and all of you warmers like to say that it emits radiation from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer earth, but don't seem to be able to provide a measurement of a discrete band of radiation moving from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface unless you use an instrument that is cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere...

You have stated that back radiation cannot move to warmer earth many times, but it is a circular argument and contradicts other areas of physic.

You assume your radiation restriction and then say you can only measure radiation with a colder instrument because of the very assumption you are making. It's circular. When back radiation is measured from a cooled instrument you simply brush that off and imply it would disappear if the instrument was not cooled for no given reason.

The idea of radiation exchange is perfectly reasonable and accepted by the entire body of science because it does not contradict other areas of physics and physical measurements.


.