Atmospheric volume and atmospheric pressure are defying physics under the Global Warming hypothesis
Beam Me Up Scotty
> Ever do those back of envelope calculations on how much volcanic
> growth would be necessary to increase sea level by 3 mm / year?
>
>
> Bret Cahill
Almost the same as the ice that would have to melt at the NORTH and
SOUTH poles to make the ocean level increase by 3 mm / year.
Water/ice or rock, they are about the same inch for inch since neither
will compress any great deal under normal conditions.
AGW Facts
<Then-Destro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> Atmospheric volume and atmospheric pressure are defying physics under
> the Global Warming hypothesis
Okay, I'll bite. Whqat is your "Global Warming hypothesis?"
Beam Me Up Scotty
My hypothesis is that it's a phony issue designed to scare people into
giving up freedom and taxes to the power hungry governments.
No one has proven that Man has caused any warming.
You might as well give a tithe to "your" God as to pay the evil Global
Warming God or sacrifice a virgin to it.
Global Warming is NO MORE based in science, than God is based in science.
--
Helping the poor use their money more wisely is better than government
gifts allowing more waste.
http://www.ebates.com/rf.do?referrerid=Ho50UCJGk3FsQj%2F6nmqZVA%3D%3D
http://www.swagbucks.com/refer/c234545
Gary Forbis
Everyth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> On 7/21/2011 3:53 PM, AGW Facts wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 15:45:24 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
> > <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
> >> Atmospheric volume and atmospheric pressure are defying physics under
> >> the Global Warming hypothesis
>
>
> My hypothesis is that it's a phony issue designed to scare people into
> giving up freedom and taxes to the power hungry governments.
>
> No one has proven that Man has caused any warming.
>
> You might as well give a tithe to "your" God as to pay the evil Global
> Warming God or sacrifice a virgin to it.
>
> Global Warming is NO MORE based in science, than God is based in science.
Yeah, It's all bunk since it is quite obvious that all that is today
is the
result of a random event last tuesday that created the universe to be
as it is today with the appearance of a history. Man could no more
cause an event prior to space and time than could a non-existent
God.
If you believe otherwise then first prove there was a time and space
prior to last tuesday.
Beam Me Up Scotty
Since I don't believe in any of it, I need not prove anything.
Global Warming and God are reality for someone else, it would be like I
was trying to prove unicorns and Bigfoot don't exist.
AGW Facts
<Then-Destro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> On 7/21/2011 3:53 PM, AGW Facts wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 15:45:24 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
> > <Then-Destro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Atmospheric volume and atmospheric pressure are defying physics under
> >> the Global Warming hypothesis
> >
> > Okay, I'll bite. Whqat is your "Global Warming hypothesis?"
> My hypothesis is that it's a phony issue designed to scare people into
> giving up freedom and taxes to the power hungry governments.
Okay, so you mean you are a hysterical alarmist nutter. Golly,
you're just one of thousands.
> No one has proven that Man has caused any warming.
No one had proven that Man even exists. Nobody is trying to prove
AGW happened; no scientist says it can be proven.
> You might as well give a tithe to "your" God as to pay the evil Global
> Warming God or sacrifice a virgin to it.
Appears Mental.
> Global Warming is NO MORE based in science, than God is based in science.
Nobody claimed global warming is based on science: it is not.
Global warming is an observed phenomena caused by human-produced
CO2 (an observed fact): it is not science---- climatology is.
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 21:37:12 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
> <Then-Destro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/21/2011 3:53 PM, AGW Facts wrote:
>>> On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 15:45:24 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
>>> <Then-Destro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Atmospheric volume and atmospheric pressure are defying physics under
>>>> the Global Warming hypothesis
>>>
>>> Okay, I'll bite. Whqat is your "Global Warming hypothesis?"
>
>> My hypothesis is that it's a phony issue designed to scare people into
>> giving up freedom and taxes to the power hungry governments.
>
> Okay, so you mean you are a hysterical alarmist nutter. Golly,
> you're just one of thousands.
Hystarical NO.... aware of peoples duplicitous nature, YES.
Gary Forbis
Everyth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> Since I don't believe in any of it, I need not prove anything.
>
> Global Warming and God are reality for someone else, it would be like I
> was trying to prove unicorns and Bigfoot don't exist.
I've been thinking about this. Here's the problem. Evidence
deniers aren't in the same category with myth denyiers.
Once evidence is given then there is only an explanation
for it. You can deny one explanation or another but I will
trust the majority of informed people over the majority of
uninformed, knowing the informed make mistake and the
scientific method will constantly improve the explanations
and suggest more tests to decided between competing
theories.
AGW Facts
<Then-Destro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 14:58:38 -0600, AGW Facts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 21:37:12 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
> > <Then-Destro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 7/21/2011 3:53 PM, AGW Facts wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 15:45:24 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
> > > > <Then-Destro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Atmospheric volume and atmospheric pressure are defying physics under
> > > >> the Global Warming hypothesis
> > > >
> > > > Okay, I'll bite. Whqat is your "Global Warming hypothesis?"
> >
> > > My hypothesis is that it's a phony issue designed to scare people into
> > > giving up freedom and taxes to the power hungry governments.
> >
> > Okay, so you mean you are a hysterical alarmist nutter. Golly,
> > you're just one of thousands.
> >
> > > No one has proven that Man has caused any warming.
> >
> > No one had proven that Man even exists. Nobody is trying to prove
> > AGW happened; no scientist says it can be proven.
> >
> > > You might as well give a tithe to "your" God as to pay the evil Global
> > > Warming God or sacrifice a virgin to it.
> >
> > Appears Mental.
> >
> > > Global Warming is NO MORE based in science, than God is based in science.
> >
> > Nobody claimed global warming is based on science: it is not.
> > Global warming is an observed phenomena caused by human-produced
> > CO2 (an observed fact): it is not science---- climatology is.
> Hystarical NO.... aware of peoples duplicitous nature, YES.
What? I'm sorry: I only understand English.
Beam Me Up Scotty
You mean as the *STATIC UNIVERSE THEORY* was eventually proven false
but enjoyed many years of consensus....
I could have denied that the universe was static back then.... No matter
what the consensus was, the universe kept expanding. It's NOT a crisis
it's science.
The problem isn't in believing or NOT, the problem is when one group
suggests that the other has "no Right to disagree" and when science says
it can use non science to "substantiate their claims" while suggesting
they have the science.
I'm open to Global Warming, just not open to the mythical global warming
that doesn't have the science to back up the claims. The simple fact
that consensus is even used, shows that the science is NOT settled. If
the science was concrete they would use the science and NOT fall back
onto a week and non science position of "we have a consensus".
If we use "consensus" then that could be used as proof that God exists.
Will you accept that God exists if I concede that Global Warming
exists? Interestingly I can't show proof that Global Warming or God
exist.
The first sign that Global Warmign is a hoax is that the supporters feel
the need to use "consensus" as proof of its existence. From that
point, start to examine the science, it's incomplete and draws a
conclusion and then hunts for selective facts that are needed to get
people to believe in it.
Start with the simple and work to the more complex and see how that all
falls out with the truth. Simple Physics says that the standing
presumptions and hypothesis are not yet supported by science.
Beam Me Up Scotty
>
> What? I'm sorry: I only understand English.
That's debatable.
From the evidence I've seen, you speak Liberalish very well.