We have five days to live according to scientists.

Define "climate change".

Land DOES sink... Land shifts around all the time. That's why it is not possible to measure a "global sea level". There is no valid reference point.

 

Climate.gov › climate-tech › readin...
Reading between the tides: 200 years of measuring global sea level | NOAA ...

 

If you do not know what climate change is why are you here arguing?

 

A government agency/website is not science, nor is it mathematics. False Authority Fallacy.

It is not possible to measure "global sea level". There is no valid reference point.

 

Because I am pointing out that "climate change" is an undefined buzzword. It is utterly meaningless. It is a rejection of logic to base argumentation upon such a buzzword.

I am also here to counter members of the Church of Global Warming, who believe that the Earth is somehow defying science by warming via Greenhouse Effect.

 

you've been shown, repeatedly, simple jr. high science experiments which show how greenhouse gasses can, do and are causing warming. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about when it comes to science, and your arguments are "nuh uh" in the face of proven science and experimentation.

But, I'll give you all the rope you need. Please provide your experiment or scientific evidence that shows green house gasses can not cause warming.

 

Well I ain't no civil engineer but in this case I reckon more than one reference point would be needed. Water finds its own level.... And to argue that parts of the ocean were higher than others can't be argued by you.... right? Because according to you no reference point is possible. We could leave it there and discuss other symptoms of climate change. Because it is pointless to argue sea level rise which someone that thinks the measurements are impossible.

 

Again it is pointless to argue global warming with someone that thinks the greenhouse effect denies science. So, with no greenhouse effect people can leave children in cars during hot summer days with the windows rolled up. The car won't get hot enough to kill children because there is no greenhouse effect.

 

So you admit he's not a climate scientist. You're just citing random nobodies.

Newsweek? Meanwhile, here's what the published science of the era was saying. Most scientists were predicting warming. By the end of the 1970s, everyone was predicting warming.

Oh good, yet another anecdote from something you remember seeing on the TV. I detect a pattern.

So, you reference "_In Search Of_", as narrated by Leonard Nimoy. Since one of my points is how you rely so exclusively on media infotainment instead of actual science, I thank you for again proving that point so conclusively.

Facts are what they are. If you find facts to be "divisive", I can't remedy that. I'm not going to go all PC with the facts just to spare your feelings.

The hard data says that view is incorrect. We know the earth is warming strongly, even though natural factors are now pushing it towards slow cooling. We know humans are the cause of that strong warming. We know the strong warming will continue, and that it will be harmful. There's plenty of room for debate on how harmful and what to do about it, but there's no question that it's happening.

I just debunked your Fallacy of the Single Cause. So what did you do? You ignored the debunking and repeated the fallacy again.

And that proof is still irrelevant to the fact that humans are changing climate right now.

"More" was never predicted. "Worse" has been confirmed.

What you're doing is entirely faith-based, and that's trivial to show. Real science can be falsified. Global warming theory can be falsified by realistic hard data in many different ways. Your beliefs can't be falsified, which puts them firmly in the category of pseudoscience or religion. If you disagree, then name some realistic examples of hard data that would disprove your beliefs.

Flat-earthers say that kind of stuff as well, about how they're persecuted for their beliefs, which proves how awful the other side is. Nobody cares. The facts are what they are.

As I never said or implied any such a thing, that's a very dishonest statement on your part. Why did you make such a dishonest statement?

 

By your standard there, flat-earthers or antivaxxers should not be told their understanding is lacking. I reject such political correctness.

You started it, so something about heat and kitchens comes to mind.

Here's the thing. You can't just _say_ you've shown contradicting beliefs or arguments on our part. You have to _demonstrate_ it. You haven't.

Where's the contradiction?

What you don't get is that nobody disagreed with you about deforestation. You just incorrectly assumed I disagreed, based on your misunderstanding of the issues. Deforestation is a minor source of CO2 compared to fossil fuel burning, so it's not the primary focus. That doesn't mean it's ignored.

If you want to believe that you're the ultimate victim, we won't be able to convince you otherwise. Just understand that it's not a good look for anyone.

Got it. Anyone who debunks your incorrect claims, bad arguments and fallacious logic is an awful person, and thus the debunkings don't count. That's one way to avoid the pain of cognitive dissonance.

 

: roll:

Climate cabanas HAS been defined and sea level changes have been tracked.

It is all in the IPCC reports

 

One would think so eh?
Apparently it is waaaaaay more complex with actual ocean heights being affected by landmass gravity, prevailing trade winds El Niño vs La Niña etc etc

This apparently is one of the reasons why places like Tuvalu are experiencing higher sea level rises

 

My gods but spellcheck comes up with some doozies at times

 

"You've Been Shown" mantra... "Lack Of Intelligence" mantra...

No Argumentation Presented.

 

How does one measure a "global sea level"?

Land moves, you see... You can't have a moving reference point.

There is no reference for what you would call "global sea level" except global sea level.

 

It does. It denies the laws of thermodynamics and the stefan boltzmann law. Describe Greenhouse Effect without denying those laws of science.

False Equivalence Fallacy. You are attempting to equate a closed convective system (inside a car) with an open one (Earth's atmosphere). That's not Greenhouse Effect. That's just describing how a greenhouse works. That's simply the sun heating the car and everything within it via the car's clear windows and frame. Heat is reduced via that decoupling between the "car air" and the "outside air", so the "car air" stays warmer for longer. If you had a car with a trunk, you could instead sit inside the trunk (rather than the cabin) and it would be MUCH cooler.

 

you ignore argumentation, experimentation and peer reviewed scientific papers. Your rebuttal amounts to "nuh uh". You have a laundry list of scientific arguments which have destroyed your position, that you have completely ignored and refused to address.

 

this has been proven false, repeatedly.

here is a simple experiment performed by junior highschool students. https://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/files/archive/activities/ts1hiac1.pdf

present your experiment that proves theirs is incorrect.

 

The IPCC is full of schiff. You have no valid reference point to measure "global sea level".

 

Inversion Fallacy.

Experimentation, peer review, and papers are not science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

Inversion Fallacy.

Nope, the only science presented has been by me.

 

This "experiment" violates logic. It is committing the False Equivalence Fallacy, as it is attempting to equate a closed convective system (a greenhouse) with an open one (Earth's atmosphere).

There are several issues just within the "Concepts" alone...

[1] Heat is not thermal energy. Heat is the FLOW OF thermal energy.
[2] Heat cannot be "trapped".
[3] Global Warming is circularly defined, thus is a meaningless buzzword.

 

we've already established you don't know what this means.

when you make statements like this related to science, all you are doing is showing you have no idea what you are talking about regarding science.

we've already established you don't know what this means.

this is demonstrably false.

 

as predicted, your rebuttal is "nuh uh". You have completely failed to substantiate your claim with any evidence or experimentation, while I soundly refuted your claim using both evidence and experimentation.

nope. heat is synonymous with thermal energy.

proven falsehood. heat is trapped all the time. Your winter coat, the pink insulation in your home, the atmosphere of the earth etc all trap heat.

also demonstrably false.

Now, maybe you can try and actually provide some evidence to support your claims. we both know of course that you won't, because you can't.

 

logicallyfallacious.com is not logic. I have already told you what an Inversion Fallacy is.

"Lack of Intelligence" mantra. (LOI Mantra) No argumentation presented. (NAP)

LOI Mantra. NAP.

Argument of the Stone Fallacy.

 

and established that you don't know what it means.

don't make demonstrably false statements and nobody will point them out. simple.

incoherent rambling.

we established you don't know what this means as well.