Theologians Think Theyâre Smarter Than Stephen Hawking
- Thread starter Free Thinker
- Start date
You insult me when you are the nut bag. You are flipping the positions of the parties.
I am asking for science and you want me to respond with faith in your unproven speculation.
lets review....
1. multiverse - unproven speculation.
2. Idea that CO2 causes warming... no proof, no science, no correlation with the data.
Just show me the data or the science.
Quote from stu:
Won't matter how many time you repeat the vid it won't change the fact that you are wrong.
But as I day it does show how wrong you must be...so be my guest, post it again.
How can I be wrong... I simply present their videos and papers on the subject.
1. you deny penrose - see video and explanation on this thread
2. you deny hawking - see the paper presented on this thread
3. you deny even what dawkins says - see video above
God forbid you use logic and put two and two together.
Simple question for you. Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Yes or no.
We already played this game.
By definition it is
But that does not mean it the accumulation of the gas is not caused by warming.
Fact Ice core data show that warming precedes CO2 buildup and Cooling precede the dissipation of CO2. (your greenhouse gas)
Question for you?
Where does the gas go?
When are you going to realize you have no science saying CO2 causes warming... just conjecture.
OK, so good CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Climatology 101 test question
Given that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, if everything else stays constant, if CO2 levels increase what would be the most probable reaction?....
a) temperature remains the same
b) temperature decreases
c) temperature increases
...if this test is passed the student may move on to more esoteric subjects such as "fine-tuning" and other areas of theoretical physics.
Well that's untrue. I'm a little too busy to provide you with individual references, but you can find numerous sources on this page:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-comprehensive-review-of-the-causes-of-global-warming.html
you still do not understand causation and you did not answer my question... where the hell does the gas go when temperatures cooled
so first answer my question...
Given the ice core data..
if temperature goes up... would you expect CO2 to be more concentrated or less.
if temperature goes down would you expect CO2 to be more concentrated or less.
So where does the gas go?
I saw conclusions in the article but no data or science showing CO2 accumulation causes warming.
When you do regression analysis the way it appears they did it... you a left with x% of warming for which no cause is attributed.
These studies seem to be attributing that unexplained portion of warming to man. But, that is a guess by the people making the conclusions.
I could just as easily guess... that the unexplained portion is natural because they did not rule out all other natural causes.
The truth is we do not know.
1. I saw the video, you post it whenever your argument is confused or lost, which is all the time. You're still wrong and Iâve already said why.
2. I saw the paper. You present it whenever your argument gets befuddled and ignorant , which is all the time. You're still wrong and Iâve said why.
3. I've seen the video above, you post it whenever you seem to think it's clever to be irrational and absurd, which is all the time. You're still wrong about what he says and I've explained why.
You must be mesmerized by the false assertions you make from those vids and the paper, and so keep referring to them as if theyâll one day change to fit what you want them to. Do you go to the same movie a hundred times to see if it will end differently?
If not, why keep referring to the same things a hundred times, when the pre-conclusions you draw from them have been debunked and refuted a hundred times. The outcome is always going to be you are wrong, unless you can present something else in response that cannot be knocked over.
Of course you canât and thatâll be why you keep posting them. Sad.