Science of Global Warming

[Xywalan]

I'll probably respond later but at the moment I'm fucking bored. Let me quote your claim that started this thread:

I'm willing to debate the science of this with you in a separate forum. As I enjoy this argument and could literally go on for 100 pages, it would probably derail this current conversation to a significant degree. In fact, I implore you to open up a new topic on this subject, if you are truly confident that you can discuss the science behind the theory.

What I have seen so far, is very much what I have expected to come from an ill-informed ideologue. Not only you would like to deny AGW, you are also a young Earth creationist and your sources are bogus creationists who make up stuff and do no science. To be honest, the level of delusion and ignorance required to be all of these things is quite frankly beyond my comprehension. If you cannot accept the age of the Earth, then it is entirely pointless to discuss ice core samples that go at least a factor of ten beyond the supposed age of the universe in your model.

I mean, take for example the ridiculous link you posted: https://creation.com/do-greenland-ic...-annual-layers

I quote:

On the other hand, creationists view both the Greenland and Antarctica Ice Sheets as products of a post-Flood rapid Ice Age, plus the ice added after the Ice Age.5 In this model, annual layers would be very thick in the lower portion of the Greenland ice sheet (the Ice Age portion determined by the oxygen isotope ratio). Higher in the ice sheet the annual layer thickness would decrease. Since the Ice Age ended about 4,000 years ago, the compression of the ice sheet has been much less than uniformitarian scientists believe, but still substantial.6 So, one annual layer deep in the ice sheet may be interpreted by uniformitarians as 100 or even 1,000 ‘annual cycles’. However, instead of annual cycles, the oscillations simply represent variations within a single year.

Seriously? 1000 annual rings in one year???? How the fuck does that work? That during one year, snows a fuckton, then sun rises and a ton of dust settles, then snows a fuckton again and then a shit ton of dust settles and then it snows fuckton again, then sun rises and dust settles during each day for every day!

Uniformitarian scientists believe the Earth is billions of years old. As a result, they believe that ice ages have recurred in cycles many times over the last 2 to 3 million years. Thus, they assume that the Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets have existed for many millions of years. Furthermore, they believe these ice sheets have more or less maintained their present height in a state of equilibrium during all this time.

Nothing is assumed. It is all proven using data and analysis.

They think the amount of snow and ice added each year has been approximately balanced by the ice that is lost by melting and calving of icebergs into the ocean.

What? Absolute nonsense.

In the creationist model the ice over Greenland and Antarctica built rapidly for about 500 years during a speedy ice age.

Of course! Magic ice age built 1000 layers per year, i.e., 3 layers per day, every year for 500 years! No wonder creationists are a joke.

I could go on but I have seen this crap too many times; creationists do no science, collect no data, read no papers, they all make stuff up with no evidence. It is all boring, useless, silly, and a complete and utter waste of time.

[Xywalan]

Actually let me make this experience slightly useful for myself. I don't know how YEC reconcile the age of the universe in the 6k or 10k time span. So some questions:

1) Do you accept the size of the observable universe?

If not, then how do you rationalize the various methods to estimate the distances to the distant stars (parallax, standard candles etc.)?

2) If yes, then do you believe that God created a universe billions of light years in size and he also created (ie. made up) the light in transfer from the supposed (ie made up) past history of the stars?

3) Or do you think the light from the far stars actually moves faster than the speed of light?

[Sier]

What I have seen so far, is very much what I have expected to come from an ill-informed ideologue. Not only you would like to deny AGW, you are also a young Earth creationist and your sources are bogus creationists who make up stuff and do no science. To be honest, the level of delusion and ignorance required to be all of these things is quite frankly beyond my comprehension. If you cannot accept the age of the Earth, then it is entirely pointless to discuss ice core samples that go at least a factor of ten beyond the supposed age of the universe in your model.

You literally stated that the laws of thermodynamics are a suggestion, then accused me of ignoring evidence. But please, continue to call me ill-informed.

Nothing is assumed. It is all proven using data and analysis.

Let me fix your quote: Nothing is assumed. It is all "Estimated" using data and analysis.

Of course! Magic ice age built 1000 layers per year, i.e., 3 layers per day, every year for 500 years! No wonder creationists are a joke.

I could go on but I have seen this crap too many times; creationists do no science, collect no data, read no papers, they all make stuff up with no evidence. It is all boring, useless, silly, and a complete and utter waste of time.

"Sarcasm is the recourse of the weak mind." It works great for entertainment, not for discussion.

Actually let me make this experience slightly useful for myself. I don't know how YEC reconcile the age of the universe in the 6k or 10k time span. So some questions:

1) Do you accept the size of the observable universe?

If not, then how do you rationalize the various methods to estimate the distances to the distant stars (parallax, standard candles etc.)?

2) If yes, then do you believe that God created a universe billions of light years in size and he also created (ie. made up) the light in transfer from the supposed (ie made up) past history of the stars?

3) Or do you think the light from the far stars actually moves faster than the speed of light?

1. I accept the size of the observable universe. I do not accept the statement that there can only be one universe, that there is not additional galaxies outside of the scope of which we may detect, or that there are no additional realities.

2. This is one situation where I'm going to say "I don't know, but I offer you some scenarios". The light in transit is one of them. There are also several time dilation possibilities during the creation. For example: While God created the universe in 6 days, did time dilation play a role due to the lack of matter, gravity, and speeds involved?

I'm definitely not arrogant to state anything for a fact. I like to think I'm wise enough to at least state there are nearly infinite ways a supremely powerful creator could have created/bent/destroyed laws of nature during the creation process to make things work. We create laws to govern our own virtual worlds. God can do it to govern our own biological world. But again - I can only speculate on that particular line of thought.

3. I do not know. Can energy/matter move faster than light? Some science says no, some science says it may be possible for certain particles. I'm curious to know if I live long enough to see what all is discovered in this area, as breaking the light speed barrier will be almost necessary for casual space travel outside of our solar system.

[Xywalan]

1. I accept the size of the observable universe. I do not accept the statement that there can only be one universe, that there is not additional galaxies outside of the scope of which we may detect, or that there are no additional realities.

2. This is one situation where I'm going to say "I don't know, but I offer you some scenarios". The light in transit is one of them. There are also several time dilation possibilities during the creation. For example: While God created the universe in 6 days, did time dilation play a role due to the lack of matter, gravity, and speeds involved?

I'm definitely not arrogant to state anything for a fact. I like to think I'm wise enough to at least state there are nearly infinite ways a supremely powerful creator could have created/bent/destroyed laws of nature during the creation process to make things work. We create laws to govern our own virtual worlds. God can do it to govern our own biological world. But again - I can only speculate on that particular line of thought.

3. I do not know. Can energy/matter move faster than light? Some science says no, some science says it may be possible for certain particles. I'm curious to know if I live long enough to see what all is discovered in this area, as breaking the light speed barrier will be almost necessary for casual space travel outside of our solar system.

Fascinating!

So God also created "merging galaxies" or "galaxies that are in the middle of merging" I suppose just for fun, and "gravitational lensing" where we see a giant mass bends the light and we can see light from the same source take two different paths and thus arrive at two different times and thus we can see the same stars at different times of their lives. If you believe in instantaneous creation, then it seems that God was playful enough to work hard to give the impression that the universe if pretty old.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startsw.../#686c32222a70

In 1919, a solar eclipse proved one of Einstein's greatest predictions: that mass curves space, and causes starlight to bend.

With even more massive objects than stars -- like galaxies, quasars or galaxy clusters -- gravity can do more than just bend light slightly: it can act like a lens.

Just as optical lenses can focus or distort light, gravitational lenses curve space so significantly they magnify and stretch distant, background objects.

Occasionally, an even better alignment will create multiple images of the same object.

The curvature of space forces some light paths to take longer to arrive than others, meaning we're seeing the same background object at different times.

Most spectacularly, we've gotten to see a distant supernova "replay" itself due to this lensing effect.

So, God just made up all this for fun??

Seriously, nothing, nothing in science make sense under a Young Universe Hypothesis. It is beyond bonkers.

[Sier]

Please re-read my second point.

[Aristotle]

I don't mean this as a troll. I mean it as a warning to Xywalan. Read the quoted. Recognize that every word included in it speaks of one conclusion: Willful Disregard of Reality. Get out now. You will not succeed in convincing the religious of the ridiculousness of their abandonment of critical thought. They have a belief, and the world will either lie to itself and go along with that belief, or they will stick their fingers in their ears, loudly say "NANANANANANANANA" and use the most convoluted logic (as is very evidently displayed in the quote) to maintain their stance.

Don't continue to torture yourself. You knew coming in to this what you were going to get. You got it. Get out! Please.

Exactly.

And also, it is arguing with someone who has openly said: "I really don't care about the stats."

Debating and discussing things with people who live in the world of reality, logic, facts, and statistics can be very intellectually rewarding. This is true even when (or particularly when) they have a different opinion or viewpoint.

When arguing with people who rely on faith and belief to define the physical world, and openly and proudly ignore facts, stats, logic, reason, logic etc:

[Kirzad]

For the record: I am an atheist for many, many reasons, one of which is I just find the entire notion of deities out there controlling existence to be ridiculous. With the sheer amount of evidence to the contrary of deities and the amount of evidence supporting evolution, the big bang, etc. I find those who embrace the notion of deities to have questionable logic. However, that doesn't mean the individuals are not also intelligent. Sier is very intelligent and though I disagree with him on religion, and apparently a lot of fields of science, he's still a decent guy. Good to have a conversation with. He's intelligent, articulate and as far as I know a decent human being.

However:

Yadda yadda yadda, words words words....same scientific "evidence" as they call it .....more words. Something, something, whatever.

I find this repugnant

This is something I've noticed with Trump. I had never really paid much attention to it until I noticed how often he does it. Calling into question the validity of something that simply is, in this case 'evidence', and what it means, both in context to a discussion as well as on a broader spectrum. It's a powerful tactic in debates, even if it is really dumb. Whenever he can't make a point, or seeks to deflect, he will call into question something that is basically established.

By putting the word evidence into quotations, it calls the evidence into question. Not whether or not it is accurate, but whether it's even a thing at all. It's like it's implying it's some made up thing and believe me, it's very made up. Yuge, YUGE lie. And there's photos of it. You wouldn't believe it. But trust me, it's true, and it's *waves tiny hands around* it's, let me say that it is a smear job and those scientists are traitors. Covfefe.

I find the entire practice to be...I don't even know the right word to describe just how abhorrent it is.

It would be like calling they color of the sky into question. Having a debate about it, and mid way, getting: "This supposed sky, they call it blue. Yeah right. Let me tell you, there is no sky. There's only a big, freaking' dome and I gotta tell ya, it ain't blue.They're LIARS! Liars, and they want to trick you."

[Aristotle]

This is something I've noticed with Trump. I had never really paid much attention to it until I noticed how often he does it. Calling into question the validity of something that simply is, in this case 'evidence', and what it means, both in context to a discussion as well as on a broader spectrum. It's a powerful tactic in debates, even if it is really dumb. Whenever he can't make a point, or seeks to deflect, he will call into question something that is basically established.

...

I find the entire practice to be...I don't even know the right word to describe just how abhorrent it is.

Exactly.

It is an entire political philosophy based on variations of saying: "I really don't care about the stats."

Because they don't.

Trump and his minions are a group of people characterized by:

• No Empathy: they have a tremendous lack of empathy for others - especially those outside their "tribe"
  
  
• Deny all facts: they deny facts, science, evidence, statistics, data with tremendous aplomb. They don't even blink an eye. When verifiable, reproducible, established facts don't suit how they want the world to be, they simply ignore it, call it "fake", and dismiss it out of hand.
  
  
• Belief is Paramount: their beliefs, which are based on absolutely nothing more than emotion, are unassailable. No amount of counter examples, evidence, facts, truth, reason, or logic can ever shake them.
  
  
• Incredible Selfishness - they simply don't care about other people. It is terrifying.
  
  
• Tolerance for Evil: no amount of evil or wrongness matters if the evildoer is in their "tribe." Note all the religious whackos saying they didn't care if Kavanaugh was a rapist - if he will vote against Roe v. Wade it is worth it. Even Billy Graham's pastor son said this. Insanity. You don't care if a Supreme Court judge is a rapist?!?!
  
  Children ripped away from their families? No big deal in their eyes. Also, they consider it a good thing because maybe it strikes fear in the hearts of anyone else who might try to come here for a better life. Trump Defends Separating Families at the Border Fucking monstrous.
  
  Calling neo-nazi protesters "some good people" and the hundreds of other examples fit here too.
  
  
• Love of Cruelty: if their actions and policies can cause direct harm to their political and philosophical opponents, then the action is worth pursuing - even if there is no upside or personal gain. Causing real harm to others has its own merit because anyone who doesn't share the same belief system is the enemy. The Cruelty is the Point.

That is why this is different than any other time in our country.

This is not simply a matter of differences of opinion.

Trumpism is pure, unadulterated evil and a denial of reality and truth. That is why it is so dangerous and harmful to the very soul and purpose of our society.

Never in my life has there ever been a movement in the US with this much power and absolutely no redeeming value.