31 Oct 19
1 edit
@metal-brain saidObviously, the said "greenhouse theory" would be the theory that the greenhouse effect is true. The greenhouse effect IS true. There is a combination of various forms of proof that its true.
I have never even heard of greenhouse theory
31 Oct 19
@humy saidThen prove it if you are so confident it can be done. Show me the proof.
Obviously, the said "greenhouse theory" would be the theory that the greenhouse effect is true. The greenhouse effect IS true. There is a combination of various forms of proof that its true.
31 Oct 19
3 edits
@metal-brain saidOf the greenhouse effect? Are you STUPID?
Then prove it if you are so confident it can be done. Show me the proof.
Basic physics tells us that the greenhouse effect must exist else all the known laws of physics are wrong and the surface of Venus would be MUCH cooler that what it is and thus it would be a huge scientific mystery if the greenhouse effect didn't exist!
If you want the proof of the greenhouse effect you need for just once in your life LEARN real science and physics and not just assume you already know it all and better than all the scientists that say you are wrong. Start here;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
and here;
http://www.pas.va/content/dam/accademia/pdf/acta22/acta22-ramanathan.pdf
"...Empirical Evidence for the Greenhouse Effect
...
Our understanding of the greenhouse effect and global warming is based on fundamental laws of physics, chemistry and thermodynamics. The green-house effect has been measured directly by high precision radiometers on satellites and the feedback processes through which the greenhouse effect warms the planet have also been measured. In addition, there is unambiguous empirical evidence for the link between the greenhouse effect and global warming.
..."
31 Oct 19
@humy saidThat is greenhouse effect, not greenhouse theory. Apparently wildgrass made it up just as I implied.
Of the greenhouse effect? Are you STUPID?
Basic physics tells us that the greenhouse effect must exist else all the known laws of physics are wrong and the surface of Venus would be MUCH cooler that what it is and thus it would be a huge scientific mystery if the greenhouse effect didn't exist!
If you want the proof of the greenhouse effect you need for just once in your life ...[text shortened]... unambiguous empirical evidence for the link between the greenhouse effect and global warming.
..."
I never said there was no greenhouse effect. I have acknowledged water vapor is a greenhouse gas in the past. Now, back to what we were talking about again. What about the greenhouse theory? Does the term really exist or did wildgrass make it up?
31 Oct 19
4 edits
@metal-brain saidright; Greenhouse theory is the theory that the greenhouse effect exists. Your point?
That is greenhouse effect, not greenhouse theory.
First I said
"...The greenhouse effect IS true. There is a combination of various forms of proof that its true."
Then you said in response to the above;
"..Then prove it if you are so confident it can be done. Show me the proof...."
Which I then just did so you have nothing to complain about other than complain I yet again exposed you as a moron.
I never said there was no greenhouse effect. I have acknowledged water vapor is a greenhouse gas in the past.That's because its a scientific fact. Its also a scientific fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and thus that's part of the greenhouse effect and thus the greenhouse theory.
Now, back to what we were talking about again.We never left.
What about the greenhouse theory?What about it?
You have just admitted the greenhouse effect exists.
The greenhouse theory IS the theory that the greenhouse effect exists.
Therefore you have just admitted the greenhouse theory IS true.
I showed you the proof that the greenhouse effect exists and that it is partly caused by CO2 therefore I have showed you the proof of the greenhouse theory.
So... your point is...? Nothing!
You complained I couldn't prove it. Then I proved it. What is so difficult for you to understand here?
WOW you are obtuse!
31 Oct 19
@humy saidCould be, again doesn’t mean that it is! Any assumptions that leads us into errors changes everything, depending upon how huge the wrong assumption are, the larger the errors.
...is probably the truth, or at the very least is the most likely one to be the truth out of all other alternative explanations, simply because it IS the most rational explanation.
In contrast, an irrational explanation, especially if it is without some sort of premise or evidence, is probably false because its an irrational explanation. Example; Goddidit.
31 Oct 19
7 edits
@kellyjay saidObviously, whenever we are dealing with what is true or false in the real world, we necessarily have to deal with probabilities albeit often with probabilities that given huge evidence are greater than 99.9999%. But that fact doesn't excuse having stupid beliefs based on no evidence.
Could be, again doesn’t mean that it is! Any assumptions that leads us into errors changes everything, depending upon how huge the wrong assumption are, the larger the errors.
So, given all available evidence known, is the most rational explanation the most likely one or not?
Should we ever assume an irrational explanation over a perfectly rational one?
31 Oct 19
@Metal-Brain
There is such a thing as Greenhouse THEORY. The study of greenhouse effects, which ones are the most important and so forth.
But your statement was clear also, WATER is a greenhouse gas.
You also know methane is a GW gas but you seem to deny the role of CO2 as a GW gas.
It IS a GW gas as much as you want to put it down.
You use data from millions of years in the past to say temp rise preceded CO2 rise by just using data available ATT and taking that as infallible.
You can't be sure the data from that time period is accurate and you can't know for sure if other GW gasses were around back then also, like NO2 from volcano's and such.
31 Oct 19
@metal-brain saidyou still don't know what a theory is? the definition has been provided multiple times in this thread.
That is greenhouse effect, not greenhouse theory. Apparently wildgrass made it up just as I implied.
I never said there was no greenhouse effect. I have acknowledged water vapor is a greenhouse gas in the past. Now, back to what we were talking about again. What about the greenhouse theory? Does the term really exist or did wildgrass make it up?
31 Oct 19
@humy saidWhat is greenhouse theory? You don't need CO2 for a greenhouse effect. Is there anything specifying saying that CO2 is part of the greenhouse theory? After all, you don't have to accept CO2 is the cause of the greenhouse effect to accept a greenhouse effect.
right; Greenhouse theory is the theory that the greenhouse effect exists. Your point?
First I said
"...The greenhouse effect IS true. There is a combination of various forms of proof that its true."
Then you said in response to the above;
"..Then prove it if you are so confident it can be done. Show me the proof...."
Which I then just did so you have nothing to ...[text shortened]... 't prove it. Then I proved it. What is so difficult for you to understand here?
WOW you are obtuse!
Are we talking about greenhouse theory or the greenhouse effect? You moved the goal post.
01 Nov 19
@wildgrass saidNo, I know that string theory is not a theory according to that definition. I also know that the assertion that CO2 causing the greenhouse effect is not a theory according to the definition of a scientific theory. It is an hypothesis.
you still don't know what a theory is? the definition has been provided multiple times in this thread.
I know this fact bothers the alarmist crowd but it is a fact. There is no evidence that CO2 causes GW. There are many other things that could be causing it including methane. Any assertion that CO2 is the culprit is a guess and nothing more.
01 Nov 19
@humy saidYou cannot give probabilities on the start of the universe, the only thing you know is it is here. How do you fix a percentage on your top three possibilities with respect to how the universe got here, can you even list three?
Obviously, whenever we are dealing with what is true or false in the real world, we necessarily have to deal with probabilities albeit often with probabilities that given huge evidence are greater than 99.9999%. But that fact doesn't excuse having stupid beliefs based on no evidence.
So, given all available evidence known, is the most rational explanation the most likely one or not?
Should we ever assume an irrational explanation over a perfectly rational one?
01 Nov 19
@humy saidNo evidence that isn't true.
Obviously, whenever we are dealing with what is true or false in the real world, we necessarily have to deal with probabilities albeit often with probabilities that given huge evidence are greater than 99.9999%. But that fact doesn't excuse having stupid beliefs based on no evidence.
So, given all available evidence known, is the most rational explanation the most likely one or not?
Should we ever assume an irrational explanation over a perfectly rational one?
Space, time, energy had to start, so what caused them isn't bound to the limitations of space, time, and energy that seems like evidence to me that the universe didn't create itself, something that transcends space, time, and energy did. I'll be happy to see how you came up with the percentages you give each possibility, including your top three. I'm not clear how you came up with that could be thought of as rational or irrational explanation too, is it just because you like the ideas and they fit your world view or is there something systematic outside of your personal beliefs?