CLIMATE CHANGE VS PLANTARY HEAT RETENTION.

[exrai]

I don't believe in Climate Change "as how its been described as a threat to the world"

 

I even think its a term meant solely for confusing people about the correct topic which is...

 

PLANTARY HEAT RENTION, which is the following.

 

Thermodynamics & WHAT COOLS THE PLANET?

( I'd theory the cold vacuum of empty space does)

Earth heats from the sun each day on both sides,

as space syphons its excess off & more at nights!

If we can't agree on this most basic concept the debate goes nowhere as I don't think your smart enough

to understand the interworks of how the earth's climate is effected by all these defined systems & laws.

So rule 1 you can't not dispute Thermodynamics as a concept, as its mostly fact you can try to debate my

Idea of it is wrong, but it looks pretty solid so good luck with that endeavor as it will win you no debate pts.

With that off the table we have to debate the actual (theoretical)causes of the planets heating & cooling.

Climate Change Supporters must agree with their set definition that is the fault of gas "Emissions".

The concept that certain gases hold in heat & or reflect heat from the sun, defend this statement.

Planetary Heat Retention Supports must pose other reasons for the heating excess, if there even is.

First Up is explaining how neutral non heat energy is generated & stored then released as HEAT.

Concept one, chemical heat, every time we light a gas or any other fire we heat up the planet.

Concept two, heat sources, Chemical, Electricity, Body Heat, Fires, Magma Pressure As Well.

The overall concept is we animals & more so humans with Fire/Electricity HEAT UP THE EARTH.

I see no way to debate this fact, now Climate Change Supporters must disprove heat generation

as the MAIN CAUSE for the global warming, as they can't have it both ways, either its Emissions or not.

I'm in the firm camp that if Emission played such a huge impact in the temperature we would see

massive swings where the planet would instantly freeze or boil if a few gases swapped places.

AKA if a sun blocking gas was 80% of the gas then the world freezes, here are the numbers

78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93 argon, 0.04, carbon dioxide. OF EARTHS GASES.

Which means you should conclude that your global warming via emissions are caused within the

1% gas changes, now you can say we are losing some of the Nitrogen/Oxygen % in the process.

But I'd find it hard to believe such small changes are even remotely comparable to actual HEAT!

THIS IS THE PREMISE PROVE ME WRONG, & IF I'M CORRECT IT SIMPLY MEANS THE EARTH

Simply is cooled off by the cold vacuum of empty space for X amount of degrees each day/night.

& the excess built up by heat generation is mostly taken away, each cycle but if not the case then

WE WOULD HAVE HUGE ISSUES WITH AKA HEAT RETENTION!

NOW DEBATE!

Edited August 13, 2021 by exrai

[ScytheBearer]

Science vs pseudo science.
Science vs superstition.
Science vs deliberate ignorance.

Science vs conspiracy theories.

Science vs half truths.
Science vs a lack of critical thinking. Hell, let's be honest with this one. Science vs a complete lack of rational thought.

 

The science was settled long ago. Nobody has to prove to you that you are wrong.

 

In fact, I suspect nobody will be able to prove to you just how wrong you are. You will cling desperately to your pseudo science, your superstitions, your deliberate ignorance, your conspiracy theories, your half truths, and your complete lack of rational thought, regardless of any proof presented.

 

 

 

The hardest part about gaining any new idea is sweeping out the false idea occupying that niche. As long as that niche is occupied, evidence and proof and logical demonstration get nowhere. But once the niche is emptied of the wrong idea that has been filling it — once you can honestly say, ‘I don’t know’, then it becomes possible to get at the truth. - Robert A. Heinlein, The Cat Who Walks Through Walls

Edited August 13, 2021 by ScytheBearer

[HeyYou]

The climate IS changing. That is an established fact. WHY it is changing is what is up for debate. We have hardly scratched the surface on understanding all the factors at play. Humans ARE influencing the climate. That too is established fact. Sure, the climate changes for it's own reasons, at this point though, the human contribution is accelerating the RATE of change.

[exrai]

ScytheBearer, your why we can't have rational debates,

The science was settled long ago. Nobody has to prove to you that you are wrong.

 

(Disclaimer the rest of what you posted was right if said in the context that you generally directed it to everyone vs just

against me as counter to my concept, with In fact, I suspect nobody will be able to prove to you just how wrong you are.)

(^ that statement applied generally to people makes sense, people can be wrong & stubborn in their believes, however

this is not the case for myself as I'm openly accepting proper proof of claims for Emissions aka Climate Change & such.)

 

(I feel you attacked my position on the debate so I defend it, but I give you the benefit of the doubt if this isn't the case.)

 

 

THAT NOTION IS WRONG, YOU DO HAVE TO PROVE IT & CITE YOUR SOURCES.

Thats why its a debate, both sides argue why they believe they are right.

 

I outlined YOUR SCIENCE as described in the media & wiki & experts, THEY BLAME "EMISSIONS"

 

NOW ALL I ASK IS YOU SHOW ME HOW THEY PROVED IT WAS CAUSE OF "EMISSIONS"

& YOU MUST DISPROVE ITS NOT HEAT GENERATION MY COMPETING THEORY!

 

If you can't address those two things, then your not helping the debate by saying they did the research.

 

MORE SO WHEN I BELIEVE THE RESEARCH IS NOT THERE, where can I find a video showing how certain

the set amounts of gases listed about interact in such a way with sun light that shows how much heat

​it retains against the cold vacuum of space.

 

NO SUCH RESEARCH HAS BEEN DONE, the only so called "research" is the observations seen around the world & them

picking their brains trying to figure out what to attribute it cause to, WHICH IS REVERSE SCIENCE & simply them Guessing.

 

Its 100% clear that only 2 factors play a role in temperature, which are the following.

 

1.The temperatures of the matter outside the Container AKA EARTH, which is Space(COLD), & the Sun(HEAT)

2. & the internal reactions occurring within the container, AKA people & nature & their heat generation factors.

 

THAT IS DEFINED SCIENCE! IF you have nothing to add beyond you claim they did "proper" Emission Studies. Then don't comment.

 

I HATE TO SAY IT BUT YOUR NOT SMART ENOGUH TO FOLLOW THE DEBATE OR YOUR TO TRUSTING OF THE ACCEPTED THEORY!

 

AS THEY ARE BOTH THEORIES.

Edited August 14, 2021 by exrai

[exrai]

Current Points For DEBATE

 

 

1pt for Climate Change, 1pt for Planetary Heat Retention, 1pt for Undecided, 1pt for believe the experts which doesn't add pts.

^Experts ^Me ^HeyYou ^ScytheBearer?

 

 

1pt for Earth Titling Theory

^Pagafyr

Edited August 14, 2021 by exrai

[ScytheBearer]

ScytheBearer, your why we can't have rational debates,

The science was settled long ago. Nobody has to prove to you that you are wrong.

 

 

THAT NOTION IS WRONG, YOU DO HAVE TO PROVE IT & CITE YOUR SOURCES.

Thats why its a debate, both sides argue why they believe they are right.

 

 

And therein lies the evidence of your failing. You are the one denying established science and claiming that science is wrong. You are the one opposing all of the established data. Yet you provide no proof, no evidence, no facts, no citations, no papers. All you provide is a lot of half-assed psuedo science, some irrational claims, some false assumptions and a bunch of half truths. You are the one who must PROVE your position. The world already has all the proof it needs in the science you already claim is false.

 

So, as I said before, there is no proof which will show you how wrong you are because there is no room in your irrational, delusional, unreasoned thinking for the truth.

 

I am too old and too tired to waste time on you. So you go ahead rail on in you ignorance and your inability recognize reality. Your foolishness falls on deafened ears.

[exrai]

Proof, evidence, facts, citations?

 

Proof of what, Proof of "Laws of Thermodynamics" that is pretty well established science.

 

Evidence, I suppose I can cite your same absurd Evidence too, observations seen around

the world & attribute it to my Claim, THE ICE IS MELTING IT MUST BE HEAT GENERATION!

 

SEE ITS ABSURD! FACTS ARE VERY CLEAR I'M STATING THE WORLD DOES HEAT UP!

I'm just blaming it on a seemingly more proper science based reason & that threats you!

 

TAKE YOUR PICK , POINT YOUR FINGERS, WHICH IS IT...

"QUESTIONABLE EMISSIONS" OR "LOGICAL REAL HEAT"

 

(THE FOLLOWING IS PARODY, BUT IS THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IN A NUTSHELL)

 

THE ICE IS MELTING! There is no science beyond common sense in this notion.

THE ONLY QUESTION IS THE FOLLOWING! WHY IS THE ICE NOW MELTING!

 

Because its warmer?

 

NO DUH SHERLOCK!

 

So we blame HEAT!

 

WHAT PRODUCES HEAT!

 

The Sun, okay, THE HITTING THE CLOUDS, OKAY, IT MUST BE CLOUDS! I follow, WHAT IS IN CLOUDS, Gases Okay.

DO WE ALTER GASES, eureka WE INDEED DO!, I PRESENT CLIMATE CHANGE.

 

UMM OKAY...

 

But what else make heat.

 

NO NO NO LETS JUST INGORE ALL THAT!

 

---------------------------------------------------------

Anyways this proves my position none the less.

As my position is stating I have my own Theory.

As shown above, anyone can have a THEORY

& I base my own theory on what produces heat?

WELL ENOUGH HEAT TO CAUSE ALL YOU IDIOTS TO PANIC!

 

No other proof has to be presented on Theories. Only on how I came to the conclusion.

As has been flawlessly laid out above as Parody, its very very very Scientific I promise!

Edited August 14, 2021 by exrai

[exrai]

ScytheBearer, this is LITERALLY YOU!

 

Science vs pseudo science.
Science vs superstition.
Science vs deliberate ignorance.

Science vs conspiracy theories.

Science vs half truths.
Science vs a lack of critical thinking

 

YOUR UNIVERSAL DUMB COUNTER to me simply posing the possibilities of

"WHAT IF ITS NOT THE EMISSONS" Then me showing own my Theory of Why.

 

I WAS UNAWARE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD'S CONSIDERED PSEUDO SCIENCE.

The funny part is my theory is 99% of your theory(Climate Change) just it drops

"Emissions" in favor of "HEAT GENERATION", which is totally plausible & logical.

 

Your stuck having to proof "Emissions" alter the earths temperature over time,

little by little as humans pollute the air with byproducts from whatever source.

 

& all I have to do is state HEAT IS HOT & PEOPLE GENERATE HEAT!

 

PLUS you can't argue I'm wrong about the fact I'm generating body heat.

Maybe argue its not enough heat to alter the temperatures of the earth.

BUT IS THAT STILL TRUE IF YOU COUNT THE HEAT FROM ALL THE LIFE

ON THE PLANET+FIRES+ELECTRICITY & MAGMA PRESSURE! COMBINED!

Edited August 14, 2021 by exrai

[Deleted54170User]

On Friday

10:21 PM MDT

August 13, 2021

 

I leave you with this theory. And notes from my personal observations of the Sun rising each morning since mid June for 60 days now.

 

The first time I noticed the sun was not rising in the East out of my eastern facing window I became attentive. It has risen in the Northeast more each day.

 

I read reports from Kalispell, Glacier National Park, that they had temperatures has high as 113 degree F. during the beginning of July 2021. It got so hot the highway in their Northwestern area was buckling in places. I have seen concrete sidewalk sections buckled pushing up against each other.

 

I In my opinion the situation is not a climate change as such. Just a change of climate for the location that the Earth's North to South tilt has caused to face into the Sun more. It is focused more along the 49th to 50ieth Parallel's during it's early rise just about along the line of the border of the USA and Canada far to the northeast in the morning, and that is causing the locations to get more heat from the beam of the Sun's center, and as it travels across the part of the Earth facing the Sun where it's new path is along the new parallels to cause the temperatures to change.

[colourwheel]

This type of debate is so old. The problem is no matter what rational or irrational data is thrown at anyone, it never changes anyone's opinion about what they believe. No one is going to be able to prove anyone right or wrong on this topic because it always ends up the same. You either believe the science or you don't. In most cases even if someone makes a compelling enough argument there never been an instance that I have ever witness where someone comes forward and says, " Wow you are so right. I have always been so wrong this entire time!"

 

If man drops 100 nuclear bombs in one concentrated area I doubt anyone going to deny that anything has changed around it. It's my strong opinion that Man is the major contributor to escalating climate change because it's obvious we are capable of such a thing. Now that said Climate is always changing with or without mans help, but it's my firm belief that we are the major contributor to it's escalation and can be to the point of making this planet completely inhabitable either by slowly poisoning the planet or simply just dropping a big enough bomb on it.

Edited August 14, 2021 by colourwheel