Remember me
▼ Content

2016 set to be hottest year on record



Page 3 of 4<1234>
24-08-2016 23:05
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Hank wrote:
I'm new here but saw where someone asked about the rate of temperature increase from 1998. From the NASA data file the 2015 global temperature was 0.855 C above the base period. The 1998 anomaly was 0.63 C above the base period. That difference was 0.225 C over an 17 year period which calculates to 0.013 C per year. At that rate by 2100 the temperature would be an additional 1.125 C above the 2015 value.


We do not have the ability to measure or calculate anything like a global temperature. We simply do not have the instrumentation for it.

Anyone who claims a global temperature is manufacturing data.

So you keep saying, but you're talking total nonsense of course.
24-08-2016 23:22
Hank
★☆☆☆☆
(77)
If it was nonsense then the antenna would not work and it would take 10 times as long to produce an antenna that would work as it would be trial and error instead of analysis. It's apparent you don't understand the concept but that doesn't make it nonsense or false. I will assume from your reply that you have no interest in the evidence. And that's unfortunate.
24-08-2016 23:36
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Hank wrote:
If it was nonsense then the antenna would not work and it would take 10 times as long to produce an antenna that would work as it would be trial and error instead of analysis. It's apparent you don't understand the concept but that doesn't make it nonsense or false. I will assume from your reply that you have no interest in the evidence. And that's unfortunate.

I was replying to Into The Night's comment, not yours!

You clearly do know what you're talking about. Into The Night, on the other hand, remains convinced for reasons of his own that scientists are incapable of measuring a change in the Earth's temperature. Statistical methods are simply voodoo as far as he's concerned, but then he does tend to struggle with the simplest of calculations.
25-08-2016 01:35
Hank
★☆☆☆☆
(77)
I'm sorry about the mix-up Detail and thanks for the comment. As I said I just got here and I'm sure it will take a few posts to get the hang of things. Haven't figured out how to reply to another post yet.
25-08-2016 03:19
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5148)
Surface Detail wrote:
Hank wrote:
If it was nonsense then the antenna would not work and it would take 10 times as long to produce an antenna that would work as it would be trial and error instead of analysis. It's apparent you don't understand the concept but that doesn't make it nonsense or false. I will assume from your reply that you have no interest in the evidence. And that's unfortunate.

I was replying to Into The Night's comment, not yours!

You clearly do know what you're talking about. Into The Night, on the other hand, remains convinced for reasons of his own that scientists are incapable of measuring a change in the Earth's temperature. Statistical methods are simply voodoo as far as he's concerned, but then he does tend to struggle with the simplest of calculations.


Statistics cannot save you.

The problem is simply not enough sampling points. Temperature can vary by as much as 20 deg F in a single mile. A thousand thermometers in the city will not compensate for no thermometers in the mountains nearby. Vast regions of the world have no thermometers at all.
Satellites won't even help you. They are nothing more than a moving thermometer at best.

Weighing the existing ones is not a valid statistical technique. The randomness of the sample is not independent of the sampling method.

The other problem is also one of definition. Do you include the air above the surface? How high? Do you include the ocean water? How deep? Do you include the material under the surface? Just what is the global temperature drawn from?


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 25-08-2016 03:21
25-08-2016 20:04
Hank
★☆☆☆☆
(77)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Hank wrote:
If it was nonsense then the antenna would not work and it would take 10 times as long to produce an antenna that would work as it would be trial and error instead of analysis. It's apparent you don't understand the concept but that doesn't make it nonsense or false. I will assume from your reply that you have no interest in the evidence. And that's unfortunate.

I was replying to Into The Night's comment, not yours!

You clearly do know what you're talking about. Into The Night, on the other hand, remains convinced for reasons of his own that scientists are incapable of measuring a change in the Earth's temperature. Statistical methods are simply voodoo as far as he's concerned, but then he does tend to struggle with the simplest of calculations.


Statistics cannot save you.

The problem is simply not enough sampling points. Temperature can vary by as much as 20 deg F in a single mile. A thousand thermometers in the city will not compensate for no thermometers in the mountains nearby. Vast regions of the world have no thermometers at all.
Satellites won't even help you. They are nothing more than a moving thermometer at best.

Weighing the existing ones is not a valid statistical technique. The randomness of the sample is not independent of the sampling method.

The other problem is also one of definition. Do you include the air above the surface? How high? Do you include the ocean water? How deep? Do you include the material under the surface? Just what is the global temperature drawn from?


I asked you this on another thread. Guess you didn't see it but here it is again. You seem to be very familiar with statistical analysis. That being the case, how many thermometers would it take to be sufficient to accurately measure an increase in the global temperature?
26-08-2016 00:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5148)
Hank wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Hank wrote:
If it was nonsense then the antenna would not work and it would take 10 times as long to produce an antenna that would work as it would be trial and error instead of analysis. It's apparent you don't understand the concept but that doesn't make it nonsense or false. I will assume from your reply that you have no interest in the evidence. And that's unfortunate.

I was replying to Into The Night's comment, not yours!

You clearly do know what you're talking about. Into The Night, on the other hand, remains convinced for reasons of his own that scientists are incapable of measuring a change in the Earth's temperature. Statistical methods are simply voodoo as far as he's concerned, but then he does tend to struggle with the simplest of calculations.


Statistics cannot save you.

The problem is simply not enough sampling points. Temperature can vary by as much as 20 deg F in a single mile. A thousand thermometers in the city will not compensate for no thermometers in the mountains nearby. Vast regions of the world have no thermometers at all.
Satellites won't even help you. They are nothing more than a moving thermometer at best.

Weighing the existing ones is not a valid statistical technique. The randomness of the sample is not independent of the sampling method.

The other problem is also one of definition. Do you include the air above the surface? How high? Do you include the ocean water? How deep? Do you include the material under the surface? Just what is the global temperature drawn from?


I asked you this on another thread. Guess you didn't see it but here it is again. You seem to be very familiar with statistical analysis. That being the case, how many thermometers would it take to be sufficient to accurately measure an increase in the global temperature?


Answered in that other thread.


The Parrot Killer
28-08-2016 16:53
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(133)
I thought you were a parrot killer. Instead, you're just another parrot.
28-08-2016 17:59
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5148)
Leafsdude wrote:
I thought you were a parrot killer. Instead, you're just another parrot.


When you're reduced to comments like this, you're already dead, parrot.


The Parrot Killer
28-08-2016 23:51
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
2017 is already set to be declared the hottest year of the instrument record.


2018 is already set to be declared the hottest year of the instrument record.

2019 is already set to be declared the hottest year of the instrument record.


The gullible are the target audience.


.
29-08-2016 05:58
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5148)
IBdaMann wrote:
2017 is already set to be declared the hottest year of the instrument record.


2018 is already set to be declared the hottest year of the instrument record.

2019 is already set to be declared the hottest year of the instrument record.


The gullible are the target audience.


.


Aw come on. That was a spoiler if I ever saw one! You gotta WARN people before you do that!


The Parrot Killer
30-08-2016 14:23
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(133)
When you're reduced to comments like this, you're already dead, parrot.


Argument of the stone.
30-08-2016 18:40
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5148)
Leafsdude wrote:
When you're reduced to comments like this, you're already dead, parrot.


Argument of the stone.


Yup. Yer dead. You can't even use informal logic correctly.


The Parrot Killer
30-08-2016 19:31
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(133)
Yup. Yer dead. You can't even use informal logic correctly.


Well, considering I was using it like you do to mock you (that is, randomly and incorrectly), that says quite a lot.


Though, in fairness, I didn't use it to get out of a losing argument without admitting I was wrong, so I guess I didn't quite mock you as accurately as I could.

Edited on 30-08-2016 19:53
31-08-2016 05:14
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5148)
Leafsdude wrote:
Yup. Yer dead. You can't even use informal logic correctly.


Well, considering I was using it like you do to mock you (that is, randomly and incorrectly), that says quite a lot.


Though, in fairness, I didn't use it to get out of a losing argument without admitting I was wrong, so I guess I didn't quite mock you as accurately as I could.

Still no argument from you. Yer still dead, parrot.


The Parrot Killer
31-08-2016 13:31
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
2017 is already set to be declared the hottest year of the instrument record.

2018 is already set to be declared the hottest year of the instrument record.

2019 is already set to be declared the hottest year of the instrument record.


The gullible are the target audience.


.


Aw come on. That was a spoiler if I ever saw one! You gotta WARN people before you do that!

I only gave away the beginning. I never mentioned that 2020 is thereafter set to be declared the hottest year of the instrument record, followed by 2021 and 2022. By then the Church of Global Warming will perform the most awesome disappearing act.

...but this is just between us. Close hold.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
31-08-2016 14:26
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(133)
Still no argument from you. Yer still dead, parrot.


Yeah, no argument except for the multiple arguments that you ran away from with a fallacious claim of fallacy. *shrug*

Just admit it, you don't want a fact-based argument that leads to the truth, you just want to be right. If you didn't, you'd admit when you're incorrect instead of just shouting "argument of the stone" at the top of your lungs every time someone makes detailed, point-by-point rebuttals of your arguments.
Edited on 31-08-2016 14:38
31-08-2016 16:57
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Leafsdude wrote:Yeah, no argument except for the multiple arguments that you ran away from with a fallacious claim of fallacy. *shrug*

Try not leveraging ANY fallacies and see how that works out. I realize there are fallacies galore available for every situation, especially for people like you who need standard fallacies to cover your scientific illiteracy, but you can pretty much count on being called on them every time.

It might be a novel idea but just cut out the fallacies completely. Go cold turkey. It might be the best decision you've ever made.

Leafsdude wrote: Just admit it, you don't want a fact-based argument that leads to the truth, you just want to be right.

Just admit it, you don't want a science-based argument that leads to the truth, you just want to be right.

Look, in any given discussion, when one of your arguments is rebutted, it's rebutted. If you revert to repeating that same argument without addressing how it was rebutted then you are committing a fallacy (of the stone) and it's on you. The problem is on your end. You are the one effectively shutting down the discussion, presumably because you don't want to get to the truth, you just NEED to be right because your WACKY religion and your personal identity are on the line.

The problem is with you. You should expect that you aren't going to change and somehow want to get to the truth and similarly you should expect to be called on your fallacious arguments that are rebutted that you nonetheless repeat.

Expect it. The problem is on your end.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
31-08-2016 17:20
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(133)
Try not leveraging ANY fallacies and see how that works out. I realize there are fallacies galore available for every situation, especially for people like you who need standard fallacies to cover your scientific illiteracy, but you can pretty much count on being called on them every time.

It might be a novel idea but just cut out the fallacies completely. Go cold turkey. It might be the best decision you've ever made.


Umm...What?

Just admit it, you don't want a science-based argument that leads to the truth, you just want to be right.


Nope, I want a position that is correct. If you can provide me evidence, rather than assertions, I'll accept whatever that evidence says.

Look, in any given discussion, when one of your arguments is rebutted, it's rebutted.


Agreed. And when they have been, I've retracted my argument, whether here or wherever else.

As of yet, the only person arguing from your side who has retracted an argument after it was rebutted was Tim, and he seems to accept that the climate is warming (he just thinks it's a natural and a good thing). You, buildreps and ITN cling to your viewpoints regardless of responses to them and misdirect when rebutted beyond your ability to respond to. The fact you all use your own faults to assert those arguing against you have them (such as religious belief) only further shows how poor you are at logical reasoning.

If you revert to repeating that same argument without addressing how it was rebutted then you are committing a fallacy (of the stone) and it's on you.


Uh, no.

The argument of the stone is a fallacy that occurs when one asserts an absurdity within an argument without explaining the absurdity. It has nothing to do with repeating arguments.

That said, I have never repeated an argument without responding to a(n attempted) rebuttal as well. I mean, I always quote every line I respond to for context just for that reason.

You are the one effectively shutting down the discussion


Nope, that'd be you with your constant and unfounded claims of fallacy when they don't exist.
31-08-2016 17:54
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5148)
Leafsdude wrote:
Still no argument from you. Yer still dead, parrot.

Yeah, no argument except for the multiple arguments that you ran away from with a fallacious claim of fallacy. *shrug*
A fallacious statement is not an argument.
Leafsdude wrote:
Just admit it, you don't want a fact-based argument that leads to the truth, you just want to be right. If you didn't, you'd admit when you're incorrect instead of just shouting "argument of the stone" at the top of your lungs every time someone makes detailed, point-by-point rebuttals of your arguments.

You still have no argument. Yer still dead, parrot.


The Parrot Killer
31-08-2016 18:20
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5148)
Leafsdude wrote:
Try not leveraging ANY fallacies and see how that works out. I realize there are fallacies galore available for every situation, especially for people like you who need standard fallacies to cover your scientific illiteracy, but you can pretty much count on being called on them every time.

It might be a novel idea but just cut out the fallacies completely. Go cold turkey. It might be the best decision you've ever made.


Umm...What?

He SAID, "Try not leveraging ANY fallacies and see how that works out." Are you hard of reading, or are you just using the argument of the Stone?

Leafsdude wrote:
Just admit it, you don't want a science-based argument that leads to the truth, you just want to be right.


Nope, I want a position that is correct. If you can provide me evidence, rather than assertions, I'll accept whatever that evidence says.
This is just another way of saying you just want to be right.
Leafsdude wrote:
Look, in any given discussion, when one of your arguments is rebutted, it's rebutted.


Agreed. And when they have been, I've retracted my argument, whether here or wherever else.

As of yet, the only person arguing from your side who has retracted an argument after it was rebutted was Tim, and he seems to accept that the climate is warming (he just thinks it's a natural and a good thing). You, buildreps and ITN cling to your viewpoints regardless of responses to them and misdirect when rebutted beyond your ability to respond to. The fact you all use your own faults to assert those arguing against you have them (such as religious belief) only further shows how poor you are at logical reasoning.
Leafsdude wrote:
[quote]If you revert to repeating that same argument without addressing how it was rebutted then you are committing a fallacy (of the stone) and it's on you.


Uh, no.

The argument of the stone is a fallacy that occurs when one asserts an absurdity within an argument without explaining the absurdity. It has nothing to do with repeating arguments.

You have no clue what the argument of the Stone is, do you. Very well.

The argument of the Stone is discarding an argument without counter-argument or mechanism of fallacy. Absurdity of argument has nothing to do with it (those are in other fallacies). Repetition has nothing to do with it. Repeating an argument is a different fallacy.

It is obvious you do not understand either formal or informal logic.

Leafsdude wrote:
That said, I have never repeated an argument without responding to a(n attempted) rebuttal as well. I mean, I always quote every line I respond to for context just for that reason.
At least you do tend to retain context. So many don't.
Leafsdude wrote:
You are the one effectively shutting down the discussion


Nope, that'd be you with your constant and unfounded claims of fallacy when they don't exist.

Since you have no understanding what is a fallacy and what is not, and you have no understanding of why something is a fallacy or where a fallacy comes from in formal logic, you are literally trying to justify fallacious arguments as legitimate. This is a variation of the argument of the Stone.

This type of fallacy seems to be a favorite of yours.


The Parrot Killer
31-08-2016 18:47
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Leafsdude wrote: The argument of the stone is a fallacy that occurs when one asserts an absurdity within an argument without explaining the absurdity. It has nothing to do with repeating arguments.


Into the Night wrote: The argument of the Stone is discarding an argument without counter-argument or mechanism of fallacy. Absurdity of argument has nothing to do with it (those are in other fallacies). Repetition has nothing to do with it. Repeating an argument is a different fallacy.

Can't you read, ITN?

After claiming he had no clue, you pretty much repeated, in somewhat less coherent language, what Leafsdude wrote!
31-08-2016 20:27
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Leafsdude wrote: Nope, I want a position that is correct. If you can provide me evidence, rather than assertions, I'll accept whatever that evidence says.

For unfalsifiable religious beliefs, evidence is demanded.

For reality, science is offered.

You dismiss science as mere "assertions" and then demand "evidence" which is never contained in science.

Either you are going to have to admit that you deny science or admit that your WACKY religious faith in "greenhouse effect" is false.

*OR* revert to the argument of the stone and repeat the same erroneous assertions that I have already refuted using basic science that you deny.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
31-08-2016 21:21
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5148)
Surface Detail wrote:
Leafsdude wrote: The argument of the stone is a fallacy that occurs when one asserts an absurdity within an argument without explaining the absurdity. It has nothing to do with repeating arguments.


Into the Night wrote: The argument of the Stone is discarding an argument without counter-argument or mechanism of fallacy. Absurdity of argument has nothing to do with it (those are in other fallacies). Repetition has nothing to do with it. Repeating an argument is a different fallacy.

Can't you read, ITN?

After claiming he had no clue, you pretty much repeated, in somewhat less coherent language, what Leafsdude wrote!

Apparently YOU can't. Absurdity of the argument is not a factor. Repetition is not a factor. Assertion is not even a factor. Explaining an absurdity is not a factor.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 31-08-2016 21:23
01-09-2016 00:07
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Leafsdude wrote: The argument of the stone is a fallacy that occurs when one asserts an absurdity within an argument without explaining the absurdity. It has nothing to do with repeating arguments.


Into the Night wrote: The argument of the Stone is discarding an argument without counter-argument or mechanism of fallacy. Absurdity of argument has nothing to do with it (those are in other fallacies). Repetition has nothing to do with it. Repeating an argument is a different fallacy.

Can't you read, ITN?

After claiming he had no clue, you pretty much repeated, in somewhat less coherent language, what Leafsdude wrote!

Apparently YOU can't. Absurdity of the argument is not a factor. Repetition is not a factor. Assertion is not even a factor. Explaining an absurdity is not a factor.

A tip, ITN. The meaning of a sentence depends on the order in which its constituent words appear and their relationship to the other words. For example, while Leafsdude did indeed use the word "absurdity", he never claimed that the absurdity of the argument is a factor. Your English comprehension skills are frankly awful - try to read more carefully rather than jumping to conclusions.
01-09-2016 00:51
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5148)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Leafsdude wrote: The argument of the stone is a fallacy that occurs when one asserts an absurdity within an argument without explaining the absurdity. It has nothing to do with repeating arguments.


Into the Night wrote: The argument of the Stone is discarding an argument without counter-argument or mechanism of fallacy. Absurdity of argument has nothing to do with it (those are in other fallacies). Repetition has nothing to do with it. Repeating an argument is a different fallacy.

Can't you read, ITN?

After claiming he had no clue, you pretty much repeated, in somewhat less coherent language, what Leafsdude wrote!

Apparently YOU can't. Absurdity of the argument is not a factor. Repetition is not a factor. Assertion is not even a factor. Explaining an absurdity is not a factor.

A tip, ITN. The meaning of a sentence depends on the order in which its constituent words appear and their relationship to the other words. For example, while Leafsdude did indeed use the word "absurdity", he never claimed that the absurdity of the argument is a factor. Your English comprehension skills are frankly awful - try to read more carefully rather than jumping to conclusions.

It is obvious you need English lessons.

IB DaMann gives such lessons from time to time. I'll let him handle this one.


The Parrot Killer
03-09-2016 03:25
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(133)
He SAID, "Try not leveraging ANY fallacies and see how that works out." Are you hard of reading, or are you just using the argument of the Stone?


Once again, I'm well aware of what he said, I'm wondering what he meant by it. *shrug*

And I see your parroting of "argument of the stone" has continued.

You have no clue what the argument of the Stone is, do you. Very well.


Considering I just paraphrased it, I clearly am well aware of what it means.

The argument of the Stone is discarding an argument without counter-argument or mechanism of fallacy.


No, it's not. That would be either a red herring or a argumentum ad nauseam. Completely different fallacies.

Absurdity of argument has nothing to do with it (those are in other fallacies). Repetition has nothing to do with it. Repeating an argument is a different fallacy.


Absurdity absolutely does. Here's some sources defining argumentum ad lapidem:

1) Wikipedia:

Argumentum ad lapidem (Latin: "to the stone") is a logical fallacy that consists in dismissing a statement as absurd without giving proof of its absurdity.


2) http://www.philosophyinaction.com/academic/fallacies.html (Sourced by wikipedia for the above):

ad lapidem: dismissing an statement as absurd without proving it to be false.


3) In case either of those are too "leftist" for you, conservapedia states the same as wikipedia, using the same source: http://www.conservapedia.com/Argumentum_ad_lapidem

Repetition has nothing to do with it. Repeating an argument is a different fallacy.


And yet I'm the one who can't read? Here's what was said in the quote I was replying to:

If you revert to repeating that same argument without addressing how it was rebutted then you are committing a fallacy (of the stone)


So, he was wrong when stating the above, according to you, and I was right in responding that the above was wrong.

Since you have no understanding what is a fallacy and what is not


I very clearly have a better understanding on what is a fallacy then you or IBDM. The fact you both think you know better anyway is more an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect than anything, IMO.

and you have no understanding of why something is a fallacy


Something is fallacious when an argument either doesn't prove or refute a claim but pretends to or distracts from a claim for the purpose of intentionally misleading from the argument.

or where a fallacy comes from in formal logic


What do you mean by "where a fallacy comes from"?

This is a variation of the argument of the Stone.


As per my sources and definitions above, it absolutely is not.

Interestingly, using a fallacy falsely is itself a fallacy (a fallacy fallacy, in fact, though that can sometimes refer to a different fallacy whereby one claims an argument is false because someone used a fallacy when arguing for it, as well as falsely using fallacies to misdirect from an argument).

This type of fallacy seems to be a favorite of yours.


I think it's clearly a favourite of yours, considering you constantly use it even though it's never appropriate.

Eventually you will get it right, what with the fact that even blind squirrels find the odd nut and broken clocks are still right twice a day. It'll probably take you a while, though, considering the argument of the stone is a very rare fallacy.

For unfalsifiable religious beliefs, evidence is demanded.


What do you mean by that?

For reality, science is offered.

You dismiss science as mere "assertions" and then demand "evidence" which is never contained in science.


Your statements, without any documented sources to defend them, are indeed assertions, not science. One can state anything they want if evidence is not required. If you cannot provide anything other than your words, then no one is logically required to accept your viewpoint, and in fact is logically allowed to reject your viewpoint without evidence (AKA Hitchens' Razor).

Either you are going to have to admit that you deny science or admit that your WACKY religious faith in "greenhouse effect" is false.


False dilemma is a false dilemma.

*OR* revert to the argument of the stone and repeat the same erroneous assertions that I have already refuted using basic science that you deny.


Saying "argument of the stone" doesn't refute any of my "assertions" (most of which I've defended with sources that you reject only because you don't like what they say). As I've stated, it's actually a red herring, distracting us from what is clearly a losing argument so you don't have to admit you are wrong.
Edited on 03-09-2016 03:29
05-07-2017 14:16
James145
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
The highest record I think was reached at the online writing service https://special-essays.com. I was advised to use it and I was not mistaken about the choice. By the way, they also offer the discount on the first order. The promo code is g6oa39rW
05-07-2017 19:32
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5148)
Leafsdude wrote:
He SAID, "Try not leveraging ANY fallacies and see how that works out." Are you hard of reading, or are you just using the argument of the Stone?


Once again, I'm well aware of what he said, I'm wondering what he meant by it. *shrug*

And I see your parroting of "argument of the stone" has continued.

You keep making the argument of the Stone. This is YOUR problem. Trying to create a contextomy to get away from it won't work.
Leafsdude wrote:
You have no clue what the argument of the Stone is, do you. Very well.


Considering I just paraphrased it, I clearly am well aware of what it means.
I don't think so. See below.
Leafsdude wrote:
The argument of the Stone is discarding an argument without counter-argument or mechanism of fallacy.


No, it's not. That would be either a red herring or a argumentum ad nauseam. Completely different fallacies.

Wrong. A red herring is a redirection fallacy. An argumentum ad nauseam is the same argument made over and over without adding anything to it. It can often be combined with an argument of the Stone.
Leafsdude wrote:
Absurdity of argument has nothing to do with it (those are in other fallacies). Repetition has nothing to do with it. Repeating an argument is a different fallacy.


Absurdity absolutely does. Here's some sources defining argumentum ad lapidem:

1) Wikipedia:

Argumentum ad lapidem (Latin: "to the stone") is a logical fallacy that consists in dismissing a statement as absurd without giving proof of its absurdity.


2) http://www.philosophyinaction.com/academic/fallacies.html (Sourced by wikipedia for the above):

ad lapidem: dismissing an statement as absurd without proving it to be false.


3) In case either of those are too "leftist" for you, conservapedia states the same as wikipedia, using the same source: http://www.conservapedia.com/Argumentum_ad_lapidem

Argument from false authority. Neither Wikipedia nor conservapedia own the term. Absurdity is not required. When you discard an argument without counter-argument or declaration of fallacy, you are making an argument of the Stone. It can certainly be combined with other fallacies.
Leafsdude wrote:
Repetition has nothing to do with it. Repeating an argument is a different fallacy.


And yet I'm the one who can't read? Here's what was said in the quote I was replying to:

If you revert to repeating that same argument without addressing how it was rebutted then you are committing a fallacy (of the stone)


So, he was wrong when stating the above, according to you, and I was right in responding that the above was wrong.

A repetitious argument is often combined with the argument of the Stone fallacy.
Leafsdude wrote:
Since you have no understanding what is a fallacy and what is not


I very clearly have a better understanding on what is a fallacy then you or IBDM. The fact you both think you know better anyway is more an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect than anything, IMO.

Psychobabble. There is no such thing as 'Dunning-Kruger' effect. This is again an argument of the Stone. This time combined with a technobabble fallacy.
Leafsdude wrote:
and you have no understanding of why something is a fallacy


Something is fallacious when an argument either doesn't prove or refute a claim but pretends to or distracts from a claim for the purpose of intentionally misleading from the argument.
Wrong. An argument is fallacious when it fails to meet the requirements of formal logic.
Leafsdude wrote:
or where a fallacy comes from in formal logic


What do you mean by "where a fallacy comes from"?
All fallacies stem from a failure in formal logic. Like mathematics, formal logic is a closed system. Just like there are math errors, there are logic errors. A logic error is a fallacy.
Leafsdude wrote:
This is a variation of the argument of the Stone.


As per my sources and definitions above, it absolutely is not.
Argument from false authority.
Leafsdude wrote:
Interestingly, using a fallacy falsely is itself a fallacy (a fallacy fallacy, in fact, though that can sometimes refer to a different fallacy whereby one claims an argument is false because someone used a fallacy when arguing for it, as well as falsely using fallacies to misdirect from an argument).
It is. That happens when you claim a fallacy when no logic error exists. This will often happen with people that depend on contextomies.
Leafsdude wrote:
This type of fallacy seems to be a favorite of yours.


I think it's clearly a favourite of yours, considering you constantly use it even though it's never appropriate.

No, it's a favorite of YOURS. YOU are the one making the fallacy.
Leafsdude wrote:
Eventually you will get it right, what with the fact that even blind squirrels find the odd nut and broken clocks are still right twice a day. It'll probably take you a while, though, considering the argument of the stone is a very rare fallacy.
It is a very common fallacy.
Leafsdude wrote:
For unfalsifiable religious beliefs, evidence is demanded.


What do you mean by that?

Theories of science must be falsifiable. Science does not use supporting evidence or consensus.
Leafsdude wrote:
For reality, science is offered.

You dismiss science as mere "assertions" and then demand "evidence" which is never contained in science.

Your statements, without any documented sources to defend them, are indeed assertions, not science.

His statements come from the theories themselves. They are documented. Look them up. A link is not science. The ONLY authoritative source of a theory of science is the authors of that theory.
Leafsdude wrote:
One can state anything they want if evidence is not required.

Indeed they can. Science, though, requires a theory to be falsifiable.
Leafsdude wrote:
If you cannot provide anything other than your words, then no one is logically required to accept your viewpoint, and in fact is logically allowed to reject your viewpoint without evidence (AKA Hitchens' Razor).

Since it is YOU that is trying to change science, the burden of proof is on YOU. No one needs to prove a negative.
Leafsdude wrote:
Either you are going to have to admit that you deny science or admit that your WACKY religious faith in "greenhouse effect" is false.


False dilemma is a false dilemma.

This is a fallacy fallacy. There is no logical error here.
Leafsdude wrote:
*OR* revert to the argument of the stone and repeat the same erroneous assertions that I have already refuted using basic science that you deny.


Saying "argument of the stone" doesn't refute any of my "assertions" (most of which I've defended with sources that you reject only because you don't like what they say).

Argument of the Stone. Argument from false authority. Argument by redefinition (attempted redefinition of 'argument' as 'assertion').

Leafsdude wrote:
As I've stated, it's actually a red herring,

Fallacy fallacy. A red herring fallacy is not involved here, other than your attempts at redefining various fallacies.
Leafsdude wrote:
distracting us from what is clearly a losing argument

An appeal to authority fallacy. You do not get to declare who is losing an argument.
Leafsdude wrote:
so you don't have to admit you are wrong.

...and a thought terminating cliche.


The Parrot Killer
06-07-2017 00:06
RealityCheck
☆☆☆☆☆
(28)
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

As solar activity continues to plummet nearing the end of solar cycle 24 global temps are also cooling ... no surprise there ... if we experience and extended minimum before the uptake of cycle 25,temps will continue to fall ...

Curious to see how the alarmist global warming community is gonna spin that....

Oh, and hi everybody
06-07-2017 02:08
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
realitychucked chugged: As solar activity continues to plummet nearing the end of solar cycle 24(sic) global temps are also cooling ... no surprise there...

Solar activity (TSI) has been languid for two score(+) years, & low for 10+ years(including a 3+ year period setting a 100 year record low TSI). Earth temperatures have been rising for 130+ years. realitychucked finds a few months of downturn (but still record high temperatures for recent years), & it declares AGW is dead. realitychucked is an AGW denier liar whiner.
Edited on 06-07-2017 02:20
06-07-2017 14:05
RealityCheck
☆☆☆☆☆
(28)
Well thanks for the nice welcome ... are you the community troll??

litesong wrote:

Solar activity (TSI) has been languid for two score(+) years, & low for 10+ years


Low compared to the highs of the late 20th century yes.. and global temps during that time have gone nowhere ...

And should it continue to be low you will see temps dropping ...

Oh and I can't declare AGW dead.. as it was never alive ... the temp increases of the late twentieth century were driven by the aforementioned high solar activity ...
06-07-2017 17:01
Wake
★★★★★
(3336)
IBdaMann wrote: Expect it. The problem is on your end.


Actually the problem is entirely at your end. You simply do not accept real science. You make up your own as you go along. If you believe for one second that anyone can read your garbage and not get a good laugh you're sadly mistaken.

Heat is thermal energy and as such can radiate in the electro-magnetic spectrum. Therefore it has a wavelength and therefore we can measure it from a distance. But you want to pretend that the world isn't as it really is.

Since there is no such thing as a "blackbody" you cannot measure the radiance of an object unless you know the emissivity constant for that specific type of body. Therefore the Stefan-Boltzman equations are not a "law" but an guess in most cases.
06-07-2017 18:59
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5148)
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: Expect it. The problem is on your end.


Actually the problem is entirely at your end. You simply do not accept real science. You make up your own as you go along. If you believe for one second that anyone can read your garbage and not get a good laugh you're sadly mistaken.

You need to learn the math and the science, dude.
Wake wrote:
Heat is thermal energy
No, it isn't. Heat is the FLOW of thermal energy.
Wake wrote:
and as such can radiate in the electro-magnetic spectrum.
Heat is not light. It does not generate light. Thermal energy is not light. Light can be emitted as a result of thermal energy though.
Wake wrote:
Therefore it has a wavelength
Heat has no wavelength. Neither does thermal energy.
Wake wrote:
and therefore we can measure it from a distance.
No, you can't. Heat can be calculated by determining the temperature difference between the two bodies, and the coupling coefficient between them.
Wake wrote:
But you want to pretend that the world isn't as it really is.

While the world is filled with people that like to redefine words, it's not a good idea to be one of them.
Wake wrote:
Since there is no such thing as a "blackbody" you cannot measure the radiance of an object unless you know the emissivity constant for that specific type of body. Therefore the Stefan-Boltzman equations are not a "law" but an guess in most cases.

The S-B law IS a law (an equation). It is accurate in all cases. It is not a guess at all.

The only 'guess' is the way people tend to assume a value for the emissivity constant. You do not need to assume it. It can be measured, but you need to know the temperature of the surface to measure it in the first place.

It is not possible to determine the emissivity of a planet.


The Parrot Killer
06-07-2017 19:00
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5148)
RealityCheck wrote:
Well thanks for the nice welcome ... are you the community troll??

litesong wrote:

Solar activity (TSI) has been languid for two score(+) years, & low for 10+ years


Low compared to the highs of the late 20th century yes.. and global temps during that time have gone nowhere ...

And should it continue to be low you will see temps dropping ...

Oh and I can't declare AGW dead.. as it was never alive ... the temp increases of the late twentieth century were driven by the aforementioned high solar activity ...


It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth to any useful degree of accuracy. We simply do not have the instrumentation for it.


The Parrot Killer
06-07-2017 19:19
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
realitychucked chugged:... are you the community troll?
litesong wrote: Solar activity (TSI) has been languid for two score(+) years, & low for 10+ years

Low compared to the highs of the late 20th century yes.. and global temps during that time have gone nowhere ... the temp increases of the late twentieth century were driven by the aforementioned high solar activity ...

I am the most AGW denier liar whiner threatened AGW advocate. I have delineated & documented AGW denier liar whiner threats & racist barf on other websites & battled AGW denier liar whiner threateners to a standstill, by repeating back to AGW denier liar whiners, their threats. As for this AGW denier liar whiner woofsite, I only have had to repeat the kkk racists' howlings , to highlight their distance from humanity. I can see why you think I troll.... as I repeat back to AGW denier liar whiners (& even kkk driven threateners), their misshapen "sigh-ants" & racism.
As for AGW denier liar whiners, its easy to see you may become the lead AGW denier liar whiner.... whether you add-in racism & threats, or not.
06-07-2017 22:39
RealityCheck
☆☆☆☆☆
(28)
Yes definately troll ... moved to ignore list ..
06-07-2017 22:48
RealityCheck
☆☆☆☆☆
(28)


It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth to any useful degree of accuracy. We simply do not have the instrumentation for it.


Good point.

I think it can be argued though that the satellite data can be used as a reasonable proxy to identify global warming/cooling trends over time.
And the trend for the last 20 or so years? ... flat

Regards
06-07-2017 23:13
Wake
★★★★★
(3336)
RealityCheck wrote:
Yes definately troll ... moved to ignore list ..


Litebrain is the local psychotic.
06-07-2017 23:26
Wake
★★★★★
(3336)
RealityCheck wrote:


It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth to any useful degree of accuracy. We simply do not have the instrumentation for it.


Good point.

I think it can be argued though that the satellite data can be used as a reasonable proxy to identify global warming/cooling trends over time.
And the trend for the last 20 or so years? ... flat

Regards


The period of time that we have had satellite data is too short to use for anything but comparing the "ground" record with the "satellite" record. And in that case the "ground" record demonstrates a warming trend of approximately 1 degree C while the satellite record shows NO heating at all.

What this means is that NASA and NOAA "ground" records have either had no correction for the Urban Heat Island Effect or insufficient correction.

The "parrot killer" is also a psychotic who doesn't believe in real science. As you can note to him heat is the "flow of thermal energy". Heat in fact is nothing more than a measured temperature. It doesn't have to "flow" anywhere. A reading is completely static.

Because any heat above absolute zero radiates thermal energy that radiation has a wavelength. "intelligence killer" tells us that it does not. He also doesn't believe that a satellite can measure the heat of an area simply by reading the infrared frequencies of the radiated energy to tell the precise temperatures of any region. The finer the resolution the more accurate you can tell temperatures from specific areas.

By all means stick around this group needs someone capable of thinking since it has sunken to the point where little more than ignorance splashes from it.
Page 3 of 4<1234>





Join the debate 2016 set to be hottest year on record:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
WMO confirms 2017 among the three warmest years on record3124-05-2018 21:52
Why did Global Warming put the Record Freeze on Hudson Valley?2422-05-2018 21:39
Another dry year in the Colorado River Basin increases the need for additional state and federal actions1817-05-2018 02:30
Winter Sea Ice Sets Record525-03-2018 18:27
2017 is set to be in top three hottest years, with record-breaking extreme weather1720-11-2017 20:25
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact