Remember me
▼ Content

Joe Rogan Experience #1130 - Adam Frank


Joe Rogan Experience #1130 - Adam Frank15-06-2018 01:31
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
Great conversation on climate change ...

"Adam Frank is a physicist, astronomer, and writer. His scientific research has focused on computational astrophysics with an emphasis on star formation and late stages of stellar evolution. His new book "Light of the Stars: Alien Worlds and the Fate of the Earth" is available now on Amazon..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfHk_93x8_0

I believe this is the previous guest mentioned, can't say I'm shocked, but it is shocking ...

Joe Rogan & Candace Owens Debate Climate Change
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJRAiU6BY-A


"Bring us your sick and tired, your educated ..."
16-06-2018 16:44
James___
★★★☆☆
(662)
monckton wrote:
Great conversation on climate change ...

"Adam Frank is a physicist, astronomer, and writer. His scientific research has focused on computational astrophysics with an emphasis on star formation and late stages of stellar evolution. His new book "Light of the Stars: Alien Worlds and the Fate of the Earth" is available now on Amazon..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfHk_93x8_0

I believe this is the previous guest mentioned, can't say I'm shocked, but it is shocking ...

Joe Rogan & Candace Owens Debate Climate Change
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJRAiU6BY-A



...And if it's waste heat and not CO2 or methane then what ? Scientists have walked away from saying CO2. At first it was said that rising CO2 levels caused the last ice age to end and now they say that CO2 levels rose 800 years later.
..That was the proof that CO2 caused global warming and now with more research that proof has been found to be wrong.
16-06-2018 18:15
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
James___ wrote:

Joe Rogan & Candace Owens Debate Climate Change
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJRAiU6BY-A

...And if it's waste heat and not CO2 or methane then what ?


I'd say she's all three.


"Bring us your sick and tired, your educated ..."
Edited on 16-06-2018 18:18
16-06-2018 18:50
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5738)
James___ wrote:
monckton wrote:
Great conversation on climate change ...

"Adam Frank is a physicist, astronomer, and writer. His scientific research has focused on computational astrophysics with an emphasis on star formation and late stages of stellar evolution. His new book "Light of the Stars: Alien Worlds and the Fate of the Earth" is available now on Amazon..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfHk_93x8_0

I believe this is the previous guest mentioned, can't say I'm shocked, but it is shocking ...

Joe Rogan & Candace Owens Debate Climate Change
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJRAiU6BY-A


...And if it's waste heat and not CO2 or methane then what ? Scientists have walked away from saying CO2. At first it was said that rising CO2 levels caused the last ice age to end and now they say that CO2 levels rose 800 years later.
..That was the proof that CO2 caused global warming and now with more research that proof has been found to be wrong.

What is 'waste heat'??? The current temperature of the Earth and how it loses heat to space?


The Parrot Killer
17-06-2018 17:52
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
monckton wrote:
Great conversation on climate change ...

"Adam Frank is a physicist, astronomer, and writer. His scientific research has focused on computational astrophysics with an emphasis on star formation and late stages of stellar evolution. His new book "Light of the Stars: Alien Worlds and the Fate of the Earth" is available now on Amazon..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfHk_93x8_0

I believe this is the previous guest mentioned, can't say I'm shocked, but it is shocking ...

Joe Rogan & Candace Owens Debate Climate Change
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJRAiU6BY-A


...And if it's waste heat and not CO2 or methane then what ? Scientists have walked away from saying CO2. At first it was said that rising CO2 levels caused the last ice age to end and now they say that CO2 levels rose 800 years later.
..That was the proof that CO2 caused global warming and now with more research that proof has been found to be wrong.

What is 'waste heat'??? The current temperature of the Earth and how it loses heat to space?


We disagree about this but fossil fuels are stored energy in the form of non-fully-decayed plant matter. Using this does indeed increase the amount of energy in the lower atmosphere which theoretically raises the temperature.

Of course this is insignificant but you have to give these scientists their due whether it makes a difference or not.

A more important point is that True Believers really believe that this is the direct cause of the natural warming/cooling cycles of the Earth and are demanding despotic measures be taken to halt energy use.

These measures would so impact the Earth's growing population that what these True Believers such as monckton are suggesting is nothing less than mass murder of fully a third of the Earth's population. He honestly believes that this will not impact him and he is perfect satisfied with mass murder.

We can watch the pure ignorance of people that claim that most of the world's scientists agree with man-made global warming when in fact less than 2% do. A large percentage of scientist believe that there is natural cyclic climate warming going on at the moment. How much that will be is debatable but so far it has been FAR FAR below the predictions of the True Believers.

Think of this: The Oregon Petition was criticized for having signatures of non-degreed scientists. So they they reduced it only to verifiable degreed scientists. This still represents over 30,000 scientists who know most of the facts. What was NASA presenting as part of the "most scientists"? The
AMA and the Boy Scouts of America! They are suggesting that medical doctors and boy scouts would know more about climate change than actual PhD's in the various sciences necessary to understand what is going on.

We can either agree with real scientists or we can agree with monckton the mass murderer. What sort of choice would you make?
Edited on 17-06-2018 17:55
17-06-2018 22:07
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
Wake wrote:These measures would so impact the Earth's growing population that what these True Believers such as monckton are suggesting is nothing less than mass murder of fully a third of the Earth's population.

We can either agree with real scientists or we can agree with monckton the mass murderer. What sort of choice would you make?


Ah what the hell OK, I'll do it.
Who's with me?




"Bring us your sick and tired, your educated ..."
18-06-2018 09:42
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5738)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
monckton wrote:
Great conversation on climate change ...

"Adam Frank is a physicist, astronomer, and writer. His scientific research has focused on computational astrophysics with an emphasis on star formation and late stages of stellar evolution. His new book "Light of the Stars: Alien Worlds and the Fate of the Earth" is available now on Amazon..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfHk_93x8_0

I believe this is the previous guest mentioned, can't say I'm shocked, but it is shocking ...

Joe Rogan & Candace Owens Debate Climate Change
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJRAiU6BY-A


...And if it's waste heat and not CO2 or methane then what ? Scientists have walked away from saying CO2. At first it was said that rising CO2 levels caused the last ice age to end and now they say that CO2 levels rose 800 years later.
..That was the proof that CO2 caused global warming and now with more research that proof has been found to be wrong.

What is 'waste heat'??? The current temperature of the Earth and how it loses heat to space?


...deleted irrelevant material...
A more important point is that True Believers really believe that this is the direct cause of the natural warming/cooling cycles of the Earth and are demanding despotic measures be taken to halt energy use.

Since CO2 is not capable of warming the Earth (no gas or vapor is), it makes little difference what causes it to enter our atmosphere.
Wake wrote:
These measures would so impact the Earth's growing population that what these True Believers such as monckton are suggesting is nothing less than mass murder of fully a third of the Earth's population. He honestly believes that this will not impact him and he is perfect satisfied with mass murder.

That's a bit of a stretch, isn't it? Where has the Church of Global Warming caused mass murder?
Wake wrote:
We can watch the pure ignorance of people that claim that most of the world's scientists agree with man-made global warming when in fact less than 2% do.
Makes no difference. Consensus is not used in science.
Wake wrote:
A large percentage of scientist believe that there is natural cyclic climate warming going on at the moment.

Consensus is not used in science.
Wake wrote:
How much that will be is debatable but so far it has been FAR FAR below the predictions of the True Believers.

So what? Consensus is not used in science.
Wake wrote:
Think of this: The Oregon Petition was criticized for having signatures of non-degreed scientists.

Not a problem. Science isn't credentials, nor does it require them.
Wake wrote:
So they they reduced it only to verifiable degreed scientists. This still represents over 30,000 scientists who know most of the facts.

Consensus is not used in science..
Wake wrote:
What was NASA presenting as part of the "most scientists"? The
AMA and the Boy Scouts of America! They are suggesting that medical doctors and boy scouts would know more about climate change than actual PhD's in the various sciences necessary to understand what is going on.

Big hairy deal. Consensus is not used in science.
Wake wrote:
We can either agree with real scientists or we can agree with monckton the mass murderer. What sort of choice would you make?\

True Scotsman fallacy. Consensus is not used in science.

Science isn't a scientist. It isn't any group of scientists. It isn't even people at all.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It is nothing more.


The Parrot Killer
18-06-2018 17:33
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
Into the Night wrote:
Since CO2 is not capable of warming the Earth (no gas or vapor is), it makes little difference what causes it to enter our atmosphere.


Why is it no surprise that after all these years you still haven't grasped what is being said? Who states that CO2 warms the atmosphere? They are claiming that it reduces the speed of heat radiation. Or do you actually think that is the same thing?

Into the Night wrote: That's a bit of a stretch, isn't it? Where has the Church of Global Warming caused mass murder?


What is it that prevents you from reading what has been written?

Into the Night Consensus is not used in science.
Then what you're saying is that unless a theory is proven false, agreement by other scientists means nothing. Why do you never listen to yourself?

Into the Night wrote: Not a problem. Science isn't credentials, nor does it require them.


You say that because you have never worked in science. I designed and programmed the communications boards for the first three units of what is now the International Space Station. This gives me ZERO credibility in the scientific community. I can't even be hired anymore despite being lead designer and programmer for a project that won the project leader a Nobel Prize in chemistry and in another project as chief digital designer that won the company and the analog designer a total of four Emmy Awards. You can deny anything you like but then you haven't worked one single day in science in your entire life.

I suggest that your continued claims of references being meaningless is because you do not understand them. They are written in advanced English and you continue to show that you only know big words from your copy of "Big Words to Make You Sound Smart".
18-06-2018 21:32
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5738)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Since CO2 is not capable of warming the Earth (no gas or vapor is), it makes little difference what causes it to enter our atmosphere.


Why is it no surprise that after all these years you still haven't grasped what is being said?

I know what was said by both you and the Church of Global Warming.
Wake wrote:
Who states that CO2 warms the atmosphere?

Both you and the Church of Global Warming.
Wake wrote:
They are claiming that it reduces the speed of heat radiation.

Not possible. You cannot slow or trap heat. You are denying the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law again.
Wake wrote:
Or do you actually think that is the same thing?

It is. Now you are attempt to say it isn't??? Welcome to your new paradox! This one's particularly hilarious. Why do you think the religion calls it 'global warming', dumbass?
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: That's a bit of a stretch, isn't it? Where has the Church of Global Warming caused mass murder?


What is it that prevents you from reading what has been written?

You never wrote anything. You just said it causes mass murder. You gave no examples.
Wake wrote:
Into the Night Consensus is not used in science.
Then what you're saying is that unless a theory is proven false, agreement by other scientists means nothing. Why do you never listen to yourself?

If a theory is falsifiable and has survived at least one test for the null hypothesis, it is automatically part of the body of science. It is a theory of science. Agreement by another scientist is not necessary. If a theory is falsified. It is dead. It is no longer a theory of science or even a valid argument. No agreement with another scientist is necessary.

A single individual can create a theory and bring it forth into the body of science.

A single individual can falsify a theory, utterly destroying it.

Consensus is not used in science.

Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Not a problem. Science isn't credentials, nor does it require them.


You say that because you have never worked in science.

No, I say that because science does not require credentials. It requires no Holy Priesthood. It is not a university. It is not a university degree. It is not a government agency. It is not a license or certificate granted by any government agency.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. No one has to bless, sanctify, or otherwise approve of any theory of science. If a theory survives a test of falsifiability, it is a theory of science. That is the only requirement. As long as the theory continues to survive tests of falsifiability, it will continue to be a theory of science.

Wake wrote:
I designed and programmed the communications boards for the first three units of what is now the International Space Station.

I don't believe you.
Wake wrote:
This gives me ZERO credibility in the scientific community.

Science isn't a 'community'. It isn't about 'credibility'.
Wake wrote:
I can't even be hired anymore despite being lead designer and programmer for a project

Your problem, not mine. Maybe you should look at your attitude.
Wake wrote:
that won the project leader a Nobel Prize in chemistry

Science isn't a Nobel prize.
Wake wrote:
and in another project as chief digital designer that won the company and the analog designer a total of four Emmy Awards.

Science isn't an Emmy award.
Wake wrote:
You can deny anything you like but then you haven't worked one single day in science in your entire life.

I work in it all the time. I am not dependent on government money for funding.
Wake wrote:
I suggest that your continued claims of references being meaningless is because you do not understand them.

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that is denying the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, not me.
Wake wrote:
They are written in advanced English

Not really. They are actually pretty common English. Their formalization into mathematics is not written in English, they are written as math equations. The equations we are discuss here are not complex. You just deny them and the theory that they come from.
Wake wrote:
and you continue to show that you only know big words from your copy of "Big Words to Make You Sound Smart".

Fallacy fallacy. Insult fallacy. Bulverism fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
19-06-2018 00:27
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
What you know is simple - to argue; because you want to believe you're smart. You may be but you sure as hell don't show it. You will argue any point down to absolutely ridiculous levels.

You say that heat in the infrared region isn't light and hence cannot be detected. The entire science of spectroscopy contradicts that statement but you don't know it. You don't understand thermodynamics and will make preposterous assertions about it.

You say that you know what statistical analysis is but have never showed one example. You use stupid meaningless words from "The Book of Big Words to Make You Sound Smart" and think that isn't a totally transparent and foolish action on your part.

You have taken the position that there is no climate change and hence you don't actually need to know why. You completely make up crap right off the top of your head and since you don't understand anything you can't correct anyone and make meaningless statements - Yes, consensus is science until it isn't. And you don't even understand that or why!

You should run home to your Jewish wife and cry on her lap. Have her pet you on the head and tell you that Yiddish is just German.
19-06-2018 07:35
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5738)
Wake wrote:
What you know is simple - to argue; because you want to believe you're smart. You may be but you sure as hell don't show it. You will argue any point down to absolutely ridiculous levels.

Inversion fallacy.
Wake wrote:
You say that heat in the infrared region isn't light

Heat is not necessarily light at all. If heat is by radiance, it is by infrared light.
Wake wrote:
and hence cannot be detected.

Heat of all forms can be detected.
Wake wrote:
The entire science of spectroscopy

Spectroscopy is not science. The theories of science it depends on are theories that you deny.
Wake wrote:
contradicts that statement but you don't know it.

Spectroscopy is not science. It is a form of instrumentation.
Wake wrote:
You don't understand thermodynamics and will make preposterous assertions about it.

Inversion fallacy.
Wake wrote:
You say that you know what statistical analysis is but have never showed one example.

Argument of the stone. I have shown numerous examples.
Wake wrote:
You use stupid meaningless words from "The Book of Big Words to Make You Sound Smart" and think that isn't a totally transparent and foolish action on your part.

Fallacy fallacy.
Wake wrote:
You have taken the position that there is no climate change

Define 'climate change' without using circular definitions. What do you mean by this buzzword?
Wake wrote:
and hence you don't actually need to know why.

There is no 'why' in a meaningless buzzword.
Wake wrote:
You completely make up crap right off the top of your head

The laws of thermodynamics, Planck's laws (including the Stefan-Boltzmann law), and statistical mathematics is not 'crap right off the top of my head or anybody else's head.
Wake wrote:
and since you don't understand anything you can't correct anyone

Inversion fallacy.
Wake wrote:
and make meaningless statements -

Inversion fallacy.
Wake wrote:
Yes, consensus is science until it isn't.

Consensus is not used in science...ever.
Wake wrote:
And you don't even understand that or why!

Inversion fallacy.
Wake wrote:
You should run home to your Jewish wife and cry on her lap. Have her pet you on the head and tell you that Yiddish is just German.

Redirection fallacy (strawman). Bulverism fallacy.

Jeez Wake. Take a stress pill and calm down.


The Parrot Killer
19-06-2018 15:09
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
What you know is simple - to argue; because you want to believe you're smart. You may be but you sure as hell don't show it. You will argue any point down to absolutely ridiculous levels.

Inversion fallacy.
Wake wrote:
You say that heat in the infrared region isn't light

Heat is not necessarily light at all. If heat is by radiance, it is by infrared light.
Wake wrote:
and hence cannot be detected.

Heat of all forms can be detected.
Wake wrote:
The entire science of spectroscopy

Spectroscopy is not science. The theories of science it depends on are theories that you deny.
Wake wrote:
contradicts that statement but you don't know it.

Spectroscopy is not science. It is a form of instrumentation.
Wake wrote:
You don't understand thermodynamics and will make preposterous assertions about it.

Inversion fallacy.
Wake wrote:
You say that you know what statistical analysis is but have never showed one example.

Argument of the stone. I have shown numerous examples.
Wake wrote:
You use stupid meaningless words from "The Book of Big Words to Make You Sound Smart" and think that isn't a totally transparent and foolish action on your part.

Fallacy fallacy.
Wake wrote:
You have taken the position that there is no climate change

Define 'climate change' without using circular definitions. What do you mean by this buzzword?
Wake wrote:
and hence you don't actually need to know why.

There is no 'why' in a meaningless buzzword.
Wake wrote:
You completely make up crap right off the top of your head

The laws of thermodynamics, Planck's laws (including the Stefan-Boltzmann law), and statistical mathematics is not 'crap right off the top of my head or anybody else's head.
Wake wrote:
and since you don't understand anything you can't correct anyone

Inversion fallacy.
Wake wrote:
and make meaningless statements -

Inversion fallacy.
Wake wrote:
Yes, consensus is science until it isn't.

Consensus is not used in science...ever.
Wake wrote:
And you don't even understand that or why!

Inversion fallacy.
Wake wrote:
You should run home to your Jewish wife and cry on her lap. Have her pet you on the head and tell you that Yiddish is just German.

Redirection fallacy (strawman). Bulverism fallacy.

Jeez Wake. Take a stress pill and calm down.


Your posting underscored exactly what I stated.
19-06-2018 17:18
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5738)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
What you know is simple - to argue; because you want to believe you're smart. You may be but you sure as hell don't show it. You will argue any point down to absolutely ridiculous levels.

Inversion fallacy.
Wake wrote:
You say that heat in the infrared region isn't light

Heat is not necessarily light at all. If heat is by radiance, it is by infrared light.
Wake wrote:
and hence cannot be detected.

Heat of all forms can be detected.
Wake wrote:
The entire science of spectroscopy

Spectroscopy is not science. The theories of science it depends on are theories that you deny.
Wake wrote:
contradicts that statement but you don't know it.

Spectroscopy is not science. It is a form of instrumentation.
Wake wrote:
You don't understand thermodynamics and will make preposterous assertions about it.

Inversion fallacy.
Wake wrote:
You say that you know what statistical analysis is but have never showed one example.

Argument of the stone. I have shown numerous examples.
Wake wrote:
You use stupid meaningless words from "The Book of Big Words to Make You Sound Smart" and think that isn't a totally transparent and foolish action on your part.

Fallacy fallacy.
Wake wrote:
You have taken the position that there is no climate change

Define 'climate change' without using circular definitions. What do you mean by this buzzword?
Wake wrote:
and hence you don't actually need to know why.

There is no 'why' in a meaningless buzzword.
Wake wrote:
You completely make up crap right off the top of your head

The laws of thermodynamics, Planck's laws (including the Stefan-Boltzmann law), and statistical mathematics is not 'crap right off the top of my head or anybody else's head.
Wake wrote:
and since you don't understand anything you can't correct anyone

Inversion fallacy.
Wake wrote:
and make meaningless statements -

Inversion fallacy.
Wake wrote:
Yes, consensus is science until it isn't.

Consensus is not used in science...ever.
Wake wrote:
And you don't even understand that or why!

Inversion fallacy.
Wake wrote:
You should run home to your Jewish wife and cry on her lap. Have her pet you on the head and tell you that Yiddish is just German.

Redirection fallacy (strawman). Bulverism fallacy.

Jeez Wake. Take a stress pill and calm down.


Your posting underscored exactly what I stated.

You didn't make any argument, Wake. You just posted a bunch of fallacies.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate Joe Rogan Experience #1130 - Adam Frank:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Climate Change Solutions : What you thought you knew is obsolete. Joe Romm318-12-2017 20:53
▲ 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