misconceptions

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > misconceptions > Page 5

Page 5 of 8

15-02-2022 20:27
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14452)	gfm7175 wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Oh, please ask me why I think you are engaging in EVASION. I am so glad you asked. I'm still waiting for him to answer this question: Why should any rational adult believe that the emissivity of Earth is changing? Thank you for pointing that out. I need to include that, as well as the evidence questions, in the official list of unanswered questions to tmiddles. You rock.
15-02-2022 22:51
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Oh, please ask me why I think you are engaging in EVASION. I am so glad you asked. I'm still waiting for him to answer this question: Why should any rational adult believe that the emissivity of Earth is changing? Thank you for pointing that out. I need to include that, as well as the evidence questions, in the official list of unanswered questions to tmiddles. You rock. ... AND I roll.
15-02-2022 22:59
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14452)	gfm7175 wrote: IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Oh, please ask me why I think you are engaging in EVASION. I am so glad you asked. I'm still waiting for him to answer this question: Why should any rational adult believe that the emissivity of Earth is changing? Thank you for pointing that out. I need to include that, as well as the evidence questions, in the official list of unanswered questions to tmiddles. You rock. ... AND I roll. It's how you roll.
15-02-2022 23:04
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote: IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Oh, please ask me why I think you are engaging in EVASION. I am so glad you asked. I'm still waiting for him to answer this question: Why should any rational adult believe that the emissivity of Earth is changing? Thank you for pointing that out. I need to include that, as well as the evidence questions, in the official list of unanswered questions to tmiddles. You rock. ... AND I roll. It's how you roll. ... like a rolling stone.
15-02-2022 23:17
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14452)	gfm7175 wrote: IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote: IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Oh, please ask me why I think you are engaging in EVASION. I am so glad you asked. I'm still waiting for him to answer this question: Why should any rational adult believe that the emissivity of Earth is changing? Thank you for pointing that out. I need to include that, as well as the evidence questions, in the official list of unanswered questions to tmiddles. You rock. ... AND I roll. It's how you roll. ... like a rolling stone. I knew there had to be a reason you weren't gathering any moss.

16-02-2022 02:35
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote:...You still haven't provided any evidence... I provided the evidence I find credible in concluding your claim was absurd. You don't agree (without explaining why) and that's your right. You should go ahead and present you reasoning. You have yet to. GasGuzzler wrote: The current administration clearly has no regard for the law and they will destroy anyone impeding their path to total power. But on Jan 6th it was the Trump administration still in power. Don't you think it's fair to say there are plenty of people in government who would happily blow the whistle? How can you simultaneously believe Biden and Harris are clowns AND that they are James Bond unstoppable, leave not trace masters of political treachery? In short you don't have ANYTHING to back up your claim, just rumors. No convictions you are using as proof?!? Convictions would be proof! gfm7175 wrote: Why should any rational adult believe that the emissivity of Earth is changing? I've answered this many time: Any object, the Earth included, who's surface (the matter that is being struck by and emitting radiance) changes will have it's emissivity change. If you walk outside and open up a black umbrella you just changed the emissivity of Earth a bit. Got it? Paint your black car white and you changed the emissivity of your car dramatically, and of Earth a tiny bit.
16-02-2022 03:06
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14452)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:...You still haven't provided any evidence... I provided the evidence I find credible in concluding your claim was absurd. Whatever that means. You EVADED the call for you to provide evidence of the narrative you were presenting. Ergo, your narrative is dismissed. tmiddles wrote: You don't agree (without explaining why) I explained quite exhaustively why I don't believe you. Not believing you is not somehow an affirmative argument on my part that somehow needs to be explained/justified. Do you want others to believe you? tmiddles wrote:How can you simultaneously believe Biden and Harris are clowns AND that they are James Bond unstoppable, leave not trace masters of political treachery? Wow, so now you are assigning bogus positions to GasGuzzler as well! GasGuzzler, welcome to the team! I truly believe that you are being accorded this honor in recognition of the Pulitzer quality of your posts as of late. You're starting to make certain parties feel threatened and suddenly ... ta-DA! ... you are being assigned bogus positions that you do not have ... and of course you are being mocked for them. Congratulations! You are moving up in the world. Now that you're here, you can have the seat next to mine. tmiddles wrote:In short you don't have ANYTHING to back up your claim, just rumors. Since we both know that GasGuzzler does not hold that position, but instead views (GasGuzzler, correct me if I am mistaken) both Kamala and Joe as OBEDIENT puppets of the deep state actors who are currently running our Executive Branch. tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: Why should any rational adult believe that the emissivity of Earth is changing? I've answered this many time: Any object, the Earth included, who's surface (the matter that is being struck by and emitting radiance) changes will have it's emissivity change. Exactly, you have never answered the question asked, you have answered a question that was never asked. Your answer cannot begin with "Any object that [is not the earth] " because the question is about the earth specifically. You have simply never explained why any rational adult should somehow arrive at the conclusion that the earth's emissivity is somehow changing. tmiddles wrote:If you walk outside and open up a black umbrella you just changed the emissivity of Earth a bit. We have covered the negligible extent of all combined such occurrences. Built into the question is the implied phrase "to any substantive extent". You know this. You are being intentionally dishonest. The question remains unanswered.
16-02-2022 04:34
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2935)	tmiddles wrote: How can you simultaneously believe Biden and Harris are clowns AND that they are James Bond unstoppable, leave not trace masters of political treachery? If I said they were clowns, I TOTALLY apologize for the offensive language. I meant to call them crooks. Would you not agree with my terminology? IBdaMann wrote: GasGuzzler, correct me if I am mistaken No correction. You are not mistaken. IBdaMann wrote: both Kamala and Joe as OBEDIENT puppets of the deep state actors who are currently running our Executive Branch. Yes, but I think it's worse than that. I think the DOJ/FBI has so much dirt on these dirt bags that for all we know Garland is running the country. Biden does have a bad habit of letting adversaries leverage him. Just look at Ukraine...but we won't get into that here. tmiddles wrote: But on Jan 6th it was the Trump administration still in power. Don't you think it's fair to say there are plenty of people in government who would happily blow the whistle? Do you think it's fair to say there are plenty of people in government that hated Trump and would happily keep their mouth shut for a few day until Biden took over? Is it beyond a reasonable doubt that the likes of George Soros got involved and hired ANTIFA/BLM? tmiddles wrote: No convictions you are using as proof?!? Wasn't Jesus convicted of something? tmiddles wrote: Convictions would be proof! No, they would not.
16-02-2022 10:06
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote:...You EVADED the call for you to provide evidence of the narrative you were presenting. My narrative is that you said this: IBdaMann wrote: In all likelihood, that's them [Anfifa] beating the cops... And that I find that absurd as none of the 769 people charged have been associated with either group. You have yet to explain why you are agreeing with ITN in claiming that. Go ahead and write 10 paragraphs not addressing that issue, again, but I think it's getting a bit repetitive. IBdaMann wrote:...We have covered the negligible extent of all combined such occurrences. [of changes to emissivity] Really? Nope I don't think so. You an ITN have been claiming emissivity is a CONSTANT and cannot change: This topic is here: emissivity discussion GasGuzzler wrote: tmiddles wrote:...Biden and Harris...are James Bond unstoppable,... ...Would you not agree with my terminology? But you do regard them as being exceptionally capable of spy craft and that they not only outmaneuvered Trumps team but managed to do so without leaving a trace? GasGuzzler wrote: Do you think it's fair to say there are plenty of people in government that hated Trump and would happily keep their mouth shut for a few day until Biden took over? Is it beyond a reasonable doubt that the likes of George Soros got involved and hired ANTIFA/BLM? Absolutely that's possible. That someone would engage in fraud in any election should be expected and watched for (Watergate was not imaginary!). However there should be a rational consideration of what crime can be committed without leaving a trace. The moon landing hoax conspiracy theory is a similar example. Would a few people engage in massive fraud? Sure. Would everyone? Thousands of people? No. That's beyond a reasonable doubt. GasGuzzler wrote: tmiddles wrote: Convictions would be proof! No, they would not. So we come back to a belief that in determining criminal guilt a court of law is irrelevant. Don't you see what an outlandish belief that appears to be? A crime was committed according to you, yet a courts determination is irrelevant.
16-02-2022 16:54
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: Why should any rational adult believe that the emissivity of Earth is changing? I've answered this many time: Any object, the Earth included, who's surface (the matter that is being struck by and emitting radiance) changes will have it's emissivity change. If you walk outside and open up a black umbrella you just changed the emissivity of Earth a bit. Got it? Paint your black car white and you changed the emissivity of your car dramatically, and of Earth a tiny bit. ... and I've answered this response of yours many-a-time... Object A is not Object B is not Object C. I am not asking you why any rational adult should believe that the emissivity of Object A is different than the emissivity of Object B. I am asking you why any rational adult should believe that the emissivity of Object A (the Earth) is changing. Thus, we return back to the question at hand: Why should any rational adult believe that the emissivity of Earth is changing?
16-02-2022 17:03
Into the Night★★★★★ (21635)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:...You EVADED the call for you to provide evidence of the narrative you were presenting. My narrative is that you said this: IBdaMann wrote: In all likelihood, that's them [Anfifa] beating the cops... And that I find that absurd as none of the 769 people charged have been associated with either group. You have yet to explain why you are agreeing with ITN in claiming that. Go ahead and write 10 paragraphs not addressing that issue, again, but I think it's getting a bit repetitive. IBdaMann wrote:...We have covered the negligible extent of all combined such occurrences. [of changes to emissivity] Really? Nope I don't think so. You an ITN have been claiming emissivity is a CONSTANT and cannot change: This topic is here: emissivity discussion GasGuzzler wrote: tmiddles wrote:...Biden and Harris...are James Bond unstoppable,... ...Would you not agree with my terminology? But you do regard them as being exceptionally capable of spy craft and that they not only outmaneuvered Trumps team but managed to do so without leaving a trace? GasGuzzler wrote: Do you think it's fair to say there are plenty of people in government that hated Trump and would happily keep their mouth shut for a few day until Biden took over? Is it beyond a reasonable doubt that the likes of George Soros got involved and hired ANTIFA/BLM? Absolutely that's possible. That someone would engage in fraud in any election should be expected and watched for (Watergate was not imaginary!). However there should be a rational consideration of what crime can be committed without leaving a trace. The moon landing hoax conspiracy theory is a similar example. Would a few people engage in massive fraud? Sure. Would everyone? Thousands of people? No. That's beyond a reasonable doubt. GasGuzzler wrote: tmiddles wrote: Convictions would be proof! No, they would not. So we come back to a belief that in determining criminal guilt a court of law is irrelevant. Don't you see what an outlandish belief that appears to be? A crime was committed according to you, yet a courts determination is irrelevant. The evidence of election fraud by Democrats cannot be wished away. No court is required. There are a lot of Democrats walking around that have committed crimes and never wound up in court. There are lot of thugs the same way. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
17-02-2022 00:17
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	gfm7175 wrote: Object A is not Object B is not Object C. responded to here: https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/my-ignorance-on-full-display--d6-e3940-s120.php#post_80628 Into the Night wrote:...fraud...No court is required. There are a lot of Democrats walking around that have committed crimes and never wound up in court. There are lot of thugs the same way. So you've abandoned the rule of law. A CRIME is to be proven in a criminal court in the justice system of the UNITED STATES. You know that whole "allegedly" thing in the news? Innocent until proven guilty. It's an American thing, I realize you don't get it. Edited on 17-02-2022 01:06
17-02-2022 02:09
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14452)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:...We have covered the negligible extent of all combined such occurrences. [of changes to emissivity] Really? Nope I don't think so. You are correct. I misspoke. I addressed the neglgible fluctuations of the incoming energy. On 18 January 2022 IBDaMann wrore: When something is in thermal equilibrium, its temperature does not change. This can be modified to read that something is considered to be in thermal equilibrium if its temperature fluctuations/changes are negligible. For example, earth receives an erratic, uneven, fluctuating stream of thermal energy from the sun ... but the erratic, uneven nature is so negligible that it looks the same to us as a firmly steady stream. Ergo, we say the earth is in equilibrium. So I'll mention one last time that if you walk outside with an umbrella, the earth is now a negligibly different object. It is at this point that you admitted to being too stupid to understand how the earth could be a different object so I got the impression you just wanted to drop it. tmiddles wrote:You an ITN have been claiming emissivity is a CONSTANT Because it is. You have been claiming to not understand what constitutes a different object and you have insisted that you are as stupid as a box of rocks. Find someone who might have better luck explaining to you the concept of two different objects with negligibly different emissivity constants. .
17-02-2022 03:43
keepit ★★★★★ (3072)	That's like claiming my weight is a constant.
17-02-2022 04:31
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	keepit wrote: That's like claiming my weight is a constant. Great example. It changes with every breath you take. Finding anything in the universe that is constant is a hard one. IBdaMann wrote: ... I misspoke. I addressed the neglgible fluctuations of the incoming energy. responded to here: https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/my-ignorance-on-full-display--d6-e3940-s120.php#post_80628

17-02-2022 04:54
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:...We have covered the negligible extent of all combined such occurrences. [of changes to emissivity] Really? Nope I don't think so. You are correct. I misspoke. I addressed the neglgible fluctuations of the incoming energy. On 18 January 2022 IBDaMann wrore: When something is in thermal equilibrium, its temperature does not change. This can be modified to read that something is considered to be in thermal equilibrium if its temperature fluctuations/changes are negligible. For example, earth receives an erratic, uneven, fluctuating stream of thermal energy from the sun ... but the erratic, uneven nature is so negligible that it looks the same to us as a firmly steady stream. Ergo, we say the earth is in equilibrium. So I'll mention one last time that if you walk outside with an umbrella, the earth is now a negligibly different object. It is at this point that you admitted to being too stupid to understand how the earth could be a different object so I got the impression you just wanted to drop it. tmiddles wrote:You an ITN have been claiming emissivity is a CONSTANT Because it is. You have been claiming to not understand what constitutes a different object and you have insisted that you are as stupid as a box of rocks. Find someone who might have better luck explaining to you the concept of two different objects with negligibly different emissivity constants. . I tried explaining it to him once again in a different thread. It will likewise be my final attempt at explaining it to him. After that, he'll have to find yet another person who is willing to explain the same damn thing to him.
17-02-2022 05:02
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2935)	tmiddles wrote: Any object, the Earth included, who's surface (the matter that is being struck by and emitting radiance) changes will have it's emissivity change. Since you are so certain the emissivity of the Earth is changing, possibly at the very least you could tell us with certainty which direction the emissivity value is heading? Not asking for an accurate value, we both know that is impossible. Just wondering if you know if the value is getting higher or lower.
17-02-2022 05:16
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2935)	tmiddles wrote: keepit wrote: That's like claiming my weight is a constant. Great example. It changes with every breath you take. How is comparing weight and thermal energy as if they are one in the same a "great example? Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
17-02-2022 05:17
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	GasGuzzler wrote:...tell us... Responded here: other thread
17-02-2022 17:27
Into the Night★★★★★ (21635)	tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: Object A is not Object B is not Object C. responded to here: https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/my-ignorance-on-full-display--d6-e3940-s120.php#post_80628 Into the Night wrote:...fraud...No court is required. There are a lot of Democrats walking around that have committed crimes and never wound up in court. There are lot of thugs the same way. So you've abandoned the rule of law. No. The DEMOCRATS have. tmiddles wrote: A CRIME is to be proven in a criminal court in the justice system of the UNITED STATES. You cannot make the evidence go away by demanding a court, dude. Courts are not required for evidence. tmiddles wrote: You know that whole "allegedly" thing in the news? Innocent until proven guilty. It's an American thing, I realize you don't get it. America is a continent. The United States has fallen. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
17-02-2022 17:28
Into the Night★★★★★ (21635)	keepit wrote: That's like claiming my weight is a constant. The moment you measure it, it is. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
17-02-2022 17:29
Into the Night★★★★★ (21635)	tmiddles wrote: keepit wrote: That's like claiming my weight is a constant. Great example. It changes with every breath you take. Finding anything in the universe that is constant is a hard one. IBdaMann wrote: ... I misspoke. I addressed the neglgible fluctuations of the incoming energy. responded to here: https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/my-ignorance-on-full-display--d6-e3940-s120.php#post_80628 Neither of you idiots get what a measured constant is. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
17-02-2022 17:30
Into the Night★★★★★ (21635)	GasGuzzler wrote: tmiddles wrote: Any object, the Earth included, who's surface (the matter that is being struck by and emitting radiance) changes will have it's emissivity change. Since you are so certain the emissivity of the Earth is changing, possibly at the very least you could tell us with certainty which direction the emissivity value is heading? Not asking for an accurate value, we both know that is impossible. Just wondering if you know if the value is getting higher or lower. Since it's not possible to measure the emissivity of the Earth, this is where it all falls down for him. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
17-02-2022 17:32
Into the Night★★★★★ (21635)	GasGuzzler wrote: tmiddles wrote: keepit wrote: That's like claiming my weight is a constant. Great example. It changes with every breath you take. How is comparing weight and thermal energy as if they are one in the same a "great example? It actually is, of how he is wrong. When you measure the weight of someone, that becomes a measured constant. It never changes. This is why collecting data is associated with time. You must know when it was collected. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
17-02-2022 18:06
keepit ★★★★★ (3072)	The gravitational constant is a constant. Emissivity is a variable constant in that it is always there but the value changes with conditions. The emissivity of the earth is decreasing currently due to changing co2 concentration. According to google the emissivity is connected to be the earth and the atmosphere.
17-02-2022 19:00
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	keepit wrote: The gravitational constant is a constant. Yes, a constant is indeed a constant. Good job keepit! You are now officially a step ahead of tmiddles in that you have shown understanding of the proof of identity. keepit wrote: Emissivity is a variable constant in that it is always there but the value changes with conditions. Oh no... It appears that I have spoken too soon. Now you've provided me with yet another addition to my Lispy Leftist List of Linguistic Lunacy. There is no such thing as a variable constant, as a variable is not a constant (and vice versa). You might as well tell me that I am a married bachelor. keepit wrote: The emissivity of the earth is decreasing currently due to changing co2 concentration. Yup, I spoke way too soon... Now you are being just as stupid as tmiddles, pretending that you are omniscient... Earth's emissivity is unknown. Earth's temperature is unknown. keepit wrote: According to google the emissivity is connected to be the earth and the atmosphere. That's your mistake right there...
17-02-2022 19:08
keepit ★★★★★ (3072)	gfm, Check with google. I may have misinterpreted but i don't think so. Edited on 17-02-2022 19:09
17-02-2022 19:15
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	keepit wrote: gfm, Check with google. No. Learn how to think for yourself. keepit wrote: I may have misinterpreted but i don't think so. Interpreting (or misinterpreting) requires the ability to think for yourself. You have not shown any capability of this.
17-02-2022 19:17
keepit ★★★★★ (3072)	i don't think so.
17-02-2022 19:57
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	keepit wrote: i don't think. I wholeheartedly agree!

17-02-2022 20:09
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14452)	Into the Night wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: tmiddles wrote: Any object, the Earth included, who's surface (the matter that is being struck by and emitting radiance) changes will have it's emissivity change. Since you are so certain the emissivity of the Earth is changing, possibly at the very least you could tell us with certainty which direction the emissivity value is heading? Not asking for an accurate value, we both know that is impossible. Just wondering if you know if the value is getting higher or lower. Since it's not possible to measure the emissivity of the Earth, this is where it all falls down for him. ... and we arrive at the tmiddles omniscience. This is a great time to take a look at how we got here: First, a review of the Global Warming doctrine that was brewing outside of Climate-Debate prior to tmiddles' arrival: If thou worshipeth Global Warming, thy faith alone wilst impart unto thee the greatest wisdom and thou wilst become a Climate Scientist among men, a rock upon which a Climate Ground Zero wilst be built, and thou shall preacheth thy Word of Climate to the ends of the earth. The above is what inspired tmiddles to begin his crusade and is what brought him to Climate-Debate to preach how he knows that the earth's temperature is increasing ... because the increasing temperature of the earth is what we know. He simply needed for everyone else to accept the Word of Climate as well. His inaugural address opened with "Is Tangier Island a good illustration of human caused global warming? It's sinking and famous for it due to it's Trump support" Notice both the presumption of Global Warming and the prevalence of TDS. Two great tastes that taste great together. After an initial round of confusion from being asked to define terms and to answer some basic questions, and from being confronted by his worst nightmare, Into the Night's wall of truth, i.e. The 'greenhouse' effect is not possible. The 1st law of thermodynamics says why. You can't create energy out of nothing. The 2nd law of thermodynamics says why. You can't heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. The Stefan-Boltzman law says why. You can't trap light. You can't reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth using infrared light emitted from the Earth's surface. Not CO2, not water, not oxygen, not methane, not anything. * You can't create energy out of nothing. * You can't trap heat. You can't trap thermal energy. There is always heat. * You can't make heat flow backwards (from cold to hot). * You can't trap light. * You can't reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time. ... tmiddles knew that this evil cult of physics/math/honesty would have to be defeated for his religion to triumph and for what we know to be known. tmiddles saw that the two Panzer tank divisions that keep blitzkrieging the Word of Climate are 1) thermodynamics and 2) Stefan-Boltzmann. 1. To defeat thermodynamics, the playbook strategy is to separate the atmosphere from the earth, i.e. treat the atmosphere as not part of the earth (while, of course, saying that it is) and voila! ... instant additional heat source. This effectively breaks both the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, and credits greenhouse gas with magically providing (not creating out of nothing) additional usable energy ... because nobody is saying that energy is being created out of nothing, right? 2. To defeat Stefan-Boltzmann, the strategy is to manually adjust the thermostat via changing the earth's emissivity. Emissivity is the dial to the desired temperature setting. So this is where we stand. tmiddles is asking us to take him on his word that the earth's emissivity is increasing. When asked how he knows the emissivity is increasing, his answer is to point out that obviously objects can change. While this does not answer the question ... because tmiddles does not answer questions ... because he is here to preach ... he nonetheless continues along his line of "reasoning." The earth is an object and since objects can change, the earth changes as well, and thus the emissivity is increasing. When asked if an object becomes a different object when it changes, we get the two separate placements for the shifting goalposts: 1) of course it's a different object and 2) of course it's the same object. At this point, any comparison of two different objects can be weasel-worded to bring the wagon train around full circle and treat the two separate emissivity constants as one dynamic emissivity variable ... which is changing in accordance with tmiddles' adjusting of the thermostat ... which is how he knows that the earth's emissivity is increasing ... because it is what we know.
17-02-2022 21:29
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	Solid summation of the situation.
17-02-2022 23:28
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: A CRIME is to be proven in a criminal court in the justice system of the UNITED STATES. You cannot make the evidence go away by demanding a court, d... OK describe your system. You know if you and your cohorts are successful in overthrowing the United States, what will you replace the rule of law with? A TWITTER council of elders? Newsmax TV roundtable? In the US you innocent until proven guilty. Got a criminal allegation or evidence of damage caused? Prove it in court. Actually YES a court is required.
17-02-2022 23:52
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14452)	tmiddles wrote:OK describe your system. He did not mention any system. He mentioned evidence ... that you cannot wish away. As long as the evidence remains on the minds of independent thinkers, no government agency will be asked to do their thinking for them. tmiddles wrote:You know if you and your cohorts are successful in overthrowing the United States, what will you replace the rule of law with? Nice attempt to project your violently law-breaking counterculture onto Into the Night. You know that I totally buy it. @Into the Night - dude, you have "cohorts." I'm envious. U-B-1-BadAssMuthaFukka I want cohorts. tmiddles wrote:Actually YES a court's approval is required for any thought to be legal. We can't just have people thinking freely willy-nilly. tmiddles, your positions get more and more absurd. I wonder if there is anyone you are fooling into thinking that you are somehow honest to some degree.
18-02-2022 01:57
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: As long as the evidence remains on the minds of independent thinkers, no government agency will be asked to do their thinking for them. After WWI the German population became convinced, based on the evidence they saw, the Jews had caused their defeat. We have people who believe the Earth is flat. (the Pharmacist who was convicted of destroying vaccines was a Flat Earther). If you believe some powerful enemy (NASA, the Elders of Zion, Nancy Pelosi, Aliens) is capable of creating evidence, suppressing evidence, or otherwise preventing your hypothesis from being proven (in court, science, or simply some smoking gun), then you can believe anything and everything. Probably why that crap recipe is so popular. It works for anything. And you can, as you have, simply refuse to even ask yourself "why do I think this?" and focus all your energy of that boogey man who denies you justice. For example IBD, you have said you believe ANTIFA was responsible for the attacks on Police on Jan 6. Why? Who knows (I don't think even you know). It's something you want to believe. You can simply pretend the entire FBI is corrupt and not exposing the REAL truth. That they are, as part of a vast conspiracy, just picking on TRUMP supporters. Who are on video. Video they shot themselves. It's a dangerous form of brain farting that can have catastrophic results.
18-02-2022 03:16
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14452)	tmiddles wrote:After WWI the German population became convinced, based on the evidence they saw, the Jews had caused their defeat. You cause problems when you pretend that you speak for a community of dead people. The simple answer is "No, they did not." The more complex answer is that many were convinced by Hitler's eloquence to blame Jews ... and to put him into power to solve the nonexistent problem that he nonetheless convinced them existed. Many did not agree and opposed Hitler, as Hilter nonetheless rose to power and had his political rivals arrested (like Trump supporters) or killed (like Ashli Babbit). Many fled the country. That's the more complete answer. tmiddles wrote:We have people who believe the Earth is flat. ... and that bugs the shit out of you because you did not approve that thought. Guess what ... the flat earthers aren't having me arrested, nor are they requiring me to wear a facemask or forcing me to undergo medical experiments. At the moment, I'm on their side. tmiddles wrote:If you believe some powerful enemy (NASA, the Elders of Zion, Nancy Pelosi, Aliens) is capable of creating evidence, suppressing evidence, or otherwise preventing your hypothesis from being proven (in court, science, or simply some smoking gun), then you can believe anything and everything. I would like to direct everyone's attention to what you just wrote. I find this quite alarming. You clearly consider the ability to believe anything and everything to be a serious problem. I have known for a long while that you are the tyrannical thought-police type of person but here you inadvertently give yourself away. I hope you realize this is exactly the same as admitting to being a NAZI. This confirms that you are a shitty person. You oppose freedom of thought. You are evil. tmiddles wrote:For example IBD, you have said you believe ANTIFA was responsible for the attacks on Police on Jan 6. I have not said that. You have repeatedly assigned that bogus position to me. I hope you realize that you only get credit for that bogus position assignment the first time you assign it and not for any subsequent times. I even gave you an opportunity to be honest about this but you, of course, refused. Attached image:
18-02-2022 03:38
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:After WWI the German population became convinced, based on the evidence they saw, the Jews had caused their defeat. ... "No, they did not."...many were convinced by Hitler's eloquence.... This is not accurate. The "Stab in the back" conspiracy theory was active at the very close of WWI and had traction long before anyone knew who Hitler was. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_myth He used it, he didn't create it. But either way the point stands: the Germans were convinced of something just using their "independent thinking". The recipe being: 1- They wanted to blame the Jews with the Stab in the Back theory 2- The ELDERS OF ZION and powerful Jews prevented real evidence from being available of their crimes. 3- If anyone claimed there was not evidence, go to step 2. This recipe will work for anything. Right or Left wing. IBdaMann wrote:That's the more complete answer. No it's not, not at all. What is your solution to dealing with people believing total nonsense? Think of the movie Inception. He has to figure out if it's a dream. How can anyone figure out if they are operating on BS info? "Uh.. think independently..." Doesn't get it done. I know YOU don't happen to be QANON and aren't waiting for JFK to return atm. But what is your the solution to that? What would you tell your kid if you found out they were waiting for JFK? IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:For example IBD, you have said you believe ANTIFA was responsible for the attacks on Police on Jan 6. I have not said that. IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:Also you never answered where is Antifa ... In all likelihood, that's them beating the cops and being violent ... Edited on 18-02-2022 03:39
18-02-2022 04:32
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14452)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:"No, they did not."...many were convinced by Hitler's eloquence.... This is not accurate. It's entirely accurate. Hitler had an amazing gift for speech and he could light a fire under a nation. That's why such a mentally unstable and physically unimpressive loser like him could get propelled into power. While your attempt at historical revisionism isn't going to work with me, have you tried pitching your narrative to, say, GasGuzzler? I'm sure he'd love to hear what you have to say. tmiddles wrote:He used it, he didn't create it. Big deal. He used it with all the effectiveness of a superhero/villain. tmiddles wrote:What is your solution to dealing with people believing total nonsense? I don't refer to it as a "solution" because it isn't a problem. Let's take you, for example. You believe total nonsense. The nonsense you believe is so embarrassing that you won't even respond to questions about any of it. You are ashamed of who you are and what you believe. Do you require a solution? tmiddles wrote:I know YOU don't happen to be QANON You know this because you invented this organization. There aren't any QANON members that aren't simply declared QANON members by leftists. QANON really is just another leftist term for "TROLL!" or "DENIER!" which just means "conservative." Leftists such as yourself hurl the term as a slur. This is how you know that I am not a member of QANON, and how you know that gfm7175 is not a member, and how you know that Into the Night is not a member ... because you know that there is no QANON ... because you made it up. tmiddles wrote:What would you tell your kid if you found out they were waiting for JFK? I would tell him that "they" is a plural but that "kid" is a singular. .
18-02-2022 05:35
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:What is your solution to dealing with people believing total nonsense? I don't refer to it as a "solution" because it isn't a problem. So people believing BS is not a problem? You wouldnt be bothered to have your kid waiting for JFK? IBdaMann wrote: t there is no QANON ... because you made it up. Ashli Babbit described herself as QANON. Yes thats a Q She is dead because she lost her mind to that BS.
18-02-2022 06:52
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14452)	tmiddles wrote:So people believing BS is not a problem? Answer the question: Are you a problem that requires a solution? tmiddles wrote:Ashli Babbit described herself as QANON. ... and again you are pretending to speak for dead people. It's like you are addicted to it. Let me know when you plan to speak for you and then we can talk.

Page 5 of 8

Join the debate misconceptions: