| 29-04-2017 01:47 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21582) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
I provided links.
Science doesn't use consensus.
Science isn't links. No supporting evidence is used in science at all. Science only uses conflicting evidence.
Data is useless without at least the following that goes with it:
The raw data must be available. It must be verifiable.
The instrumentation used must be known. The calibration for that instrumentation must be known, and the possible sources of error must be known.
We must know who collected it, when it was collected, and why.
Statistical analysis of the data must conform to the selection demands of statistical math, which include:
Selection must be by randN, using a means independent of the data. The population must include all possibilities, not just the data itself. In other words, Selection by Opportunity is considered an error.
The margin of error must be shown along with the rest of the summary. This value is calculated against population, not the data itself.
Statistical analysis does not have the power of prediction. It cannot be used for that purpose.
People spew numbers all the time and call it 'data'. Computer models are not 'data'. Interpolation is not 'data'. Assumptions are not 'data'. Consensus is not 'data'.
Manufacturing data or citing manufactured data is a most common practice among the believers of the Church of Global Warming.
You see it common in government and finance too.
This is a very good analysis. The only comment I would make is that although statistical analysis doesn't hold the power of prediction in theory it most assuredly does in real life.
Nope. Not at all. Statistics has no power of prediction at all. The theory IS real life. The reason is because statistical analysis depends on probability theory, which in turn depend on the generation of random numbers. Probability IS the study of random numbers under different contexts involving sequences and type of random number. It is the random number that destroys the power of prediction in probability math, and statistical math, which depends on it.
Wake wrote:
A friend of mine was starving to death a couple of years ago. His mother died just in time for him to catch up with his bills via inheritance and he began day trading and is now not rich but pretty well-to-do. The reason he isn't rich is that he is far too careful to take any chance beyond statistical probability.
It is not prediction. It is gambling. It may be gambling 'with the odds', but it is gambling nevertheless.
Professional gamblers play in favor of the odds. They may currently win enough to make a living at it, but they don't know when or even if they will win. Some of these folks have incredible memories or the ability to 'read' people and their body language. These are factors other than statistics or probability.
Fortunately, in stocks, if you find a company that produces something people want, can continue to do so, then you can share in their success. That's fine, but now you are talking about factors other than statistics and probability.
The same thing happens if you short a company the was profitable and fetched a high price, but now is having trouble producing, and is spending too much or is mismanaged. Again, you are talking about factors other than statistics or probability. In finance, shorting a company like that is basically yelling "bullshit" with your wallet.
You could lose either way. A profitable company may turn sour. A sour company might get its act together and become profitable. Getting on the wrong side of the fence at the wrong time can be costly.
I dunno...with your analysis of "playing statistics is gambling".....
These big insurance companies come to mind. They are certainly playing with statistics all day long. Gambling? I suppose....But hell, if I order a pizza I'm gambling too....It might taste like shit! Interesting though....thought provoking.
Yup. Actuarial processes are analyzing risk...the same as any gambler or stock market investor. Again, they use statistics, probability, and some factors about the item they are insuring that have nothing to do with either. They grew out of the 'friendly societies' of London, which were financially ruined in the wake of the cholera epidemics that struck London, simply because their actuarial information was out of date and didn't account for the unforseen (read unpredictable) appearance of cholera with such vengeance.
Out of the wreck was the first modern insurance company...Lloyds of London, which spreads the risk through investors willing to take on the gamble (known as Underwriters). They now operate as an insurance company for other insurance companies!
Lloyds essentially operates as a broker. They will insure anything...for a price. That price is determined by market forces coming from the underwriters for that insurance. Being in the middle, Lloyds makes their profit.
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
Edited on 29-04-2017 01:51 |
| 29-04-2017 02:14 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(2932) |
Yep yep, all makes sense.
And that pizza I ordered?
That sidewalk I strolled down?
That chair I'll put my feet up in tonight?
The stairs I'll climb to go to bed?
That mirror I'll look into in the morning
Any one of these could kill me dead. Are they all a gamble?
I just prefer not to look at life that way.
Play the statistics, the percentages, the history and make the best decision...and call it common sense, not gambling.
Tie that back into global warming and the history and statistics that we do have show there is nothing out of the ordinary going on and we are not gambling our future generations by doing nothing.
Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan |
| 29-04-2017 04:11 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
hat mirror I'll look into in the morning
Any one of these could kill me dead. Are they all a gamble?
Ooooh...you think your THAT scary looking in the morning eh?
Seriously...ordering a pizza, walking on the stairs, driving a car...all of these are depending on factors outside of probabilities and statistics. True you are never completely free of them, but that's OK. They are such a minor part of that activity that you can go through life without having to worry about 'gambling'.
You walk on the stairs because you feel confident enough to retain your balance for the course of your travel, and it is a convenient way to switch levels.
You order a pizza with the expectation that the person you are ordering it from is not a completely incompetent moron or is not someone intending to harm you. The completely incompetent moron would probably not have the job (unless the owner was ALSO a completely incompetent moron!). I think most people understand that the bulk of the population is really not out to kill you.
You drive a car with the trust in the engineers that designed it, the people that built it, the mechanic that maintains it, and of course the OTHER drivers of cars are going to be reasonably predictable. Driving a car is a trust issue. You put your trust in all of these people. That is not gambling. That is reading and understanding people. It is also using your own defensive driving skills (yes...you have them!) to limit exposure to situations for the occasional irresponsible driver. You have the police helping you there as well, and sometimes the laws of physics (they crash before they can hurt you).
GasGuzzler wrote:
I just prefer not to look at life that way. You don't have to look at the activities of your life like a gambler would. You have better resouces than just statistics and probability available to you.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Play the statistics, the percentages, the history and make the best decision...and call it common sense, not gambling. Statistics is not probability theory. Statistics is a summarizing tool for data. Being related to probability because of it's shared dependency on the random number, it is incapable of prediction. Statistical analysis makes use of randN for selection from population and a paired randR for determining out of band data that can be safely ignored.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Tie that back into global warming and the history and statistics that we do have show there is nothing out of the ordinary going on and we are not gambling our future generations by doing nothing.
It's simpler than that.
'Global Warming' is not even a definable term. Neither is 'climate change'. Both are nonsense phrases used by the Church of Global Warming.
Take the phrase 'global warming'. Does it mean only the surface to about anywhere from 8 ft to 30000 ft? Does it include the air mass above that? How high? There is no 'top' of the atmosphere, it just becomes thinner and thinner.
Does it include the oceans? How deep? How about underground? How deep? Is it just the surface? If so, how can any gas get blamed for it? What starting and stopping time is used? Why are those times important? Why are intervening intervals not important?
The only way to define 'global warming' is to use the phrase 'global warming'...a circular definition.
The so-called 'greenhouse effect' has similarly got problems. What is being effected? The same things as 'global warming'? Being a part of the 'global warming' concept, it shares the same problems.
Worse, 'greenhouse effect', as is typically explained, involves what I call the Magick Bouncing Photon argument. That somehow, CO2 or other Holy Gas can magickally heat the surface, even though it is a colder gas. It somehow can reduce the radiance emitted from the Earth and increase the temperature at the same time in violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
It also builds paradoxes:
The sunlit skin of the ISS reaches 250 deg F. It has no atmosphere or Magick Holy Gas.
The sunlit surface of the Earth never reaches that high. It has an atmosphere and Magick Holy Gas.
If Magick Holy Gas causes the surface to warm, why is the sunlit side of the Earth COOLER?
Why is a marine environment with lots of Magick Holy Gas (water vapor and liquid water in clouds) COOLER than a dry desert during the day at the same latitude and general elevation?
I don't think your kids have anything to worry about with 'global warming', 'climate change', or 'greenhouse effect', other than fending off the Believers and keeping them out of government.
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
Edited on 29-04-2017 04:18 |
| 29-04-2017 15:53 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
spot wrote:
I provided links.
3, Liar. You understand that I do not want proof of anything. I want you to describe what it is you think is bad about global warming and why it is you think it will happen, the bad thing not the change in temperature, and then support it with some sort of science. Should be easy. That it is impossible says it all.
Links to blogs will not do.
You need to say what it is that is bad in your words.
Then say why this is likely to happen, in your words. Not the bit about it warming. The bad thing that will happen due to the warming.
Then back that bad thing with science that says it will happen like you describe.
P.S. Use whatever language you feel will lend gravtias to your points. Personally I will also use whatever words I feel like, I will be attempting to communicate as clearly as possible and also to try to avoid sounding like an arrogant know nothing prick.
Edited on 29-04-2017 15:54 |
| 29-04-2017 16:16 |
spot★★★★☆
(1323) |
Tim the plumber wrote:
spot wrote:
I provided links.
3, Liar. You understand that I do not want proof of anything. I want you to describe what it is you think is bad about global warming and why it is you think it will happen, the bad thing not the change in temperature, and then support it with some sort of science. Should be easy. That it is impossible says it all.
Links to blogs will not do.
You need to say what it is that is bad in your words.
Then say why this is likely to happen, in your words. Not the bit about it warming. The bad thing that will happen due to the warming.
Then back that bad thing with science that says it will happen like you describe.
P.S. Use whatever language you feel will lend gravtias to your points. Personally I will also use whatever words I feel like, I will be attempting to communicate as clearly as possible and also to try to avoid sounding like an arrogant know nothing prick.
So basically you can't be bothered to look it up for yourself, and instead want to waste my time and insult me, sounds fun.
I'll pass, consider it a victory. Everybody gives up trying to explain stuff to you, and I guess that's winning in your eyes.
IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.
Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. |
|
| 29-04-2017 16:53 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
I provided links.
Science doesn't use consensus.
Science isn't links. No supporting evidence is used in science at all. Science only uses conflicting evidence.
Data is useless without at least the following that goes with it:
The raw data must be available. It must be verifiable.
The instrumentation used must be known. The calibration for that instrumentation must be known, and the possible sources of error must be known.
We must know who collected it, when it was collected, and why.
Statistical analysis of the data must conform to the selection demands of statistical math, which include:
Selection must be by randN, using a means independent of the data. The population must include all possibilities, not just the data itself. In other words, Selection by Opportunity is considered an error.
The margin of error must be shown along with the rest of the summary. This value is calculated against population, not the data itself.
Statistical analysis does not have the power of prediction. It cannot be used for that purpose.
People spew numbers all the time and call it 'data'. Computer models are not 'data'. Interpolation is not 'data'. Assumptions are not 'data'. Consensus is not 'data'.
Manufacturing data or citing manufactured data is a most common practice among the believers of the Church of Global Warming.
You see it common in government and finance too.
This is a very good analysis. The only comment I would make is that although statistical analysis doesn't hold the power of prediction in theory it most assuredly does in real life.
Nope. Not at all. Statistics has no power of prediction at all. The theory IS real life. The reason is because statistical analysis depends on probability theory, which in turn depend on the generation of random numbers. Probability IS the study of random numbers under different contexts involving sequences and type of random number. It is the random number that destroys the power of prediction in probability math, and statistical math, which depends on it.
Wake wrote:
A friend of mine was starving to death a couple of years ago. His mother died just in time for him to catch up with his bills via inheritance and he began day trading and is now not rich but pretty well-to-do. The reason he isn't rich is that he is far too careful to take any chance beyond statistical probability.
It is not prediction. It is gambling. It may be gambling 'with the odds', but it is gambling nevertheless.
Professional gamblers play in favor of the odds. They may currently win enough to make a living at it, but they don't know when or even if they will win. Some of these folks have incredible memories or the ability to 'read' people and their body language. These are factors other than statistics or probability.
Fortunately, in stocks, if you find a company that produces something people want, can continue to do so, then you can share in their success. That's fine, but now you are talking about factors other than statistics and probability.
The same thing happens if you short a company the was profitable and fetched a high price, but now is having trouble producing, and is spending too much or is mismanaged. Again, you are talking about factors other than statistics or probability. In finance, shorting a company like that is basically yelling "bullshit" with your wallet.
You could lose either way. A profitable company may turn sour. A sour company might get its act together and become profitable. Getting on the wrong side of the fence at the wrong time can be costly.
If you provide a statistical analysis of a population in which none of the samples fall outside of a set of limits would you consider it gambling to bet that any finite number of additional samples would either A. Fall outside those limits or B. Fall near the middle of that group? |
| 29-04-2017 17:52 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
spot wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
spot wrote:
I provided links.
3, Liar. You understand that I do not want proof of anything. I want you to describe what it is you think is bad about global warming and why it is you think it will happen, the bad thing not the change in temperature, and then support it with some sort of science. Should be easy. That it is impossible says it all.
Links to blogs will not do.
You need to say what it is that is bad in your words.
Then say why this is likely to happen, in your words. Not the bit about it warming. The bad thing that will happen due to the warming.
Then back that bad thing with science that says it will happen like you describe.
P.S. Use whatever language you feel will lend gravtias to your points. Personally I will also use whatever words I feel like, I will be attempting to communicate as clearly as possible and also to try to avoid sounding like an arrogant know nothing prick.
So basically you can't be bothered to look it up for yourself, and instead want to waste my time and insult me, sounds fun.
I'll pass, consider it a victory. Everybody gives up trying to explain stuff to you, and I guess that's winning in your eyes.
'twas you that started the insults.
'tis you that refuses to actually say what the hell it is we should be scared of.
'tis you that has the burden of proof in order to persuade the rest of us that action should be taken. |
| 29-04-2017 18:10 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(2932) |
Tim the plumber wrote:
'tis you that has the burden of proof in order to persuade the rest of us that action should be taken.[/color]
Damn right! The accuser carries burden of proof. Get busy Spot.
Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan |
| 29-04-2017 20:13 |
spot★★★★☆
(1323) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
'tis you that has the burden of proof in order to persuade the rest of us that action should be taken.[/color]
Damn right! The accuser carries burden of proof. Get busy Spot.
I've accused someone of something? This is a court? I have to prove everything I say to you? To a standard beyond the standards employed by science journals? Your statements no matter how ridiculous however are to be taken at face value?
Why?
IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.
Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. |
| 29-04-2017 21:35 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(2932) |
spot wrote:
[quote]I've accused someone of something?
You have accused mankind of heating the global temps by spewing CO2 into the atmosphere. Have you not? I'd like to think I am part of mankind, though some may argue differently.
This is a court?
Why shouldn't it be treated like a court? We either have millions dead or are going to see millions die due to this warming you have accused mankind of. That is either murder or attempted murder. Those are hefty charges.
I have to prove everything I say to you?
Me and anyone else you've accused.
To a standard beyond the standards employed by science journals?
Bla Bla Bla.....you going to accept MY journals as proof?
Your statements, no matter how ridiculous however are to be taken at face value?
I'm not the one posting up crap about all the penguins dying, and then doubling down when it's shown to be a flat out lie. What ridiculous statement did I make?
Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
Edited on 29-04-2017 21:36 |
| 29-04-2017 21:49 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
'tis you that has the burden of proof in order to persuade the rest of us that action should be taken.[/color]
Damn right! The accuser carries burden of proof. Get busy Spot.
I've accused someone of something? This is a court? I have to prove everything I say to you? To a standard beyond the standards employed by science journals? Your statements no matter how ridiculous however are to be taken at face value?
Why?
No, you are not being asked for anywhere near any sort of proof at all near a science journal, nor indeed the far lesser court room level of beyond reasonable doubt.
I am demanding a prima facia case. That is all.
When you post such a thing I will then look at it and challenge it to see how strong it is but first you have to present any initial case for humanity to take action.
Being afraid of the big bad wolf is fine and reasonable. Being afraid of the little mouse is not. Where is the wolf? |
| 29-04-2017 21:49 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
I provided links.
Science doesn't use consensus.
Science isn't links. No supporting evidence is used in science at all. Science only uses conflicting evidence.
Data is useless without at least the following that goes with it:
The raw data must be available. It must be verifiable.
The instrumentation used must be known. The calibration for that instrumentation must be known, and the possible sources of error must be known.
We must know who collected it, when it was collected, and why.
Statistical analysis of the data must conform to the selection demands of statistical math, which include:
Selection must be by randN, using a means independent of the data. The population must include all possibilities, not just the data itself. In other words, Selection by Opportunity is considered an error.
The margin of error must be shown along with the rest of the summary. This value is calculated against population, not the data itself.
Statistical analysis does not have the power of prediction. It cannot be used for that purpose.
People spew numbers all the time and call it 'data'. Computer models are not 'data'. Interpolation is not 'data'. Assumptions are not 'data'. Consensus is not 'data'.
Manufacturing data or citing manufactured data is a most common practice among the believers of the Church of Global Warming.
You see it common in government and finance too.
This is a very good analysis. The only comment I would make is that although statistical analysis doesn't hold the power of prediction in theory it most assuredly does in real life.
Nope. Not at all. Statistics has no power of prediction at all. The theory IS real life. The reason is because statistical analysis depends on probability theory, which in turn depend on the generation of random numbers. Probability IS the study of random numbers under different contexts involving sequences and type of random number. It is the random number that destroys the power of prediction in probability math, and statistical math, which depends on it.
Wake wrote:
A friend of mine was starving to death a couple of years ago. His mother died just in time for him to catch up with his bills via inheritance and he began day trading and is now not rich but pretty well-to-do. The reason he isn't rich is that he is far too careful to take any chance beyond statistical probability.
It is not prediction. It is gambling. It may be gambling 'with the odds', but it is gambling nevertheless.
Professional gamblers play in favor of the odds. They may currently win enough to make a living at it, but they don't know when or even if they will win. Some of these folks have incredible memories or the ability to 'read' people and their body language. These are factors other than statistics or probability.
Fortunately, in stocks, if you find a company that produces something people want, can continue to do so, then you can share in their success. That's fine, but now you are talking about factors other than statistics and probability.
The same thing happens if you short a company the was profitable and fetched a high price, but now is having trouble producing, and is spending too much or is mismanaged. Again, you are talking about factors other than statistics or probability. In finance, shorting a company like that is basically yelling "bullshit" with your wallet.
You could lose either way. A profitable company may turn sour. A sour company might get its act together and become profitable. Getting on the wrong side of the fence at the wrong time can be costly.
If you provide a statistical analysis of a population in which none of the samples fall outside of a set of limits would you consider it gambling to bet that any finite number of additional samples would either A. Fall outside those limits or B. Fall near the middle of that group?
It depends on where those limits are set. They come from the population you are sampling from.
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 |
| 29-04-2017 21:56 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
'tis you that has the burden of proof in order to persuade the rest of us that action should be taken.[/color]
Damn right! The accuser carries burden of proof. Get busy Spot.
I've accused someone of something? This is a court? I have to prove everything I say to you? To a standard beyond the standards employed by science journals? Your statements no matter how ridiculous however are to be taken at face value?
Why?
It is not because it is a court or not. It is because of the demands of logic. Courts happen to be aware of this point of logic and make use of it.
No one has to prove a negative (essentially a null argument). The one making the positive statement (the new argument) has the burden of 'proof'.
You are arguing that 'global warming' is occurring. This is a positive argument. What you call 'deniers' argue that nothing is happening. This is a null, or negative argument. The burden of proof is on YOU. No one is required to prove your argument is wrong. YOU have to convince others.
First, let's see you can define what 'global warming' actually IS. You cannot use circular arguments. No links. No quotes. You may prefer to try to define 'climate change' instead. Same rules.
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 |
| 30-04-2017 13:29 |
spot★★★★☆
(1323) |
Into the Night wrote:
It is not because it is a court or not. It is because of the demands of logic. Courts happen to be aware of this point of logic and make use of it.
No one has to prove a negative (essentially a null argument). The one making the positive statement (the new argument) has the burden of 'proof'.
You are arguing that 'global warming' is occurring. This is a positive argument. What you call 'deniers' argue that nothing is happening. This is a null, or negative argument. The burden of proof is on YOU. No one is required to prove your argument is wrong. YOU have to convince others.
First, let's see you can define what 'global warming' actually IS. You cannot use circular arguments. No links. No quotes. You may prefer to try to define 'climate change' instead. Same rules.
Logic?
Well logically the atmosphere has to work some way, you can look in a textbook written in the last 70 years or so and get an idea of what mainstream science has to say on the matter.
However you think differently, that it is logical to off hand reject that view.
In fact Each of you have a different ideas of how it works,
You have a special snowflake interpretation of the laws of thermodynamics which is obviously daft.
Wake wants us to take the word of someone who thinks the universe was magicked into existence 6000 years ago.
Tim, probably the most sensible amongst you, thinks as well as other stupid things that the Andes poke into the Stratosphere.
The only thing that unites you is a hatred of the main stream view on atmospheric physics.
So lets start with logic, Logically you can't all be right.
Right?
IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.
Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. |
| 30-04-2017 19:24 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It is not because it is a court or not. It is because of the demands of logic. Courts happen to be aware of this point of logic and make use of it.
No one has to prove a negative (essentially a null argument). The one making the positive statement (the new argument) has the burden of 'proof'.
You are arguing that 'global warming' is occurring. This is a positive argument. What you call 'deniers' argue that nothing is happening. This is a null, or negative argument. The burden of proof is on YOU. No one is required to prove your argument is wrong. YOU have to convince others.
First, let's see you can define what 'global warming' actually IS. You cannot use circular arguments. No links. No quotes. You may prefer to try to define 'climate change' instead. Same rules.
Logic?
Well logically the atmosphere has to work some way, you can look in a textbook written in the last 70 years or so and get an idea of what mainstream science has to say on the matter.
However you think differently, that it is logical to off hand reject that view.
In fact Each of you have a different ideas of how it works,
You have a special snowflake interpretation of the laws of thermodynamics which is obviously daft.
Wake wants us to take the word of someone who thinks the universe was magicked into existence 6000 years ago.
Tim, probably the most sensible amongst you, thinks as well as other stupid things that the Andes poke into the Stratosphere.
The only thing that unites you is a hatred of the main stream view on atmospheric physics.
So lets start with logic, Logically you can't all be right.
Right?
I do not think that the Andies are higher than the stratosphere. I said that there are glaciers which have been uplifted such that they are above the active weather sysytems. That it never snows on them nor do they melt.
It is exceptionally striking that asking the other side to outline their argument in any other debate, religion included, results in the other side taking the opportunity to shout their message, again.
In this global warming thing asking for a reasonably detailed explaination of the position of the warmists/alarmists gets you called a deiner of science. |
|
| 30-04-2017 22:20 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21582) |
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It is not because it is a court or not. It is because of the demands of logic. Courts happen to be aware of this point of logic and make use of it.
No one has to prove a negative (essentially a null argument). The one making the positive statement (the new argument) has the burden of 'proof'.
You are arguing that 'global warming' is occurring. This is a positive argument. What you call 'deniers' argue that nothing is happening. This is a null, or negative argument. The burden of proof is on YOU. No one is required to prove your argument is wrong. YOU have to convince others.
First, let's see you can define what 'global warming' actually IS. You cannot use circular arguments. No links. No quotes. You may prefer to try to define 'climate change' instead. Same rules.
Logic?
Well logically the atmosphere has to work some way, you can look in a textbook written in the last 70 years or so and get an idea of what mainstream science has to say on the matter.
However you think differently, that it is logical to off hand reject that view.
In fact Each of you have a different ideas of how it works,
You have a special snowflake interpretation of the laws of thermodynamics which is obviously daft.
Wake wants us to take the word of someone who thinks the universe was magicked into existence 6000 years ago.
Tim, probably the most sensible amongst you, thinks as well as other stupid things that the Andes poke into the Stratosphere.
The only thing that unites you is a hatred of the main stream view on atmospheric physics.
So lets start with logic, Logically you can't all be right.
Right?
This is a fallacy known as the Redirection fallacy. We are talking about YOUR statements, beliefs, and claims, not those of anybody else. It also presupposes a redefinition of science. Consensus is not used in science. Your attempts at Bulverism is also a fallacy.
Or we could talk about the statements, dogma, and claims of the Church of Global Warming. You all generally follow the same chant, because it generally comes from the same place.
You are also attempting to redefine physics as 'mainstream'. Science has no 'mainstream'. Science is not consensus. It is not credentials, peer reviews, research studies, or data collection. Science is not even people.
Science is just the falsifiable theories themselves.
Your 'logic' is quite lacking. Fallacies are not logic. They are violations (errors) in logic, just like errors in math.
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 |
| 30-04-2017 23:02 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It is not because it is a court or not. It is because of the demands of logic. Courts happen to be aware of this point of logic and make use of it.
No one has to prove a negative (essentially a null argument). The one making the positive statement (the new argument) has the burden of 'proof'.
You are arguing that 'global warming' is occurring. This is a positive argument. What you call 'deniers' argue that nothing is happening. This is a null, or negative argument. The burden of proof is on YOU. No one is required to prove your argument is wrong. YOU have to convince others.
First, let's see you can define what 'global warming' actually IS. You cannot use circular arguments. No links. No quotes. You may prefer to try to define 'climate change' instead. Same rules.
Logic?
Well logically the atmosphere has to work some way, you can look in a textbook written in the last 70 years or so and get an idea of what mainstream science has to say on the matter.
However you think differently, that it is logical to off hand reject that view.
In fact Each of you have a different ideas of how it works,
You have a special snowflake interpretation of the laws of thermodynamics which is obviously daft.
Wake wants us to take the word of someone who thinks the universe was magicked into existence 6000 years ago.
Tim, probably the most sensible amongst you, thinks as well as other stupid things that the Andes poke into the Stratosphere.
The only thing that unites you is a hatred of the main stream view on atmospheric physics.
So lets start with logic, Logically you can't all be right.
Right?
It is quite comical that you are unable to write one single posting without printing lies. This clearly demonstrates that you True Believers are speaking from a position of religious belief rather than one of of intellectual attainment. |
| 01-05-2017 15:02 |
spot★★★★☆
(1323) |
Tim the plumber wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It is not because it is a court or not. It is because of the demands of logic. Courts happen to be aware of this point of logic and make use of it.
No one has to prove a negative (essentially a null argument). The one making the positive statement (the new argument) has the burden of 'proof'.
You are arguing that 'global warming' is occurring. This is a positive argument. What you call 'deniers' argue that nothing is happening. This is a null, or negative argument. The burden of proof is on YOU. No one is required to prove your argument is wrong. YOU have to convince others.
First, let's see you can define what 'global warming' actually IS. You cannot use circular arguments. No links. No quotes. You may prefer to try to define 'climate change' instead. Same rules.
Logic?
Well logically the atmosphere has to work some way, you can look in a textbook written in the last 70 years or so and get an idea of what mainstream science has to say on the matter.
However you think differently, that it is logical to off hand reject that view.
In fact Each of you have a different ideas of how it works,
You have a special snowflake interpretation of the laws of thermodynamics which is obviously daft.
Wake wants us to take the word of someone who thinks the universe was magicked into existence 6000 years ago.
Tim, probably the most sensible amongst you, thinks as well as other stupid things that the Andes poke into the Stratosphere.
The only thing that unites you is a hatred of the main stream view on atmospheric physics.
So lets start with logic, Logically you can't all be right.
Right?
I do not think that the Andies are higher than the stratosphere. I said that there are glaciers which have been uplifted such that they are above the active weather sysytems. That it never snows on them nor do they melt.
It is exceptionally striking that asking the other side to outline their argument in any other debate, religion included, results in the other side taking the opportunity to shout their message, again.
In this global warming thing asking for a reasonably detailed explaination of the position of the warmists/alarmists gets you called a deiner of science.
The part of the atmosphere where weather happens is the troposphere, muppet.
IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.
Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. |
| 17-05-2017 17:45 |
Flill☆☆☆☆☆
(7) |
I've found a new and interesting project about today's global problems. Check it out - http://planetaryproject.com/planet_project/philosophy/. I think it'll be useful for anyone. |
| 17-05-2017 18:22 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Flill wrote:
I've found a new and interesting project about today's global problems. Check it out - http://planetaryproject.com/planet_project/philosophy/. I think it'll be useful for anyone.
One world government is a Marxist dream. How would you like California running the entire world? |