Remember me
▼ Content

New Little Ice Age


New Little Ice Age18-11-2018 17:43
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
Russian scientists were more interested in looking for the actual climate and in 2015 they submitted scientific papers showing that the solar sunspots were in a cycle that would reduce them to nearly zero by halfway through this century. This in turn would cause large cooling in the upper atmosphere and bring on another Little Ice Age such as the Maunder Minimum of the 1700's ending circa 1850.

During this time it was so cold in Europe that the Thames river in London would freeze over in the winter and the lower altitude glaciers in Greenland formed destroying the use of that subcontinent.

NASA is presently preparing a paper that varifies the Russian findings.

And so the ultimate in revenge on the Global Warmies is about to occur - rather than death by heat, most of them will have a very very hard life and spend most of it crying for more Nuclear power plants and more consumption of coal and petroleum.
20-11-2018 19:11
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
Wake wrote:
Russian scientists were more interested in looking for the actual climate and in 2015 they submitted scientific papers showing that the solar sunspots were in a cycle that would reduce them to nearly zero by halfway through this century. This in turn would cause large cooling in the upper atmosphere and bring on another Little Ice Age such as the Maunder Minimum of the 1700's ending circa 1850.

During this time it was so cold in Europe that the Thames river in London would freeze over in the winter and the lower altitude glaciers in Greenland formed destroying the use of that subcontinent.

NASA is presently preparing a paper that varifies the Russian findings.

And so the ultimate in revenge on the Global Warmies is about to occur - rather than death by heat, most of them will have a very very hard life and spend most of it crying for more Nuclear power plants and more consumption of coal and petroleum.


This demonstrates the significance of Uranium-Gate which had Hillary selling 20% of North America's production of uranium to Russia. These are a people that know what is coming and know that they NEED nuclear power plants to survive as a nation.

In the meantime American politicians are ignoring the coming hard times in order to grab personal power.
20-11-2018 21:05
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Wake wrote:
Wake wrote:
Russian scientists were more interested in looking for the actual climate and in 2015 they submitted scientific papers showing that the solar sunspots were in a cycle that would reduce them to nearly zero by halfway through this century. This in turn would cause large cooling in the upper atmosphere and bring on another Little Ice Age such as the Maunder Minimum of the 1700's ending circa 1850.

During this time it was so cold in Europe that the Thames river in London would freeze over in the winter and the lower altitude glaciers in Greenland formed destroying the use of that subcontinent.

NASA is presently preparing a paper that varifies the Russian findings.

And so the ultimate in revenge on the Global Warmies is about to occur - rather than death by heat, most of them will have a very very hard life and spend most of it crying for more Nuclear power plants and more consumption of coal and petroleum.


This demonstrates the significance of Uranium-Gate which had Hillary selling 20% of North America's production of uranium to Russia. These are a people that know what is coming and know that they NEED nuclear power plants to survive as a nation.

In the meantime American politicians are ignoring the coming hard times in order to grab personal power.


Fuel grade uranium is easily purified into weapons grade uranium using Russian facilities. Do you really think that stuff is going to remain nuclear fuel??


The Parrot Killer
20-11-2018 21:36
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Wake wrote:
Russian scientists were more interested in looking for the actual climate and in 2015 they submitted scientific papers showing that the solar sunspots were in a cycle that would reduce them to nearly zero by halfway through this century. This in turn would cause large cooling in the upper atmosphere and bring on another Little Ice Age such as the Maunder Minimum of the 1700's ending circa 1850.

During this time it was so cold in Europe that the Thames river in London would freeze over in the winter and the lower altitude glaciers in Greenland formed destroying the use of that subcontinent.

NASA is presently preparing a paper that varifies the Russian findings.

And so the ultimate in revenge on the Global Warmies is about to occur - rather than death by heat, most of them will have a very very hard life and spend most of it crying for more Nuclear power plants and more consumption of coal and petroleum.


This demonstrates the significance of Uranium-Gate which had Hillary selling 20% of North America's production of uranium to Russia. These are a people that know what is coming and know that they NEED nuclear power plants to survive as a nation.

In the meantime American politicians are ignoring the coming hard times in order to grab personal power.


Fuel grade uranium is easily purified into weapons grade uranium using Russian facilities. Do you really think that stuff is going to remain nuclear fuel??


That sort of answer again shows that you have no idea what you're talking about. You seem to actually believe that a country with so many nuclear weapons that it could turn the entire surface of this planet into dust would want more.
21-11-2018 00:48
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Wake wrote:
Russian scientists were more interested in looking for the actual climate and in 2015 they submitted scientific papers showing that the solar sunspots were in a cycle that would reduce them to nearly zero by halfway through this century. This in turn would cause large cooling in the upper atmosphere and bring on another Little Ice Age such as the Maunder Minimum of the 1700's ending circa 1850.

During this time it was so cold in Europe that the Thames river in London would freeze over in the winter and the lower altitude glaciers in Greenland formed destroying the use of that subcontinent.

NASA is presently preparing a paper that varifies the Russian findings.

And so the ultimate in revenge on the Global Warmies is about to occur - rather than death by heat, most of them will have a very very hard life and spend most of it crying for more Nuclear power plants and more consumption of coal and petroleum.


This demonstrates the significance of Uranium-Gate which had Hillary selling 20% of North America's production of uranium to Russia. These are a people that know what is coming and know that they NEED nuclear power plants to survive as a nation.

In the meantime American politicians are ignoring the coming hard times in order to grab personal power.


Fuel grade uranium is easily purified into weapons grade uranium using Russian facilities. Do you really think that stuff is going to remain nuclear fuel??


That sort of answer again shows that you have no idea what you're talking about. You seem to actually believe that a country with so many nuclear weapons that it could turn the entire surface of this planet into dust would want more.


The entire surface of this planet is already dust. Perhaps you never learned what 'dirt' is.

Neither the Russians nor the United States nor even their combined stockpiles could destroy all life on Earth.

It has already been demonstrated that either nation wants more weapons.


The Parrot Killer
21-11-2018 01:04
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Wake wrote:
Russian scientists were more interested in looking for the actual climate and in 2015 they submitted scientific papers showing that the solar sunspots were in a cycle that would reduce them to nearly zero by halfway through this century. This in turn would cause large cooling in the upper atmosphere and bring on another Little Ice Age such as the Maunder Minimum of the 1700's ending circa 1850.

During this time it was so cold in Europe that the Thames river in London would freeze over in the winter and the lower altitude glaciers in Greenland formed destroying the use of that subcontinent.

NASA is presently preparing a paper that varifies the Russian findings.

And so the ultimate in revenge on the Global Warmies is about to occur - rather than death by heat, most of them will have a very very hard life and spend most of it crying for more Nuclear power plants and more consumption of coal and petroleum.


This demonstrates the significance of Uranium-Gate which had Hillary selling 20% of North America's production of uranium to Russia. These are a people that know what is coming and know that they NEED nuclear power plants to survive as a nation.

In the meantime American politicians are ignoring the coming hard times in order to grab personal power.


Fuel grade uranium is easily purified into weapons grade uranium using Russian facilities. Do you really think that stuff is going to remain nuclear fuel??


That sort of answer again shows that you have no idea what you're talking about. You seem to actually believe that a country with so many nuclear weapons that it could turn the entire surface of this planet into dust would want more.


The entire surface of this planet is already dust. Perhaps you never learned what 'dirt' is.

Neither the Russians nor the United States nor even their combined stockpiles could destroy all life on Earth.

It has already been demonstrated that either nation wants more weapons.


You may argue with yourself all you like.

I never said that radiation would destroy "all life on Earth" and never meant it. I said that the Russians know what the hell is going on and they intend to have sufficient fuel for their nuclear power plants. But apparently that is far beyond you. Tell us where you believe you got information on the size and power of the Russian nuclear weapons or even the American's?
21-11-2018 09:31
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Wake wrote:
Russian scientists were more interested in looking for the actual climate and in 2015 they submitted scientific papers showing that the solar sunspots were in a cycle that would reduce them to nearly zero by halfway through this century. This in turn would cause large cooling in the upper atmosphere and bring on another Little Ice Age such as the Maunder Minimum of the 1700's ending circa 1850.

During this time it was so cold in Europe that the Thames river in London would freeze over in the winter and the lower altitude glaciers in Greenland formed destroying the use of that subcontinent.

NASA is presently preparing a paper that varifies the Russian findings.

And so the ultimate in revenge on the Global Warmies is about to occur - rather than death by heat, most of them will have a very very hard life and spend most of it crying for more Nuclear power plants and more consumption of coal and petroleum.


This demonstrates the significance of Uranium-Gate which had Hillary selling 20% of North America's production of uranium to Russia. These are a people that know what is coming and know that they NEED nuclear power plants to survive as a nation.

In the meantime American politicians are ignoring the coming hard times in order to grab personal power.


Fuel grade uranium is easily purified into weapons grade uranium using Russian facilities. Do you really think that stuff is going to remain nuclear fuel??


That sort of answer again shows that you have no idea what you're talking about. You seem to actually believe that a country with so many nuclear weapons that it could turn the entire surface of this planet into dust would want more.


The entire surface of this planet is already dust. Perhaps you never learned what 'dirt' is.

Neither the Russians nor the United States nor even their combined stockpiles could destroy all life on Earth.

It has already been demonstrated that either nation wants more weapons.


You may argue with yourself all you like.

Really? Then why are you arguing with me?
Wake wrote:
I never said that radiation would destroy "all life on Earth" and never meant it.
Yes you did.
Wake wrote:
I said that the Russians know what the hell is going on and they intend to have sufficient fuel for their nuclear power plants.
They already have sufficient fuel for power plants. They have a lot of natural gas resources.
Wake wrote:
But apparently that is far beyond you.
Inversion fallacy.
Wake wrote:
Tell us where you believe you got information on the size and power of the Russian nuclear weapons or even the American's?

No need. There simply isn't enough to destroy all life on Earth.


The Parrot Killer
21-11-2018 19:49
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Wake wrote:
Russian scientists were more interested in looking for the actual climate and in 2015 they submitted scientific papers showing that the solar sunspots were in a cycle that would reduce them to nearly zero by halfway through this century. This in turn would cause large cooling in the upper atmosphere and bring on another Little Ice Age such as the Maunder Minimum of the 1700's ending circa 1850.

During this time it was so cold in Europe that the Thames river in London would freeze over in the winter and the lower altitude glaciers in Greenland formed destroying the use of that subcontinent.

NASA is presently preparing a paper that varifies the Russian findings.

And so the ultimate in revenge on the Global Warmies is about to occur - rather than death by heat, most of them will have a very very hard life and spend most of it crying for more Nuclear power plants and more consumption of coal and petroleum.


This demonstrates the significance of Uranium-Gate which had Hillary selling 20% of North America's production of uranium to Russia. These are a people that know what is coming and know that they NEED nuclear power plants to survive as a nation.

In the meantime American politicians are ignoring the coming hard times in order to grab personal power.


Fuel grade uranium is easily purified into weapons grade uranium using Russian facilities. Do you really think that stuff is going to remain nuclear fuel??


That sort of answer again shows that you have no idea what you're talking about. You seem to actually believe that a country with so many nuclear weapons that it could turn the entire surface of this planet into dust would want more.


The entire surface of this planet is already dust. Perhaps you never learned what 'dirt' is.

Neither the Russians nor the United States nor even their combined stockpiles could destroy all life on Earth.

It has already been demonstrated that either nation wants more weapons.


You may argue with yourself all you like.

Really? Then why are you arguing with me?
Wake wrote:
I never said that radiation would destroy "all life on Earth" and never meant it.
Yes you did.
Wake wrote:
I said that the Russians know what the hell is going on and they intend to have sufficient fuel for their nuclear power plants.
They already have sufficient fuel for power plants. They have a lot of natural gas resources.
Wake wrote:
But apparently that is far beyond you.
Inversion fallacy.
Wake wrote:
Tell us where you believe you got information on the size and power of the Russian nuclear weapons or even the American's?

No need. There simply isn't enough to destroy all life on Earth.


I like arguing with you to show everyone just what lengths you will go to to demonstrate and almost complete lack of intelligence. "Duhhhh it ain't me, it you." Tell us all - if you think that the Russians already have enough fuel for their nuclear power plants, tell us all how long the Little Ice Age was. You ought to be able to pull that right off the top of your head.
24-11-2018 16:20
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
Wake wrote:


I like arguing with you to show everyone just what lengths you will go to to demonstrate and almost complete lack of intelligence. "Duhhhh it ain't me, it you." Tell us all - if you think that the Russians already have enough fuel for their nuclear power plants, tell us all how long the Little Ice Age was. You ought to be able to pull that right off the top of your head.



Wake,
itn and gfm7175 only want to argue with people. As they say, their logic is not fallible but science is.
An example of how science is falsifiable is what is 1 + 1? Sometimes it's not 2. Rabbits are known for multiplying from 1 + 1.
Math just became falsified.
Yet I bet both itn and gfm7175 use math because it let's them know how much money they have. Their logic was just falsified.
Since math is falsifiable they shouldn't use it so they can budget their money. After all, 1 + 1 could end up being 20.
Why it's pointless to engage either one. They just want to be disruptive and play mind games. Their arguments are circular because their arguments revolve around the basic precept that they are right. That invalidates their arguments and shows them to be nothing more than fallacies
24-11-2018 23:09
gfm7175
★☆☆☆☆
(50)
James___ wrote:
Wake,
itn and gfm7175 only want to argue with people.

Yeah, I like debating people... It's fun to see how my thoughts stand up to scruitany and it's fun to learn things.

James___ wrote:As they say, their logic is not fallible but science is.

It is not our logic. Logic is not a theory. Science IS a set of (falsifiable) theories.

James___ wrote:
An example of how science is falsifiable is what is 1 + 1?

Wrong. Science is not Mathematics.

James___ wrote:Sometimes it's not 2.

You'd need to be more specific here, but either way your point is irrelevant...

James___ wrote:Rabbits are known for multiplying from 1 + 1.

Wrong. Rabbits don't multiply... They mate...

James___ wrote:
Math just became falsified.

No it didn't. Math can't be falsified. Math is not a theory.

James___ wrote:
Yet I bet both itn and gfm7175 use math because it let's them know how much money they have.

We sure do.

James___ wrote:Their logic was just falsified.

It's not our logic and there was no falsification of anything here... Neither Math nor Logic are falsifiable. They are not theories.

James___ wrote:
Since math is falsifiable they shouldn't use it so they can budget their money.

Wrong. Math is not falsifiable... Math is not a theory.

James___ wrote:
After all, 1 + 1 could end up being 20.

Not under a Base10 system, which is what most people make typical everyday use of... under those rules, it will always equal 2...

James___ wrote:
Why it's pointless to engage either one. They just want to be disruptive and play mind games.

I didn't know that Logic was a mind game...

James___ wrote:
Their arguments are circular because their arguments revolve around the basic precept that they are right.

Wrong. They revolve around things such as Logic, Mathematics, Science, History, etc...

James___ wrote:That invalidates their arguments and shows them to be nothing more than fallacies

Wrong. Even if our arguments WERE circular arguments (they weren't), they wouldn't be "invalidated" nor would they be fallacious (unless we were trying to prove them). Learn what a circular argument is and how they work... You even make use of circular reasoning in your everyday life... we all do... You even validate your reasoning skills in a circular way... Is THAT fallacious?
24-11-2018 23:58
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
gfm7175 wrote:
James___ wrote:
Wake,
itn and gfm7175 only want to argue with people.

Yeah, I like debating people... It's fun to see how my thoughts stand up to scruitany and it's fun to learn things.

James___ wrote:As they say, their logic is not fallible but science is.

It is not our logic. Logic is not a theory. Science IS a set of (falsifiable) theories.

James___ wrote:
An example of how science is falsifiable is what is 1 + 1?

Wrong. Science is not Mathematics.

James___ wrote:Sometimes it's not 2.

You'd need to be more specific here, but either way your point is irrelevant...

James___ wrote:Rabbits are known for multiplying from 1 + 1.

Wrong. Rabbits don't multiply... They mate...

James___ wrote:
Math just became falsified.

No it didn't. Math can't be falsified. Math is not a theory.

James___ wrote:
Yet I bet both itn and gfm7175 use math because it let's them know how much money they have.

We sure do.

James___ wrote:Their logic was just falsified.

It's not our logic and there was no falsification of anything here... Neither Math nor Logic are falsifiable. They are not theories.

James___ wrote:
Since math is falsifiable they shouldn't use it so they can budget their money.

Wrong. Math is not falsifiable... Math is not a theory.

James___ wrote:
After all, 1 + 1 could end up being 20.

Not under a Base10 system, which is what most people make typical everyday use of... under those rules, it will always equal 2...

James___ wrote:
Why it's pointless to engage either one. They just want to be disruptive and play mind games.

I didn't know that Logic was a mind game...

James___ wrote:
Their arguments are circular because their arguments revolve around the basic precept that they are right.

Wrong. They revolve around things such as Logic, Mathematics, Science, History, etc...

James___ wrote:That invalidates their arguments and shows them to be nothing more than fallacies

Wrong. Even if our arguments WERE circular arguments (they weren't), they wouldn't be "invalidated" nor would they be fallacious (unless we were trying to prove them). Learn what a circular argument is and how they work... You even make use of circular reasoning in your everyday life... we all do... You even validate your reasoning skills in a circular way... Is THAT fallacious?


I wouldn't be surprised if you're Branner using an alias. itn said they're like 2 peas in a pod. , You and itn sound like the computer in I, Robot. My logic is undeniable.
Edited on 25-11-2018 00:05
25-11-2018 00:17
gfm7175
★☆☆☆☆
(50)
James___ wrote:personal attacks because I have no actual arguments

Keeping it classy
25-11-2018 02:08
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
James___ wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
personal attacks because I have no actual arguments


Keeping it classy
25-11-2018 02:13
gfm7175
★☆☆☆☆
(50)
James___ wrote:
James___ wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
personal attacks because I have no actual arguments


Keeping it classy


Mockery is the sincerest form of flattery... Thanks bud!
25-11-2018 02:50
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
gfm7175 wrote:
James___ wrote:
James___ wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
personal attacks because I have no actual arguments


Keeping it classy


Mockery is the sincerest form of flattery... Thanks bud!


That's sad. You posted a false quote and I corrected it. You must be Branner. That'd explain why it's can't be banned for being a troll.
Just wonder why people who dislike science would use it to promote their logic. It doesn't seem to be going very well for you guys
25-11-2018 02:57
gfm7175
★☆☆☆☆
(50)
James___ wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
James___ wrote:
James___ wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
personal attacks because I have no actual arguments


Keeping it classy


Mockery is the sincerest form of flattery... Thanks bud!


That's sad. You posted a false quote and I corrected it. You must be Branner. That'd explain why it's can't be banned for being a troll.
Just wonder why people who dislike science would use it to promote their logic. It doesn't seem to be going very well for you guys


Define science... I doubt you even know what it is or how it works...
25-11-2018 07:36
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
gfm7175 wrote:
James___ wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
James___ wrote:
James___ wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
personal attacks because I have no actual arguments


Keeping it classy


Mockery is the sincerest form of flattery... Thanks bud!


That's sad. You posted a false quote and I corrected it. You must be Branner. That'd explain why it's can't be banned for being a troll.
Just wonder why people who dislike science would use it to promote their logic. It doesn't seem to be going very well for you guys


Define science... I doubt you even know what it is or how it works...



Logic dictates that since I don't have a degree in science I am not qualified to say what science is.
25-11-2018 07:45
gfm7175
★☆☆☆☆
(50)
James___ wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:

Define science... I doubt you even know what it is or how it works...


Logic dictates that since I don't have a degree in science I am not qualified to say what science is.


Ummmmm, logic dictates no such thing (in fact, it dictates quite the opposite), and you don't need a degree to answer that question... It's actually very easy to answer... Even a grade schooler could handle it...

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's all science is.

I have no degree in Science, and I handled it just fine...
Edited on 25-11-2018 07:46
25-11-2018 09:01
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:


I like arguing with you to show everyone just what lengths you will go to to demonstrate and almost complete lack of intelligence. "Duhhhh it ain't me, it you." Tell us all - if you think that the Russians already have enough fuel for their nuclear power plants, tell us all how long the Little Ice Age was. You ought to be able to pull that right off the top of your head.



Wake,
itn and gfm7175 only want to argue with people.

Inversion fallacy.
James___ wrote:
As they say, their logic is not fallible but science is.

Neither logic nor science is fallible.
James___ wrote:
An example of how science is falsifiable is what is 1 + 1?

Not science. Mathematics.
James___ wrote:
Sometimes it's not 2. Rabbits are known for multiplying from 1 + 1.
It is always 2 in any base greater than 2. Rabbits make no difference.
James___ wrote:
Math just became falsified.
Not possible.
James___ wrote:
Yet I bet both itn and gfm7175 use math because it let's them know how much money they have.
I guess that means you don't have any money.
James___ wrote:
Their logic was just falsified.
Not possible.
James___ wrote:
Since math is falsifiable they shouldn't use it so they can budget their money.

Math is not falsifiable.
James___ wrote:
After all, 1 + 1 could end up being 20.

Nope. Just 2 (in any base greater than 2).
James___ wrote:
Why it's pointless to engage either one. They just want to be disruptive and play mind games.

Inversion fallacy.
James___ wrote:
Their arguments are circular because their arguments revolve around the basic precept that they are right.
Void argument fallacy.
James___ wrote:
That invalidates their arguments and shows them to be nothing more than fallacies


Fallacy fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
25-11-2018 09:05
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
James___ wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised if you're Branner using an alias.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You really ARE the paranoid one, aren't you?
James___ wrote:
itn said they're like 2 peas in a pod.

Making stuff up again?
James___ wrote:
, You and itn sound like the computer in I, Robot.

I am typing a written text. It doesn't have sound.
James___ wrote:
My logic is undeniable.

You are not using logic.


The Parrot Killer
25-11-2018 09:06
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
James___ wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
James___ wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
James___ wrote:
James___ wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
personal attacks because I have no actual arguments


Keeping it classy


Mockery is the sincerest form of flattery... Thanks bud!


That's sad. You posted a false quote and I corrected it. You must be Branner. That'd explain why it's can't be banned for being a troll.
Just wonder why people who dislike science would use it to promote their logic. It doesn't seem to be going very well for you guys


Define science... I doubt you even know what it is or how it works...



Logic dictates that since I don't have a degree in science I am not qualified to say what science is.

Yet you just tried!



The Parrot Killer
25-11-2018 15:07
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
James___ wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
James___ wrote:
James___ wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
personal attacks because I have no actual arguments


Keeping it classy


Mockery is the sincerest form of flattery... Thanks bud!


That's sad. You posted a false quote and I corrected it. You must be Branner. That'd explain why it's can't be banned for being a troll.
Just wonder why people who dislike science would use it to promote their logic. It doesn't seem to be going very well for you guys


Define science... I doubt you even know what it is or how it works...



Logic dictates that since I don't have a degree in science I am not qualified to say what science is.

Yet you just tried!


There's a difference between defining science and commenting on the work that has been done. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics isn't science, it's Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.
Science as you call it can be anything. Your's and Branner's logic is based on science. The science of you guys being right. So what is science, is it how you and gfm7175 use words to show your logic is infallible and that's why you're right? You're using science?
25-11-2018 15:57
gfm7175
★☆☆☆☆
(50)
James___ wrote:
There's a difference between defining science and commenting on the work that has been done.

Yup. It was the first one that I asked you to do... You still haven't offered a definition because you claim that one needs a degree in order to do so, yet I offered one without having a degree...

James___ wrote:Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics isn't science, it's Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.

Yup. The Proof of Identity proves this... However, while those things aren't science in and of themselves, any falsifiable theories that come from them ARE science.

James___ wrote:Science as you call it can be anything.

I don't define science (philosophy does), and no it can't be anything because all non-falsifiable theories are NOT part of science. For example, the Big Bang Theory is not falsifiable (there are no functional time machines in existence), therefore it is not science. It is a religion that is commonly masqueraded as "science"...

James___ wrote:Your's and Branner's logic is based on science.

I have no clue who Branner is, and him nor I own Logic. Logic is not based on Science. Both Logic and Science are defined by Philosophy...

James___ wrote:The science of you guys being right.

That is not Science...

James___ wrote:So what is science, is it how you and gfm7175 use words to show your logic is infallible and that's why you're right? You're using science?

Nope. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. And no, we're not using science to define science... We're using Logic and Philosophy.
25-11-2018 19:22
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
science noun
sci·​ence | \ˈsī-ən(t)s \
Definition of science
1 : the state of knowing :

2a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study
the science of theology

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science

So nice to see logic and philosophy described as science.
Have no more time for you gfm7175, do have a life
25-11-2018 19:29
gfm7175
★☆☆☆☆
(50)
James___ wrote:
science noun
sci·​ence | \ˈsī-ən(t)s \
Definition of science
1 : the state of knowing :

2a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study
the science of theology

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science

So nice to see logic and philosophy described as science.
Have no more time for you gfm7175, do have a life


Paradox... irrational reasoning... You have argued the following two points simultaneously:
1) One needs a degree in science in order to define science.
2) James offers a definition of science from Merriam Webster, which doesn't have a degree in science.

Which one is it? It is not rational to argue both sides of a paradox...


Strawman Argument Fallacy... no one described logic and philosophy as science... do try to keep up...

False Authority Fallacy. Merriam Webster "holy link" ignored on sight because Merriam Webster has no authority to define the word science... Dictionaries do not define words...

Yet, you keep responding to me with logically fallacious BS...
Edited on 25-11-2018 19:33
25-11-2018 19:50
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)

Edited on 25-11-2018 19:52
25-11-2018 19:56
gfm7175
★☆☆☆☆
(50)
James___ wrote:



Edited on 25-11-2018 19:57
25-11-2018 20:01
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
gfm7175 wrote:
James___ wrote:


Not sure what your point of sending me a message in Russian was...


You only know your perspective. I have no need for your theology. I have no need to impress you or to try and get you to like me. You're simply not my type.
And the woman I like, I think she'd prefer me to continue pursuing things I've been working on. As for you, you have itn. I hope the 2 of you are happy together
26-11-2018 02:13
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
James___ wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
James___ wrote:
James___ wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
personal attacks because I have no actual arguments


Keeping it classy


Mockery is the sincerest form of flattery... Thanks bud!


That's sad. You posted a false quote and I corrected it. You must be Branner. That'd explain why it's can't be banned for being a troll.
Just wonder why people who dislike science would use it to promote their logic. It doesn't seem to be going very well for you guys


Define science... I doubt you even know what it is or how it works...



Logic dictates that since I don't have a degree in science I am not qualified to say what science is.

Yet you just tried!


There's a difference between defining science and commenting on the work that has been done. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics isn't science,
Yes they are.
James___ wrote:
it's Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.
They are also branches of science.
James___ wrote:
Science as you call it can be anything.
Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
James___ wrote:
Your's and Branner's logic is based on science.
Logic is not based on science.
James___ wrote:
The science of you guys being right.
That is not a science.
James___ wrote:
So what is science,
Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
James___ wrote:
is it how you and gfm7175 use words to show your logic is infallible
Logic is infalible. It is a closed functional system just like mathematics.
James___ wrote:
and that's why you're right?
Divisional error fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
26-11-2018 02:22
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
gfm7175 wrote:
I have no clue who Branner is...


Branner is the owner and operator of this forum. He wrote the forum software you are now using (unusual, and a good job!). He is the one and only moderator on this forum.

He usually lets the forum run freely, but will ban any account that is spamming. James had a friend on this board that went by the moniker 'litesong' (I called him 'litebeer'), that was banned for just this reason.

I have only seen one other account get banned here, again for the same reason.


The Parrot Killer
26-11-2018 02:23
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
James___ wrote:
science noun
sci·​ence | \ˈsī-ən(t)s \
Definition of science
1 : the state of knowing :

2a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study
the science of theology

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science

So nice to see logic and philosophy described as science.
Have no more time for you gfm7175, do have a life


Wrong. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It is not knowledge. It is theories. Not even this bad definition describes logic as science, dude.

Dictionaries do not define words.


The Parrot Killer
26-11-2018 02:24
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
James___ wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
James___ wrote:


Not sure what your point of sending me a message in Russian was...


You only know your perspective. I have no need for your theology. I have no need to impress you or to try and get you to like me. You're simply not my type.
And the woman I like, I think she'd prefer me to continue pursuing things I've been working on. As for you, you have itn. I hope the 2 of you are happy together


Science is not theology.


The Parrot Killer
26-11-2018 02:31
gfm7175
★☆☆☆☆
(50)
Into the Night wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
I have no clue who Branner is...


Branner is the owner and operator of this forum. He wrote the forum software you are now using (unusual, and a good job!). He is the one and only moderator on this forum.

He usually lets the forum run freely, but will ban any account that is spamming. James had a friend on this board that went by the moniker 'litesong' (I called him 'litebeer'), that was banned for just this reason.

I have only seen one other account get banned here, again for the same reason.


So I'm the owner of this forum under another alias? Hahaha wow James is quite paranoid... these types of people always seem to think that someone is the same person as another simply because they agree with them... pretty bad logic I must say...
26-11-2018 02:59
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
gfm7175 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
I have no clue who Branner is...


Branner is the owner and operator of this forum. He wrote the forum software you are now using (unusual, and a good job!). He is the one and only moderator on this forum.

He usually lets the forum run freely, but will ban any account that is spamming. James had a friend on this board that went by the moniker 'litesong' (I called him 'litebeer'), that was banned for just this reason.

I have only seen one other account get banned here, again for the same reason.



So I'm the owner of this forum under another alias? Hahaha wow James is quite paranoid... these types of people always seem to think that someone is the same person as another simply because they agree with them... pretty bad logic I must say...



Remember that while James doesn't know science very well he does make an attempt even if he does get it incorrect and refuse to correct it with a little study. Nightmare has the idea that he knows it all and doesn't need to learn anything. That would be fine if he wasn't so damn far off on so many things.
26-11-2018 03:08
gfm7175
★☆☆☆☆
(50)
Wake wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
I have no clue who Branner is...


Branner is the owner and operator of this forum. He wrote the forum software you are now using (unusual, and a good job!). He is the one and only moderator on this forum.

He usually lets the forum run freely, but will ban any account that is spamming. James had a friend on this board that went by the moniker 'litesong' (I called him 'litebeer'), that was banned for just this reason.

I have only seen one other account get banned here, again for the same reason.



So I'm the owner of this forum under another alias? Hahaha wow James is quite paranoid... these types of people always seem to think that someone is the same person as another simply because they agree with them... pretty bad logic I must say...



Remember that while James doesn't know science very well he does make an attempt even if he does get it incorrect and refuse to correct it with a little study. Nightmare has the idea that he knows it all and doesn't need to learn anything. That would be fine if he wasn't so damn far off on so many things.


James doesn't know science very well... I bet you don't know it much better... Into The Night has struck me as rather intelligent. He is correct about what science is and how it works.
26-11-2018 03:45
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
gfm7175 wrote:
Wake wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
I have no clue who Branner is...


Branner is the owner and operator of this forum. He wrote the forum software you are now using (unusual, and a good job!). He is the one and only moderator on this forum.

He usually lets the forum run freely, but will ban any account that is spamming. James had a friend on this board that went by the moniker 'litesong' (I called him 'litebeer'), that was banned for just this reason.

I have only seen one other account get banned here, again for the same reason.



So I'm the owner of this forum under another alias? Hahaha wow James is quite paranoid... these types of people always seem to think that someone is the same person as another simply because they agree with them... pretty bad logic I must say...



Remember that while James doesn't know science very well he does make an attempt even if he does get it incorrect and refuse to correct it with a little study. Nightmare has the idea that he knows it all and doesn't need to learn anything. That would be fine if he wasn't so damn far off on so many things.


James doesn't know science very well... I bet you don't know it much better... Into The Night has struck me as rather intelligent. He is correct about what science is and how it works.


Wake tries to keep attempting to rewrite the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It gets in his way.


The Parrot Killer
26-11-2018 18:45
Wake
★★★★★
(3509)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake tries to keep attempting to rewrite the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It gets in his way.


And yet you are unaware of how the Stefan-Boltzmann Law applies to the Sun.
26-11-2018 21:13
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake tries to keep attempting to rewrite the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It gets in his way.


And yet you are unaware of how the Stefan-Boltzmann Law applies to the Sun.


I am completely aware of it.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate New Little Ice Age:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Brief history of ice ages, and how that might relate to our future12408-10-2018 23:50
Arctic ice hit one of its lowest points on record1105-10-2018 22:22
Ice sat 2 launches2228-09-2018 03:17
Antarctic ice melting faster than ever, studies show3218-06-2018 22:14
Climate Change Denial in the Age of Trump - Michael Mann127-05-2018 09:29
▲ 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