| We have experimental evidence CO2 does not cause global warming06-02-2019 15:35 |
Tai Hai Chen★★★★☆
(1085) |
Back in the Pliocene it was 3 to 4 C warmer than today and CO2 was about 410 to 415 ppm. Now CO2 is about 410 to 415 ppm because people spewing CO2 and temperature is same as 1800s so according to Galileo's scientific method CO2 cause warming is false, no?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tkDK2mZlOo
Edited on 06-02-2019 15:46 |
| 06-02-2019 19:12 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Back in the Pliocene it was 3 to 4 C warmer than today and CO2 was about 410 to 415 ppm. Now CO2 is about 410 to 415 ppm because people spewing CO2 and temperature is same as 1800s so according to Galileo's scientific method CO2 cause warming is false, no?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tkDK2mZlOo
https://cei.org/blog/climate-change-fossil-fuels-and-human-well-being?gclid=CjwKCAiAqOriBRAfEiwAEb9oXTUSM76ZEaosMfiLvjxcbV2cejCena2mvbLmVxxu_KIpRze4kdGTKRoCWBUQAvD_BwE |
| 06-02-2019 19:31 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21588) |
Wake wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Back in the Pliocene it was 3 to 4 C warmer than today and CO2 was about 410 to 415 ppm. Now CO2 is about 410 to 415 ppm because people spewing CO2 and temperature is same as 1800s so according to Galileo's scientific method CO2 cause warming is false, no?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tkDK2mZlOo
https://cei.org/blog/climate-change-fossil-fuels-and-human-well-being?gclid=CjwKCAiAqOriBRAfEiwAEb9oXTUSM76ZEaosMfiLvjxcbV2cejCena2mvbLmVxxu_KIpRze4kdGTKRoCWBUQAvD_BwE
Holy Link War!
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. No one knows what the temperature was during the Pliocene era or even today. Not enough thermometers. There were NONE during the Pliocene era.
It is also not possible to measure the global CO2 concentration. No one knows what the global CO2 concentration during the Pliocene era or even today. Not enough monitoring stations. There were NONE during the Pliocene era.
There is no such thing as a 'scientific' method. Galileo certainly didn't have one. He did manage to falsify the theory of the terracentric universe though, and he falsified the theory that weight changed the speed of acceleration due to gravity. He also measured the acceleration constant due to gravity on Earth. That's why we remember him today.
Science isn't a 'method' or a 'procedure'. Science is just a set of falsifiable theories.
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 06-02-2019 19:32 |
| 06-02-2019 20:32 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Nightmare - we've already seen your comments about how you cannot have any sort of record of past climate because like you're so smart and can't understand it so it doesn't exist. |
| 06-02-2019 22:15 |
gfm7175 ★★★★★
(3314) |
Wake wrote:
Nightmare - we've already seen your comments about how you cannot have any sort of record of past climate because like you're so smart and can't understand it so it doesn't exist.
He's right, though... You are assuming (as truth) a whole slew of numbers which are just being pulled out of people's asses...
How is global temperature and CO2 content measured, Wake? Describe the process... The temperature of the Earth cannot be measured... You do know that temperature can vary by some 20°F per mile, right Wake? Global CO2 content can't be measured, either... You do know that CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere, right Wake? |
|
| 07-02-2019 00:35 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
Wake wrote:
Nightmare - we've already seen your comments about how you cannot have any sort of record of past climate because like you're so smart and can't understand it so it doesn't exist.
No, Wake. It is because of mathematics it doesn't exist. You deny mathematics.
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 |
| 07-02-2019 05:20 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
gfm - do you still think that Nightmare is playing with a full deck? |
| 07-02-2019 05:36 |
gfm7175★★★★★
(3314) |
Wake wrote:
gfm - do you still think that Nightmare is playing with a full deck?
Yes, I do. |
| 07-02-2019 05:56 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(2932) |
Interesting topic of discussion here....
I agree, there is no way to measure global temp or CO2 today, yesterday, or 400,000 years ago.
So here's the question...
Do Ice core samples give us anything valuable?
I get it...ice is permeable to CO2. And any info from a core sample would only give us info from that site, not the globe.
However, I find it interesting that sample from opposite poles show similar results.
Can these samples at least give us indication of cold and warm periods? Is that reliable?
Don't get me wrong, I think anyone trying to put an exact global temp on a core sample is fullashit.
Comments? |
| 07-02-2019 10:04 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
Interesting topic of discussion here....
I agree, there is no way to measure global temp or CO2 today, yesterday, or 400,000 years ago.
So here's the question...
Do Ice core samples give us anything valuable?
I get it...ice is permeable to CO2. And any info from a core sample would only give us info from that site, not the globe.
However, I find it interesting that sample from opposite poles show similar results.
Can these samples at least give us indication of cold and warm periods? Is that reliable?
Don't get me wrong, I think anyone trying to put an exact global temp on a core sample is fullashit.
Comments?
Ice core samples from poles are under similar conditions, even from opposite poles, other than one being from ice lying on top of land rather than just floating.
Like tree rings, ice cores have a record of that pole's summers and winters. They can show the relative intensity of a summer or winter compared to other summers and winters the site of the ice core has experienced.
Like all observations, which are subject to the problems of phenomenology, this information has been extrapolated into many different interpretations, including a claim that an ice core accurately depicts the temperature at the site of the ice core. That claim is bogus. Ice cores don't have that kind of precision.
There are also a lot fewer ice cores than thermometers on Earth today, and we can't measure the temperature of the Earth today, even if we use all of our available thermometers. There simply aren't enough of them. You correctly stated that.
Ice cores can also contain trapped gases, like ancient whiffs of air. Unfortunately, CO2 (and other molecules found in the air) are permeable to ice. The trapped gases are not really a good representation of ancient atmospheric content of CO2.
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 |
| 07-02-2019 16:54 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
gfm7175 wrote:
Wake wrote:
gfm - do you still think that Nightmare is playing with a full deck?
Yes, I do. Then perhaps you wouldn't mind telling me what mathematics would have to do with Nightmare's answer? |
| 07-02-2019 17:07 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
Interesting topic of discussion here....
I agree, there is no way to measure global temp or CO2 today, yesterday, or 400,000 years ago.
So here's the question...
Do Ice core samples give us anything valuable?
I get it...ice is permeable to CO2. And any info from a core sample would only give us info from that site, not the globe.
However, I find it interesting that sample from opposite poles show similar results.
Can these samples at least give us indication of cold and warm periods? Is that reliable?
Don't get me wrong, I think anyone trying to put an exact global temp on a core sample is fullashit.
Comments? You should read the ice core study. They have it to such a science that they can read years out of the core.
Now the temperatures at the south pole does give you some idea of what the temperature of the globe is. But more importantly there are ice cores from Alaska and Siberia which more closely give you an idea of the temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere.
Also there are plenty of rock formations that show long term formations of rocks that can identify the CO2 content at that time. Most of these are totally ignored by the True Believers because they shown much higher levels than they are comfortable with - what with their belief that we now have the "highest levels of CO2 in 20 million years".
What's more we have fossils records that have plants and animal types that pretty closely identify the past conditions. The fossils can be pretty closely dated by the levels of the layers in which they are found. We even have fossils from the tar pits that can also be dated.
And we have had a written language for 2,000 years. While they didn't have thermometers they speak of crop yields and what those crops were.
Can we tell precise temperatures? No, but we know that Wheat will not grow in either arid or cold conditions and these areas generally rely upon barley and rye. And the conditions in any year are reflected in yeild.
There are many other ways that identify conditions - sea levels for instance which are emblasioned upon sea shores. Both salt marks and geological formations.
Tne list is almost endless and Nightmare and his flunky think otherwise. Nightmare can disprove science with mathematics. |
| 07-02-2019 19:05 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Interesting topic of discussion here....
I agree, there is no way to measure global temp or CO2 today, yesterday, or 400,000 years ago.
So here's the question...
Do Ice core samples give us anything valuable?
I get it...ice is permeable to CO2. And any info from a core sample would only give us info from that site, not the globe.
However, I find it interesting that sample from opposite poles show similar results.
Can these samples at least give us indication of cold and warm periods? Is that reliable?
Don't get me wrong, I think anyone trying to put an exact global temp on a core sample is fullashit.
Comments?
You should read the ice core study. They have it to such a science that they can read years out of the core.
Not science, Wake. Neither data nor the collection of data is science. It is observations, subject to the problems of phenomenology. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
Wake wrote:
Now the temperatures at the south pole
Ice cores don't indicate anything like a usable temperature, Wake. They indicate summers and winters.
Wake wrote:
does give you some idea of what the temperature of the globe is.
No, it does not, Wake. That's like measuring the temperature of the Earth using only a few hundred thermometers, far less that we have today. In addition, ice cores do not indicate usable past temperatures, not even at the core site.
Wake wrote:
But more importantly there are ice cores from Alaska and Siberia which more closely give you an idea of the temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere. Nope. Same problem, Wake.
Wake wrote:
Also there are plenty of rock formations that show long term formations of rocks that can identify the CO2 content at that time.
Rocks do not show CO2 content, Wake.
Wake wrote:
Most of these are totally ignored by the True Believers because they shown much higher levels than they are comfortable with - what with their belief that we now have the "highest levels of CO2 in 20 million years".
Irrelevant.
Wake wrote:
What's more we have fossils records that have plants and animal types that pretty closely identify the past conditions. Fossils don't show temperatures or CO2 content either, Wake. You don't know where the land was when the fossil was laid down, Wake.
Wake wrote:
The fossils can be pretty closely dated by the levels of the layers in which they are found.
Not really. You see, isotope dating depends on a constant that is assumed and not known if it is a constant at all.
Wake wrote:
We even have fossils from the tar pits that can also be dated.
Same problem.
Wake wrote:
And we have had a written language for 2,000 years. So? There is no mention of weather or temperature there, either.
Wake wrote:
While they didn't have thermometers Which is what you need.
Wake wrote:
they speak of crop yields and what those crops were. They don't indicate temperature or CO2 content, Wake.
Wake wrote:
Can we tell precise temperatures? No.
Wake wrote:
No, but we know that Wheat will not grow in either arid or cold conditions and these areas generally rely upon barley and rye.
Wheat is not a proper noun. It is not capitalized. It grows in arid conditions, given irrigation. It grows in colder areas as well. Here in eastern Washington, and across Montana and the Dakotas, wheat is grown everywhere. So is barley and rye. Both of those are are also grown in warmer environments. Like wheat, they need irrigation if they are grown in arid areas.
Do you know how old irrigation is, Wake?
Wake wrote:
And the conditions in any year are reflected in yeild. No, the farming practices are reflected in yield. A farm mentioned in the Bible does not indicate global temperatures, Wake.
Wake wrote:
There are many other ways that identify conditions - You want to make some more, Wake?
Wake wrote:
sea levels for instance which are emblasioned upon sea shores. No, they are not. Have you heard of land erosion, Wake? Salt is also in the air, and appears in the soil quite a ways from the shore.
Wake wrote:
Both salt marks
Nope. Not good enough.
Wake wrote:
and geological formations.
Rocks don't show temperature or CO2 content, Wake. They are also not formed by the sea.
Wake wrote:
Tne list is almost endless I'm sure you can make up data from up a lot more stories, Wake.
Wake wrote:
and Nightmare and his flunky think otherwise. I don't have a flunky.
Wake wrote:
Nightmare can disprove science with mathematics.
You are not using science at all, Wake. You are just making up numbers and history. Yes, mathematics shows you are wrong, Wake, but you deny mathematics.
Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It has nothing to do with data, collection of data, or fabricating numbers, Wake.
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 |
| 07-02-2019 23:21 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Interesting topic of discussion here....
I agree, there is no way to measure global temp or CO2 today, yesterday, or 400,000 years ago.
So here's the question...
Do Ice core samples give us anything valuable?
I get it...ice is permeable to CO2. And any info from a core sample would only give us info from that site, not the globe.
However, I find it interesting that sample from opposite poles show similar results.
Can these samples at least give us indication of cold and warm periods? Is that reliable?
Don't get me wrong, I think anyone trying to put an exact global temp on a core sample is fullashit.
Comments?
You should read the ice core study. They have it to such a science that they can read years out of the core.
Not science, Wake. Neither data nor the collection of data is science. It is observations, subject to the problems of phenomenology. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
Wake wrote:
Now the temperatures at the south pole
Ice cores don't indicate anything like a usable temperature, Wake. They indicate summers and winters.
Wake wrote:
does give you some idea of what the temperature of the globe is.
No, it does not, Wake. That's like measuring the temperature of the Earth using only a few hundred thermometers, far less that we have today. In addition, ice cores do not indicate usable past temperatures, not even at the core site.
Wake wrote:
But more importantly there are ice cores from Alaska and Siberia which more closely give you an idea of the temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere. Nope. Same problem, Wake.
Wake wrote:
Also there are plenty of rock formations that show long term formations of rocks that can identify the CO2 content at that time.
Rocks do not show CO2 content, Wake.
Wake wrote:
Most of these are totally ignored by the True Believers because they shown much higher levels than they are comfortable with - what with their belief that we now have the "highest levels of CO2 in 20 million years".
Irrelevant.
Wake wrote:
What's more we have fossils records that have plants and animal types that pretty closely identify the past conditions. Fossils don't show temperatures or CO2 content either, Wake. You don't know where the land was when the fossil was laid down, Wake.
Wake wrote:
The fossils can be pretty closely dated by the levels of the layers in which they are found.
Not really. You see, isotope dating depends on a constant that is assumed and not known if it is a constant at all.
Wake wrote:
We even have fossils from the tar pits that can also be dated.
Same problem.
Wake wrote:
And we have had a written language for 2,000 years. So? There is no mention of weather or temperature there, either.
Wake wrote:
While they didn't have thermometers Which is what you need.
Wake wrote:
they speak of crop yields and what those crops were. They don't indicate temperature or CO2 content, Wake.
Wake wrote:
Can we tell precise temperatures? No.
Wake wrote:
No, but we know that Wheat will not grow in either arid or cold conditions and these areas generally rely upon barley and rye.
Wheat is not a proper noun. It is not capitalized. It grows in arid conditions, given irrigation. It grows in colder areas as well. Here in eastern Washington, and across Montana and the Dakotas, wheat is grown everywhere. So is barley and rye. Both of those are are also grown in warmer environments. Like wheat, they need irrigation if they are grown in arid areas.
Do you know how old irrigation is, Wake?
Wake wrote:
And the conditions in any year are reflected in yeild. No, the farming practices are reflected in yield. A farm mentioned in the Bible does not indicate global temperatures, Wake.
Wake wrote:
There are many other ways that identify conditions - You want to make some more, Wake?
Wake wrote:
sea levels for instance which are emblasioned upon sea shores. No, they are not. Have you heard of land erosion, Wake? Salt is also in the air, and appears in the soil quite a ways from the shore.
Wake wrote:
Both salt marks
Nope. Not good enough.
Wake wrote:
and geological formations.
Rocks don't show temperature or CO2 content, Wake. They are also not formed by the sea.
Wake wrote:
Tne list is almost endless I'm sure you can make up data from up a lot more stories, Wake.
Wake wrote:
and Nightmare and his flunky think otherwise. I don't have a flunky.
Wake wrote:
Nightmare can disprove science with mathematics.
You are not using science at all, Wake. You are just making up numbers and history. Yes, mathematics shows you are wrong, Wake, but you deny mathematics.
Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It has nothing to do with data, collection of data, or fabricating numbers, Wake.
There isn't one single thing that you've gotten correct in the last three or more years.
"Science: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. A systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject."
Tell us all you moronic fool - do you see anywhere in that definition where it even mentions "falsifiable"?
Maybe you prefer Webster: "the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding - something that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge"
There must be something you know. Do you know what time it is? You still haven't explained that if you're an aircraft mechanic how you have time to be on the Internet 24 hours a day. |
| 08-02-2019 00:09 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Interesting topic of discussion here....
I agree, there is no way to measure global temp or CO2 today, yesterday, or 400,000 years ago.
So here's the question...
Do Ice core samples give us anything valuable?
I get it...ice is permeable to CO2. And any info from a core sample would only give us info from that site, not the globe.
However, I find it interesting that sample from opposite poles show similar results.
Can these samples at least give us indication of cold and warm periods? Is that reliable?
Don't get me wrong, I think anyone trying to put an exact global temp on a core sample is fullashit.
Comments?
You should read the ice core study. They have it to such a science that they can read years out of the core.
Not science, Wake. Neither data nor the collection of data is science. It is observations, subject to the problems of phenomenology. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
Wake wrote:
Now the temperatures at the south pole
Ice cores don't indicate anything like a usable temperature, Wake. They indicate summers and winters.
Wake wrote:
does give you some idea of what the temperature of the globe is.
No, it does not, Wake. That's like measuring the temperature of the Earth using only a few hundred thermometers, far less that we have today. In addition, ice cores do not indicate usable past temperatures, not even at the core site.
Wake wrote:
But more importantly there are ice cores from Alaska and Siberia which more closely give you an idea of the temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere. Nope. Same problem, Wake.
Wake wrote:
Also there are plenty of rock formations that show long term formations of rocks that can identify the CO2 content at that time.
Rocks do not show CO2 content, Wake.
Wake wrote:
Most of these are totally ignored by the True Believers because they shown much higher levels than they are comfortable with - what with their belief that we now have the "highest levels of CO2 in 20 million years".
Irrelevant.
Wake wrote:
What's more we have fossils records that have plants and animal types that pretty closely identify the past conditions. Fossils don't show temperatures or CO2 content either, Wake. You don't know where the land was when the fossil was laid down, Wake.
Wake wrote:
The fossils can be pretty closely dated by the levels of the layers in which they are found.
Not really. You see, isotope dating depends on a constant that is assumed and not known if it is a constant at all.
Wake wrote:
We even have fossils from the tar pits that can also be dated.
Same problem.
Wake wrote:
And we have had a written language for 2,000 years. So? There is no mention of weather or temperature there, either.
Wake wrote:
While they didn't have thermometers Which is what you need.
Wake wrote:
they speak of crop yields and what those crops were. They don't indicate temperature or CO2 content, Wake.
Wake wrote:
Can we tell precise temperatures? No.
Wake wrote:
No, but we know that Wheat will not grow in either arid or cold conditions and these areas generally rely upon barley and rye.
Wheat is not a proper noun. It is not capitalized. It grows in arid conditions, given irrigation. It grows in colder areas as well. Here in eastern Washington, and across Montana and the Dakotas, wheat is grown everywhere. So is barley and rye. Both of those are are also grown in warmer environments. Like wheat, they need irrigation if they are grown in arid areas.
Do you know how old irrigation is, Wake?
Wake wrote:
And the conditions in any year are reflected in yeild. No, the farming practices are reflected in yield. A farm mentioned in the Bible does not indicate global temperatures, Wake.
Wake wrote:
There are many other ways that identify conditions - You want to make some more, Wake?
Wake wrote:
sea levels for instance which are emblasioned upon sea shores. No, they are not. Have you heard of land erosion, Wake? Salt is also in the air, and appears in the soil quite a ways from the shore.
Wake wrote:
Both salt marks
Nope. Not good enough.
Wake wrote:
and geological formations.
Rocks don't show temperature or CO2 content, Wake. They are also not formed by the sea.
Wake wrote:
Tne list is almost endless I'm sure you can make up data from up a lot more stories, Wake.
Wake wrote:
and Nightmare and his flunky think otherwise. I don't have a flunky.
Wake wrote:
Nightmare can disprove science with mathematics.
You are not using science at all, Wake. You are just making up numbers and history. Yes, mathematics shows you are wrong, Wake, but you deny mathematics.
Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It has nothing to do with data, collection of data, or fabricating numbers, Wake.
There isn't one single thing that you've gotten correct in the last three or more years.
Bulverism fallacy.
Wake wrote:
"Science: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. A systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject."
Define 'natural' and 'supernatural'. Science isn't a 'study' or a 'research'. It does not require observation. An experiment is an observation. Science does not require laboratories, white lab coats, test tubes, or even experiments at all. Science isn't knowledge. It is not about a particular subject.
Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It is an open function system. It is theories, Wake. not knowledge.
Wake wrote:
Tell us all you moronic fool - do you see anywhere in that definition where it even mentions "falsifiable"? That is not a definition of science. It can be the definition of religion, though. Science is not religion.
Wake wrote:
Maybe you prefer Webster: "the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding - something that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge" False authority fallacy. Webster doesn't define science either. Dictionaries do not define any word, Wake. The definition of science is through philosophy.
Wake wrote:
There must be something you know. I know why science is defined the way it is. I know the philosophy behind it. I know why mathematics is defined the way it is. I know the philosophy behind it. I know why religion is defined the way it is. I know the philosophy behind it.
Wake wrote:
Do you know what time it is? As of the moment I am answering this question, it is 1.7.2019.r.1351.43PST, or local time for Seattle and Oakland, or 1.7.2019.r.2051.43Z. You can get more accurate time from WWV. You can tune into it at 2.5Mhz, 5Mhz, 10Mhz, 15Mhz, 20Mhz, and 25Mhz, as well as from GPS satellites. You can also get it on the web, and a few phone jurisdictions will report it by dialing 844-8463 (or 844-TIME). See your local phone book (usually the blue pages) to see if such service is available in your area. You can also look up the current time on your cell phone. Cell towers echo WWV as well.
It's sad, that, with all of that, people like you still don't know what time it is.
Wake wrote:
You still haven't explained that if you're an aircraft mechanic how you have time to be on the Internet 24 hours a day.
I'm not.
BTW, did you know aircraft mechanics have to use the internet quite a lot these days, just to do their job? That's right! They have to look up FAA regulations, AD notes, registration records, type certification records, airport information records, airman certification records, and those who fly also look up weather and file their flight plans on the internet. Mechanics also order parts, raw materials, and tools on the internet, look up installation and maintenance manuals, file government forms, and some even maintain their books on the internet.
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 08-02-2019 00:10 |
|
| 08-02-2019 01:13 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Parrotface - I love it when you squirm around when faced with the real world. Go off to your other global warming sites and discuss this in detail with GFM. He's got your back. |
| 08-02-2019 01:38 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
Wake wrote:
Parrotface - I love it when you squirm around when faced with the real world. I'm not. Obviously, YOU are though. Your own anger shows it.
Wake wrote:
Go off to your other global warming sites YOU don't get to dictate to others what forums they use, Wake. You are not the king.
Wake wrote:
and discuss this in detail with GFM. He's got your back.
I have my own back, Wake. GFM and I already discuss a good many things. Turned out I found another good friend on these forums.
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 08-02-2019 01:38 |
| 08-02-2019 01:50 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Parrotface - I love it when you squirm around when faced with the real world. I'm not. Obviously, YOU are though. Your own anger shows it.
Wake wrote:
Go off to your other global warming sites YOU don't get to dictate to others what forums they use, Wake. You are not the king.
Wake wrote:
and discuss this in detail with GFM. He's got your back.
I have my own back, Wake. GFM and I already discuss a good many things. Turned out I found another good friend on these forums.
Does your other "good friend" also wear floppy shoes and a red nose? Strange that you think that you must imagine me angry when what I was originally was frustrated with your continuous misunderstanding of science and now I'm simply amused. |
| 08-02-2019 02:41 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Parrotface - I love it when you squirm around when faced with the real world. I'm not. Obviously, YOU are though. Your own anger shows it.
Wake wrote:
Go off to your other global warming sites YOU don't get to dictate to others what forums they use, Wake. You are not the king.
Wake wrote:
and discuss this in detail with GFM. He's got your back.
I have my own back, Wake. GFM and I already discuss a good many things. Turned out I found another good friend on these forums.
Does your other "good friend" also wear floppy shoes and a red nose? Insult fallacy.
Wake wrote:
Strange that you think that you must imagine me angry You are angry...much of the time.
Wake wrote:
when what I was originally was frustrated with your continuous misunderstanding of science
Inversion fallacy.
Wake wrote:
and now I'm simply amused.
No, you are generally just angry.
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 |
| 08-02-2019 02:52 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Parrotface - I love it when you squirm around when faced with the real world. I'm not. Obviously, YOU are though. Your own anger shows it.
Wake wrote:
Go off to your other global warming sites YOU don't get to dictate to others what forums they use, Wake. You are not the king.
Wake wrote:
and discuss this in detail with GFM. He's got your back.
I have my own back, Wake. GFM and I already discuss a good many things. Turned out I found another good friend on these forums.
Does your other "good friend" also wear floppy shoes and a red nose? Insult fallacy.
Wake wrote:
Strange that you think that you must imagine me angry You are angry...much of the time.
Wake wrote:
when what I was originally was frustrated with your continuous misunderstanding of science
Inversion fallacy.
Wake wrote:
and now I'm simply amused.
No, you are generally just angry.
You are the one that is angry because you're being confronted with the stupid stuff you do. |
| 08-02-2019 17:56 |
gfm7175★★★★★
(3314) |
Wake wrote:
Parrotface - I love it when you squirm around when faced with the real world.
Define 'reality'...
Wake wrote:
Go off to your other global warming sites and discuss this in detail with GFM. He's got your back.
He can use whatever forum he wishes. You are not a dictator...
ITN is a big boy; he can take care of himself...
Edited on 08-02-2019 17:59 |
| 08-02-2019 18:05 |
gfm7175★★★★★
(3314) |
Wake wrote:
You are the one that is angry because you're being confronted with the stupid stuff you do.
I have never found ITN to be an angry person over my many months of reading his posts and my direct correspondence with him.
YOU, however, strike me as a very angry individual who doesn't like to take correction. Taking correction is part of learning, Wake...
For example, you could have simply said "Thank you gfm for correcting my math error and explaining to me why I was in error"... Instead, you kept repeating your base rate fallacy as a mantra.
Same with the "measuring the temperature of Earth" discussion... I know full well that you've been asked to substantiate precisely how that can be done, but you choose to repeat your mantras (typically in a rather angry manner) instead of addressing counterarguments brought forth... |
| 08-02-2019 18:13 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
gfm7175 wrote:
Wake wrote:
You are the one that is angry because you're being confronted with the stupid stuff you do.
I have never found ITN to be an angry person over my many months of reading his posts and my direct correspondence with him.
YOU, however, strike me as a very angry individual who doesn't like to take correction. Taking correction is part of learning, Wake...
For example, you could have simply said "Thank you gfm for correcting my math error and explaining to me why I was in error"... Instead, you kept repeating your base rate fallacy as a mantra.
Same with the "measuring the temperature of Earth" discussion... I know full well that you've been asked to substantiate precisely how that can be done, but you choose to repeat your mantras (typically in a rather angry manner) instead of addressing counterarguments brought forth...
GFM - after watching him claim that there are no long term climate records and then saying you believe him there's nothing more for you to say. You've put yourself in the same nutcake category as him.
Since there are no long term geological records I guess you'll have to write your dinosaur toys off as pure imagination. |
| 08-02-2019 18:21 |
gfm7175★★★★★
(3314) |
Wake wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Wake wrote:
You are the one that is angry because you're being confronted with the stupid stuff you do.
I have never found ITN to be an angry person over my many months of reading his posts and my direct correspondence with him.
YOU, however, strike me as a very angry individual who doesn't like to take correction. Taking correction is part of learning, Wake...
For example, you could have simply said "Thank you gfm for correcting my math error and explaining to me why I was in error"... Instead, you kept repeating your base rate fallacy as a mantra.
Same with the "measuring the temperature of Earth" discussion... I know full well that you've been asked to substantiate precisely how that can be done, but you choose to repeat your mantras (typically in a rather angry manner) instead of addressing counterarguments brought forth...
GFM - after watching him claim that there are no long term climate records
Not for the Earth, no... He is correct in asserting that there is no "global climate"...
Wake wrote:
and then saying you believe him
I do believe him. He is correct in his assertions.
Wake wrote:
there's nothing more for you to say. You've put yourself in the same nutcake category as him.
Insult Fallacy. Insults are not valid arguments, Wake...
Wake wrote:
Since there are no long term geological records I guess you'll have to write your dinosaur toys off as pure imagination.
WTF are you even babbling on about, Wake? |
| 08-02-2019 18:25 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
gfm7175 wrote:
Wake wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Wake wrote:
You are the one that is angry because you're being confronted with the stupid stuff you do.
I have never found ITN to be an angry person over my many months of reading his posts and my direct correspondence with him.
YOU, however, strike me as a very angry individual who doesn't like to take correction. Taking correction is part of learning, Wake...
For example, you could have simply said "Thank you gfm for correcting my math error and explaining to me why I was in error"... Instead, you kept repeating your base rate fallacy as a mantra.
Same with the "measuring the temperature of Earth" discussion... I know full well that you've been asked to substantiate precisely how that can be done, but you choose to repeat your mantras (typically in a rather angry manner) instead of addressing counterarguments brought forth...
GFM - after watching him claim that there are no long term climate records
Not for the Earth, no... He is correct in asserting that there is no "global climate"...
Wake wrote:
and then saying you believe him
I do believe him. He is correct in his assertions.
Wake wrote:
there's nothing more for you to say. You've put yourself in the same nutcake category as him.
Insult Fallacy. Insults are not valid arguments, Wake...
Wake wrote:
Since there are no long term geological records I guess you'll have to write your dinosaur toys off as pure imagination.
WTF are you even babbling on about, Wake?
"Insult fallacy" - so you are not a different person - you are Nightmare under a second registration wildly trying to get ANYONE to agree with him - himself. |
| 08-02-2019 19:02 |
gfm7175★★★★★
(3314) |
Wake wrote:
"Insult fallacy" -
Yes, an Insult Fallacy. It is an error of logic.
Wake wrote:
so you are not a different person - you are Nightmare under a second registration
I am not ITN and ITN is not me. ITN is located half way across the country from me... You will see similarly worded responses when logic is being discussed, since those axioms are the same for everyone.
Wake wrote:
wildly trying to get ANYONE to agree with him - himself.
No need... the theories of science support themselves. |
| 08-02-2019 20:27 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
gfm7175 wrote:
Wake wrote:
"Insult fallacy" -
Yes, an Insult Fallacy. It is an error of logic.
Wake wrote:
so you are not a different person - you are Nightmare under a second registration
I am not ITN and ITN is not me. ITN is located half way across the country from me... You will see similarly worded responses when logic is being discussed, since those axioms are the same for everyone.
Wake wrote:
wildly trying to get ANYONE to agree with him - himself.
No need... the theories of science support themselves.
Too late - we've seen that you are Nightmare in sheep's clothing. Denying long term records of climate demonstrates that you are Nightmare because he is the only person on Earth that would make such an incredibly stupid statement. |
| 08-02-2019 23:43 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Parrotface - I love it when you squirm around when faced with the real world. I'm not. Obviously, YOU are though. Your own anger shows it.
Wake wrote:
Go off to your other global warming sites YOU don't get to dictate to others what forums they use, Wake. You are not the king.
Wake wrote:
and discuss this in detail with GFM. He's got your back.
I have my own back, Wake. GFM and I already discuss a good many things. Turned out I found another good friend on these forums.
Does your other "good friend" also wear floppy shoes and a red nose? Insult fallacy.
Wake wrote:
Strange that you think that you must imagine me angry You are angry...much of the time.
Wake wrote:
when what I was originally was frustrated with your continuous misunderstanding of science
Inversion fallacy.
Wake wrote:
and now I'm simply amused.
No, you are generally just angry.
You are the one that is angry because you're being confronted with the stupid stuff you do.
Inversion fallacy.
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 |
| 08-02-2019 23:46 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
Wake wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Wake wrote:
You are the one that is angry because you're being confronted with the stupid stuff you do.
I have never found ITN to be an angry person over my many months of reading his posts and my direct correspondence with him.
YOU, however, strike me as a very angry individual who doesn't like to take correction. Taking correction is part of learning, Wake...
For example, you could have simply said "Thank you gfm for correcting my math error and explaining to me why I was in error"... Instead, you kept repeating your base rate fallacy as a mantra.
Same with the "measuring the temperature of Earth" discussion... I know full well that you've been asked to substantiate precisely how that can be done, but you choose to repeat your mantras (typically in a rather angry manner) instead of addressing counterarguments brought forth...
GFM - after watching him claim that there are no long term climate records There aren't.
Wake wrote:
and then saying you believe him there's nothing more for you to say. He has plenty to say. YOU don't get to dictate what he has to say. You are not the king.
Wake wrote:
You've put yourself in the same nutcake category as him. Bulverism fallacy.
Wake wrote:
Since there are no long term geological records I guess you'll have to write your dinosaur toys off as pure imagination.
Dinosaurs aren't climate, Wake.
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 |
| 08-02-2019 23:48 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
Wake wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Wake wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Wake wrote:
You are the one that is angry because you're being confronted with the stupid stuff you do.
I have never found ITN to be an angry person over my many months of reading his posts and my direct correspondence with him.
YOU, however, strike me as a very angry individual who doesn't like to take correction. Taking correction is part of learning, Wake...
For example, you could have simply said "Thank you gfm for correcting my math error and explaining to me why I was in error"... Instead, you kept repeating your base rate fallacy as a mantra.
Same with the "measuring the temperature of Earth" discussion... I know full well that you've been asked to substantiate precisely how that can be done, but you choose to repeat your mantras (typically in a rather angry manner) instead of addressing counterarguments brought forth...
GFM - after watching him claim that there are no long term climate records
Not for the Earth, no... He is correct in asserting that there is no "global climate"...
Wake wrote:
and then saying you believe him
I do believe him. He is correct in his assertions.
Wake wrote:
there's nothing more for you to say. You've put yourself in the same nutcake category as him.
Insult Fallacy. Insults are not valid arguments, Wake...
Wake wrote:
Since there are no long term geological records I guess you'll have to write your dinosaur toys off as pure imagination.
WTF are you even babbling on about, Wake?
"Insult fallacy" - so you are not a different person - you are Nightmare under a second registration wildly trying to get ANYONE to agree with him - himself.
No, Wake. You made an insult fallacy. That is the same whether I or GFM calls you on it. He simply uses the English term, as I do, instead of the Latin term. It is still a fallacy.
You also made a bulverism fallacy, something GFM didn't call on you, but I did.
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 |
|
| 08-02-2019 23:51 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
gfm7175 wrote:
Wake wrote:
"Insult fallacy" -
Yes, an Insult Fallacy. It is an error of logic.
Wake wrote:
so you are not a different person - you are Nightmare under a second registration
I am not ITN and ITN is not me. ITN is located half way across the country from me... You will see similarly worded responses when logic is being discussed, since those axioms are the same for everyone.
Wake wrote:
wildly trying to get ANYONE to agree with him - himself.
No need... the theories of science support themselves.
He thinks the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law are 'wild attempts to get anyone to agree with us'.
His desperation to deny science and mathematics is quite evidence. His anger stems from himself for reasons unknown, although this is fairly common in fundamentalists.
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 |
| 08-02-2019 23:52 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
Wake wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Wake wrote:
"Insult fallacy" -
Yes, an Insult Fallacy. It is an error of logic.
Wake wrote:
so you are not a different person - you are Nightmare under a second registration
I am not ITN and ITN is not me. ITN is located half way across the country from me... You will see similarly worded responses when logic is being discussed, since those axioms are the same for everyone.
Wake wrote:
wildly trying to get ANYONE to agree with him - himself.
No need... the theories of science support themselves.
Too late - we've seen that you are Nightmare in sheep's clothing. Denying long term records of climate demonstrates that you are Nightmare because he is the only person on Earth that would make such an incredibly stupid statement.
Does that mean you are all the same account that claims CO2 warms the Earth?
Don't be stupid, Wake.
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 |
| 09-02-2019 01:08 |
gfm7175★★★★★
(3314) |
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Wake wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Wake wrote:
You are the one that is angry because you're being confronted with the stupid stuff you do.
I have never found ITN to be an angry person over my many months of reading his posts and my direct correspondence with him.
YOU, however, strike me as a very angry individual who doesn't like to take correction. Taking correction is part of learning, Wake...
For example, you could have simply said "Thank you gfm for correcting my math error and explaining to me why I was in error"... Instead, you kept repeating your base rate fallacy as a mantra.
Same with the "measuring the temperature of Earth" discussion... I know full well that you've been asked to substantiate precisely how that can be done, but you choose to repeat your mantras (typically in a rather angry manner) instead of addressing counterarguments brought forth...
GFM - after watching him claim that there are no long term climate records
Not for the Earth, no... He is correct in asserting that there is no "global climate"...
Wake wrote:
and then saying you believe him
I do believe him. He is correct in his assertions.
Wake wrote:
there's nothing more for you to say. You've put yourself in the same nutcake category as him.
Insult Fallacy. Insults are not valid arguments, Wake...
Wake wrote:
Since there are no long term geological records I guess you'll have to write your dinosaur toys off as pure imagination.
WTF are you even babbling on about, Wake?
"Insult fallacy" - so you are not a different person - you are Nightmare under a second registration wildly trying to get ANYONE to agree with him - himself.
No, Wake. You made an insult fallacy. That is the same whether I or GFM calls you on it. He simply uses the English term, as I do, instead of the Latin term. It is still a fallacy.
You also made a bulverism fallacy, something GFM didn't call on you, but I did.
Yeah, I used to use the Latin terminology when calling it out, but have switched over to the English terminology because more people know what it means offhand. |