Remember me
▼ Content

... And the heat goes on! ...


... And the heat goes on! ...20-02-2016 17:40
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
Please watch my latest video ...

https://youtu.be/XvPFXL7E60g
20-02-2016 20:19
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
thanks for sharing that video a bit of logic on the forum.
20-02-2016 22:41
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
spot wrote:
thanks for sharing that video a bit of logic on the forum.


You are welcome
21-02-2016 00:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
Again, let me make a few points about your video:

00.00: NOAA does not measure global temperatures. It can't, despite what they claim. The GHCN does not measure global temperature either. It can't, despite what they claim. Neither has sufficient instrumentation in place to determine a global temperature by statistical means. This means there is no baseline of any kind. Without a baseline, any 'anomalies' of temperature are just as meaningless. This is known as a base rate fallacy and is using fabricated data.

01.49: The graph shown here is not global temperature. This is not possible because the number of stations used to compile it year after year, their locations, their type, and what they measure has changed considerably. NOAA only maintains stations that cover the lower 48 of the United States going back to 1890. Their individual records do not agree with the NOAA composite. This graph shown here is a composite of fudged and fabricated data from changing sources, spacing, and collection methods. This has been a known problem with the central NOAA and NASA offices for quite some time. You are just quoting the same old tired fake data.

02.02: El Nino does not determine global mean temperature. El Nino is a movement of warm water due to a shift in equatorial currents that is normal. Not a creation of it. Secondly, this is an old graph, showing a projected El Nino rather than what actually happened. There is no correlation of El Nino with global temperatures because there is no record of global temperatures. El Nino is cyclic. A strong El Nino is typically followed by a strong La Nina. We've known of El Nino and it's effects since the 1500's. Because of this strong cycle, we can expect COOLER weather to affect the West coast next year, and a colder, snowier winter across the usual cold areas of the United States, with hard freezes extending further south than usual, in the case of a strong La Nina, and a normal pattern in the case of return to neutral. Either way means cooler weather for the United States, and warmer weather across the equatorial regions with normal trade wind flow.

03.16: The current Arctic downward data doesn't agree with other stations actually measuring polar ice extent from other countries, such as Norway. These countries measure this much more closely because it affects their shipping. According to their records, there has been no significant change in Arctic sea ice other than the usual seasonal variations since 1850. This has also been confirmed by attempts to navigate the Northwest Passage by surface ships. Sometimes it's open, most times it's closed. Better built ships has made navigation of this passage much easier in recent years.

NOAA uses this graph of data since 1990 to show a seemingly nonstop drop in sea ice. What they fail to show is that sea ice is currently dropping slightly from a HIGH. This careful manipulation of available data is further evidence of NOAA's habit of presenting fudged and even fabricated data to satisfy a government agenda.

03.41: The chart showing Antarctic sea ice is similarly manipulative. BTW, you should know that most of the sea ice completely disappears during the summer there, in other words, January.

03.58: You conclusion is based on a rather extreme example of bad math. Statistical mathematics is great at summarizing past or present data, but has no predictive power. You are also using it to compare one 'prediction' (fortune telling) against another, and coming up with some kind of statistical total. You are not only using statistical mathematics as a form of chicken entrails to make a prediction, but you are mixing your chickens. In the end you are using one magick against another magick and basing your conclusion on combining magick 'mathematically'. There is no mathematics here. Just magick.

04.02: Alex was not the first hurricane to form in January. While rare, we've had them before. One in 1955 and another in 1938, according to surviving records kept by the United States. Oddly, the 1997 El Nino (which was basically just as strong), produced no early hurricane. There goes that theory.

04.18: 'Hot' spots or 'cold' spots with record temperatures occur every year in various places around the globe. It sure helps when the 'record' is so short in many of these places as well! It also helps when the 'record breaking temperature' is actually only breaking a record since some data a couple of decades ago. This kind of argument is again a base rate fallacy. You seem to favor this one. You 'wet' spot argument is just the same thing.

04.39: At least you showed a correct image for climate forecasting here, although most practitioners of magick wouldn't use a lit crystal ball. You predictions use many of the same techniques, though. You are fortune telling.



Conclusion: Again, you are just fear mongering using fabricated, fudged, and debunked tripe. I consider this a Religious video, for it certainly doesn't make use of science, mathematics, or logic to draw its conclusion. Its conclusion is primarily constructed of base rate fallacies and questionable sources of data (central NOAA most significantly). If you want to use more reliable data, use the individual station logs. They are not as easily manipulated NOAA, and they tell a different story of U.S. temperatures and precipitation. Then stop trying to claim the existence of any kind of global data on temperature or precip. There simply isn't any.
21-02-2016 02:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
DRKTS wrote:Please watch my latest video ...https://youtu.be/XvPFXL7E60g

You made another fear-mongering appeal to the gullible.

One characteristic of religions is the belief that the religion bestows knowledge/wisdom that non-believers don't have, making the believer smarter and wiser than the non-believers. This is especially true of warmizombies, to an exaggerated extent. Warmizombies think their WACKY ideology makes them Einsteins and that non-believers of their violations of physics are somehow stupid.

The target audience of this video is the gullible and scientifically illiterate. It preaches standard "meat-and-potatoes" warmizombie dogma that unquestioning faith will garner one the ability to "know" average global temperatures that the rest of humanity still cannot compute. The scientifically illiterate will not ask "Why were the temperatures announced as if there is no margin of error? Did God tell them what the exact temperatures were?" The target audience will presume that "climate" revealed the exact temperatures to Wikipedia and that will be good enough for them.

The target audience will not question how every year is known to be "globally the warmest year Ev-ah." The gullible will forget all the record cold temperatures announced in the news that year and just not bother to ask "why does the video claim that none of those happened?" The scientifically illiterate won't be able to discern that no raw data is presented (it never is) and that the only data used to support the absurd assertions of the video are fudged data "summaries." If anyone should ever question the completely fudged/fabricated/bogus nature of the data presented, warmizombies are poised to respond "It's perfectly acceptable to fudge...er, um...WEIGHT the data to account for known data points that don't lend themselves to the conclusions we want"...and that's good enough for the gullible.

So, given the intended audience, this video gets high marks for effectiveness. Even a neutral party such as myself (not a member of the target audience) can see the thought and attention to detail that went into making this video. Great hype. This one will definitely suck in a few.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-02-2016 03:38
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
Into the Night wrote:
Again, let me make a few points about your video: ...

.


All that proves is you have low comprehension skills.
21-02-2016 03:39
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
IBdaMann wrote:
DRKTS wrote:Please watch my latest video ...https://youtu.be/XvPFXL7E60g


You made another fear-mongering appeal to the gullible.


.


More fact starved bluster.
21-02-2016 06:29
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
DRKTS wrote: More fact starved bluster.

I wonder how that would sound with a gaelic accent.

Both Global Warming and Devonian culture are on their deathbeds. You seem to be holding on to them like a curator, trying to keep them protected in your own little museum for future generations. I hope you keep your videos on YouTube so we can look back on them in a couple of decades and say "No way! There were actually people who believed THAT?"


Anyway, I asked a pertinent question (not of you directly) in another one of your video threads that you didn't answer and I was wondering if you would care to discuss it since it really pertains to this video.

IBdaMann wrote: A pointless question until we figure out what is causing the increase in temperature in the first place if it's not the sun.

What do you believe is causing the (presumed) increase in temperature? An increase in energy or a superpower miracle that "slows" thermal radiation?


What do you think? What is causing record earth-bake temperatures if it's not the sun? An increase in energy caused by "greenhouse gas" or a superpower miracle that "slows" earth's thermal radiation?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-02-2016 09:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
DRKTS wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Again, let me make a few points about your video: ...

.


All that proves is you have low comprehension skills.


1. There is no proof in rhetoric.

2. Since you decided not to provide counter argument, I will assume you don't have any.


The Parrot Killer
21-02-2016 12:12
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
Certainly you are entitled to an opinion but to expect people to spend all day playing pidgion chess is a bit much.
21-02-2016 13:33
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
Into the Night wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Again, let me make a few points about your video: ...

.


All that proves is you have low comprehension skills.


1. There is no proof in rhetoric.

2. Since you decided not to provide counter argument, I will assume you don't have any.


I provide the supporting data in my video, to say it is wrong you need to provide referenced counter arguments. That is how science works: a hypothesis becomes a theory based on supporting data and compliance with the known physical laws thus becomes accepted until a better theory comes along (example Newton's Law of Gravity and Einstein's General Relativity). It is disproved by contrary data and lack of compliance with the established physical laws (e.g., the solar origin of global warming - see my video "Its The Sun, Stupid")
21-02-2016 16:29
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
DRKTS wrote:I provide the supporting data in my video, to say it is wrong you need to provide referenced counter arguments.

So you never had any intention of addressing any actual science in your own actual words. Your intention all along has been to goad others into providing references that you would invent ways to disparage, i.e. just knock over their pieces while they are trying to play chess because you obviously don't know how to play.

DRKTS wrote: That is how science works: a hypothesis becomes a theory ...

First the theory is developed then hypotheses are drawn from the falsifiable model. You really are just playing pretend scientist.

DRKTS wrote:...based on supporting data

The scientific method has no need for supporting data. I wouldn't expect a pretend scientist to understand that.


DRKTS wrote: ..and compliance with the known physical laws ...

You have been shown how "greenhouse effect" violates the laws of physics but you aren't able to understand.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just take it heavy on the Bushmills.



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-02-2016 17:50
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
IBdaMann wrote:


.


You apparently cant answer my points with any counter arguments specifically backed up with valid scientific references. You have shown nothing nor "proven" anything that a high-school student cannot refute. So your answers amount to juvenile posturing.
21-02-2016 21:03
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
DRKTS wrote:You apparently cant answer my points with any counter arguments specifically backed up with valid scientific references. You have shown nothing nor "proven" anything that a high-school student cannot refute. So your answers amount to juvenile posturing.

Since you are only playing "pretend scientist" I don't expect you to necessarily understand that violations of math and/or physics need only be pointed out; no references are required.

If, for example, you were to assert that 3+4=31, one would only need to mention that you have a math error. No one would be required to provide any links to websites stating that "3+4 does not equal 31." Similarly it is sufficient to point out that a model has earth's temperature increasing while its radiance decreases. The person selling the model is responsible for performing all the research required to fix the problem.

Oh, that would be you in this case. Your shameless efforts to get others to do your work for you don't help your credibility any.

Another point worth mentioning. You effectively broadcast yourself as a complete sham whenever you imply that truth is that which is written on the internet. You only show how gullible you are, how gullible you expect others to be and how gullible one must be to buy your claims One can only assume that you claim stuff to be true because you read it on the internet.

It is not the case that the myriad of errors in your bogus videos somehow don't exist until you are presented references that you declare meet with your approval. If you are satisfied with your videos being replete with critical problems then that's all that matters.

Go back to the Bushmills.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-02-2016 22:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
DRKTS wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Again, let me make a few points about your video: ...

.


All that proves is you have low comprehension skills.


1. There is no proof in rhetoric.

2. Since you decided not to provide counter argument, I will assume you don't have any.


I provide the supporting data in my video, to say it is wrong you need to provide referenced counter arguments. That is how science works: a hypothesis becomes a theory based on supporting data and compliance with the known physical laws thus becomes accepted until a better theory comes along (example Newton's Law of Gravity and Einstein's General Relativity). It is disproved by contrary data and lack of compliance with the established physical laws (e.g., the solar origin of global warming - see my video "Its The Sun, Stupid")


Easy.

1. The theory is not a falsifiable one. Therefore it is false in the world of science.

2. Global Warming conflicts with the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics, Planck's law, and Kirchoff's laws. It does not describe how these theories must be modified to accommodate it. Therefore it is false in the world of science. See other posts to examine how these laws are violated.

3. The data used by Global Warming does not exist, uses erroneous statistical mathematics principles to fabricate them, and was never formalized into mathematics. Therefore it has no power of prediction. Therefore the theory of Global Warming cannot conclude. Therefore it must be false, since the entire theory is based on the power of prediction. Only mathematics and logic have the power of prediction. Not science. The lack of definable data problem is one of the reasons for the theory not being a falsifiable one.

4. Redirection into the straw men of consensus in all its various forms and demands for credentials seem to be the core arguments supporting this theory. Since neither exists in science, mathematics, or logic, this supporting evidence for the theory must be discarded. It therefore cannot be used to inspire or verify the existence of the theory outside the identification proof. If a theory itself depends on these things, it must therefore be discarded.

Nothing in any of your videos I have examined indicates you have any kind of clear understanding of the meaning and limitations of science, mathematics, logic, and rhetoric, or of the philosophies that define them.

References are not required for counter arguments. If you want to learn more, read books on philosophy, especially on metaphysics, the philosophy of science, the philosophy of mathematics, etc. You might try a good book on physics and chemistry as well. Follow this up with books on logic and mathematics, especially statistical mathematics. When you are done with these, study up on the history of science, the history of western civilizations, economics and it's history, and indeed history in general. These books will tell you how we got here.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 21-02-2016 23:31
21-02-2016 23:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
DRKTS wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:


.


You apparently cant answer my points with any counter arguments specifically backed up with valid scientific references. You have shown nothing nor "proven" anything that a high-school student cannot refute. So your answers amount to juvenile posturing.

Actually, his counter arguments do not need references, 'scientific' or otherwise. No counter argument requires them. To demand that they do is a fallacy known as Bulverism.


The Parrot Killer
21-02-2016 23:53
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Again, let me make a few points about your video: ...

.


All that proves is you have low comprehension skills.


1. There is no proof in rhetoric.

2. Since you decided not to provide counter argument, I will assume you don't have any.


I provide the supporting data in my video, to say it is wrong you need to provide referenced counter arguments. That is how science works: a hypothesis becomes a theory based on supporting data and compliance with the known physical laws thus becomes accepted until a better theory comes along (example Newton's Law of Gravity and Einstein's General Relativity). It is disproved by contrary data and lack of compliance with the established physical laws (e.g., the solar origin of global warming - see my video "Its The Sun, Stupid")


Easy.

1. The theory is not a falsifiable one. Therefore it is false in the world of science.

2. Global Warming conflicts with the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics, Planck's law, and Kirchoff's laws. It does not describe how these theories must be modified to accommodate it. Therefore it is false in the world of science. See other posts to examine how these laws are violated.

3. The data used by Global Warming does not exist, uses erroneous statistical mathematics principles to fabricate them, and was never formalized into mathematics. Therefore it has no power of prediction. Therefore the theory of Global Warming cannot conclude. Therefore it must be false, since the entire theory is based on the power of prediction. Only mathematics and logic have the power of prediction. Not science. The lack of definable data problem is one of the reasons for the theory not being a falsifiable one.

4. Redirection into the straw men of consensus in all its various forms and demands for credentials seem to be the core arguments supporting this theory. Since neither exists in science, mathematics, or logic, this supporting evidence for the theory must be discarded. It therefore cannot be used to inspire or verify the existence of the theory outside the identification proof. If a theory itself depends on these things, it must therefore be discarded.

76 Nobel Laureates disagree with you:

Peter Agre
J. M. Bishop
Elizabeth Blackburn
Martin Chalfie
Steven Chu
Claude Cohen-Tannoudji
James W. Cronin
Peter Doherty
Gerhard Ertl
Edmond Fischer
Walter Gilbert
Roy Glauber
David Gross
John L. Hall
Serge Haroche
Stefan Hell
Jules A. Hoffmann
Klaus von Klitzing
Harold Kroto
William Moerner
Ferid Murad
Ei-ichi Negishi
Saul Perlmutter
William Phillips
Richard Roberts
Kailash Satyarthi
Brian Schmidt
Hamilton O. Smith
George Smoot
Jack Szostak
Roger Y. Tsien
Harold Varmus
J. Robin Warren
Arieh Warshel
Torsten Wiesel
Robert Wilson
Hiroshi Amano
David Baltimore
Aaron Ciechanover
Elias Corey
Robert Curl
Johann Deisenhofer
Jerome I. Friedman
Sheldon Glashow
Robert Grubbs
Leland Hartwell
Dudley Herschbach
Roald Hoffmann
Wolfgang Ketterle
Walter Kohn
Yuan T. Lee
Anthony J. Leggett
Michael Levitt
John Mather
Arthur B. McDonald
Mario J. Molina
Edvard Moser
May-Britt Moser
Erwin Neher
Ryoji Noyori
Paul Nurse
John O'Keefe
Douglas Osheroff
Arno Penzias
Adam Riess
Carlo Rubbia
Oliver Smithies
Jack Steinberger
Thomas Steitz
Horst Stormer
Thomas Südhof
John Sulston
Joseph H. Taylor
Steve Weinberg
Carl Wieman
David Wineland

Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change
22-02-2016 00:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Again, let me make a few points about your video: ...

.


All that proves is you have low comprehension skills.


1. There is no proof in rhetoric.

2. Since you decided not to provide counter argument, I will assume you don't have any.


I provide the supporting data in my video, to say it is wrong you need to provide referenced counter arguments. That is how science works: a hypothesis becomes a theory based on supporting data and compliance with the known physical laws thus becomes accepted until a better theory comes along (example Newton's Law of Gravity and Einstein's General Relativity). It is disproved by contrary data and lack of compliance with the established physical laws (e.g., the solar origin of global warming - see my video "Its The Sun, Stupid")


Easy.

1. The theory is not a falsifiable one. Therefore it is false in the world of science.

2. Global Warming conflicts with the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics, Planck's law, and Kirchoff's laws. It does not describe how these theories must be modified to accommodate it. Therefore it is false in the world of science. See other posts to examine how these laws are violated.

3. The data used by Global Warming does not exist, uses erroneous statistical mathematics principles to fabricate them, and was never formalized into mathematics. Therefore it has no power of prediction. Therefore the theory of Global Warming cannot conclude. Therefore it must be false, since the entire theory is based on the power of prediction. Only mathematics and logic have the power of prediction. Not science. The lack of definable data problem is one of the reasons for the theory not being a falsifiable one.

4. Redirection into the straw men of consensus in all its various forms and demands for credentials seem to be the core arguments supporting this theory. Since neither exists in science, mathematics, or logic, this supporting evidence for the theory must be discarded. It therefore cannot be used to inspire or verify the existence of the theory outside the identification proof. If a theory itself depends on these things, it must therefore be discarded.

76 Nobel Laureates disagree with you:

Peter Agre
J. M. Bishop
Elizabeth Blackburn
Martin Chalfie
Steven Chu
Claude Cohen-Tannoudji
James W. Cronin
Peter Doherty
Gerhard Ertl
Edmond Fischer
Walter Gilbert
Roy Glauber
David Gross
John L. Hall
Serge Haroche
Stefan Hell
Jules A. Hoffmann
Klaus von Klitzing
Harold Kroto
William Moerner
Ferid Murad
Ei-ichi Negishi
Saul Perlmutter
William Phillips
Richard Roberts
Kailash Satyarthi
Brian Schmidt
Hamilton O. Smith
George Smoot
Jack Szostak
Roger Y. Tsien
Harold Varmus
J. Robin Warren
Arieh Warshel
Torsten Wiesel
Robert Wilson
Hiroshi Amano
David Baltimore
Aaron Ciechanover
Elias Corey
Robert Curl
Johann Deisenhofer
Jerome I. Friedman
Sheldon Glashow
Robert Grubbs
Leland Hartwell
Dudley Herschbach
Roald Hoffmann
Wolfgang Ketterle
Walter Kohn
Yuan T. Lee
Anthony J. Leggett
Michael Levitt
John Mather
Arthur B. McDonald
Mario J. Molina
Edvard Moser
May-Britt Moser
Erwin Neher
Ryoji Noyori
Paul Nurse
John O'Keefe
Douglas Osheroff
Arno Penzias
Adam Riess
Carlo Rubbia
Oliver Smithies
Jack Steinberger
Thomas Steitz
Horst Stormer
Thomas Südhof
John Sulston
Joseph H. Taylor
Steve Weinberg
Carl Wieman
David Wineland

Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change


Four.
Q.E.D.


The Parrot Killer
22-02-2016 01:25
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Oh, this is a tough one. Who's more likely to have properly grasped the situation: 76 of the smartest people on the planet, or a couple of internet nutcases who struggle with hard sums?
22-02-2016 01:27
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
Surface Detail wrote:76 Nobel Laureates disagree with you:

Can scientists be religious?

How many Catholic scientists do you need to convince you that Catholicism is true?

Oh, were you going to say that these laureates are the gatekeepers for science?

Well, in any event, let's get to it. Bring these Nobel Laureates to this forum so they can be cross examined (I'll presume that you aren't claiming to be speaking for them or somehow with the authority of many Nobel Laureates).


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-02-2016 01:36
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:76 Nobel Laureates disagree with you:

Can scientists be religious?

How many Catholic scientists do you need to convince you that Catholicism is true?

Oh, were you going to say that these laureates are the gatekeepers for science?

Well, in any event, let's get to it. Bring these Nobel Laureates to this forum so they can be cross examined (I'll presume that you aren't claiming to be speaking for them or somehow with the authority of many Nobel Laureates).

Is that meant to make some sort of sense?
22-02-2016 04:20
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
Surface Detail wrote:Is that meant to make some sort of sense?

Is English not your first language?

Questions don't go away because you plug your ears and shout "La La La ...I can't hear you...La La La." The fact that you blatantly EVADE simple, easy questions speaks volumes of your own awareness of the fatal weaknesses of your position.

You can reasonably expect those same simple, easy questions to return to give you additional opportunities to EVADE and to broadcast your own lack of confidence.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-02-2016 04:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
Surface Detail wrote: Who's more likely to have properly grasped the situation: 76 of the smartest people on the planet, or a couple of internet nutcases who struggle with hard sums?

This is a good question. Who is more likely being honest? Someone citing standard logic, math and science or some pretend scientist who thinks he speaks for other people?

Hmmm.

Surface Detail, what reason do I have to believe that these people don't all agree outright with Into the Night, or that they are somehow science's gatekeepers, or that science is determined by subjective opinion? You've been wrong about practically everything else you have discussed on this forum. You make a habit of basing your arguments on violations of the laws of physics, logical fallacies and general dishonesty. Heck, you want earth's constants to be treated as variables that are driven by CO2.

Could I just get in a brief question while we're talking about this: How does earth's radius change, along with emissivity, to compensate for changes in T?

I think the answer to your question is a hands-down "go with Into the Night" and ask you to come back when you can discuss actual science.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-02-2016 10:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
Surface Detail wrote:
Oh, this is a tough one. Who's more likely to have properly grasped the situation: 76 of the smartest people on the planet, or a couple of internet nutcases who struggle with hard sums?


Four.


The Parrot Killer
22-02-2016 13:30
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Oh, this is a tough one. Who's more likely to have properly grasped the situation: 76 of the smartest people on the planet, or a couple of internet nutcases who struggle with hard sums?


Four.

Oh yes, I forgot Buildreps and Tai Hai Chen. Sorry.
22-02-2016 20:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Oh, this is a tough one. Who's more likely to have properly grasped the situation: 76 of the smartest people on the planet, or a couple of internet nutcases who struggle with hard sums?


Four.

Oh yes, I forgot Buildreps and Tai Hai Chen. Sorry.

Wrong meaning. Try again.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate ... And the heat goes on! ...:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Max Planck and Pierre Prevost on Net Thermal Radiation and Net Heat3227-09-2019 02:43
How does radiation heat CO2615-08-2019 05:38
Holding in heat1704-06-2019 19:08
What makes IPCC thinks CO2 is better than O2 at trapping heat?028-04-2019 15:40
Heat7119-04-2019 23:53
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact