Remember me
▼ Content

33 degrees C



Page 1 of 212>
33 degrees C02-09-2016 17:08
Hank
★☆☆☆☆
(77)
Scientists say that greenhouse gases increase the earth's temperature around 33 degrees C and otherwise the earth would be frozen like Mars. Do the deniers here accept that or do you think the scientists are wrong about that also?
02-09-2016 20:38
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4312)
Hank wrote: Scientists say that greenhouse gases increase the earth's temperature around 33 degrees C

Scientists don't. Political activists like yourself do.

Meanwhile no scientists believe in violations of physics.

Do the warmizombies and climate lemmings on this site accept Stefan-Boltzmann?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
02-09-2016 21:32
Hank
★☆☆☆☆
(77)
IBdaMann wrote:
Hank wrote: Scientists say that greenhouse gases increase the earth's temperature around 33 degrees C

Scientists don't. Political activists like yourself do.

Meanwhile no scientists believe in violations of physics.

Do the warmizombies and climate lemmings on this site accept Stefan-Boltzmann?


.


Well first of all I didn't say it I was just asking a question. Since this is going nowhere and I doubt it will but I will ask one more. What is your definition of a scientist?

I can't speak for others but I accept the Stefan-Boltzmann law if that's what you are talking about because the experts in that field say it's true. Just like people accept what I say about the field I'm an expert in.
02-09-2016 21:57
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4312)
Hank wrote: ... I will ask one more. What is your definition of a scientist?

One who creates and/or applies falsifiable models that predict nature.

Hank wrote:I can't speak for others

I wish you would spread the word and tell fellow warmizombies and climate lemmings to not do that as well.

Hank wrote: but I accept the Stefan-Boltzmann law if that's what you are talking about because the experts in that field say it's true.

That's about the stupidest reason for accepting science I have ever heard. Because a person told you that it is true? Really? Science is based on its inherent truth, not on what anyone says. There is no consensus in science. Science is not determined by democratic vote. No one's opinion is considered. No one's approval is required for science to be created and no one gets a veto.

Science is a collection of falsifiable models. Falsifiable. That means that any and all people are free to verify for themselves any model to their desired confidence level. Any and all people are free to prove any model false if possible.

Why don't you accept Jesus as your lord and savior? I assure you that experts in Christianity will assure you that it's absolutely true that Jesus died for your sins. Accepting some relationship about nature based on someone telling you that it's true is absolutely absurd.

So, when Stefan-Boltzman destroys your "greenhouse effect" beliefs, are you going to pout that you no longer accept it? Is your acceptance of science based only on whether it supports your WACKY religion?

By the way, you run a circular argument when you use the tabloid word "experts." Who do you accept as an expert? Why someone who worships your religion. Do you accept me as an expert? No. Why not? Because I don't accept your WACKY religion.

Basically you seek to subvert science under your religious dogma and you fight with people like myself who simply try to help you with science.

Hank wrote:Just like people accept what I say about the field I'm an expert in.

What "field" would that be?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
02-09-2016 23:18
Hank
★☆☆☆☆
(77)
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Hank wrote: ... I will ask one more. What is your definition of a scientist?

IBdaMann wrote:
One who creates and/or applies falsifiable models that predict nature.


Hank wrote:I can't speak for others

IBdaMann wrote:
I wish you would spread the word and tell fellow warmizombies and climate lemmings to not do that as well.


And I wish you wouldn't speak for me like saying I said that greenhouse gases increase the earth's temperature around 33 degrees C.

Hank wrote: but I accept the Stefan-Boltzmann law if that's what you are talking about because the experts in that field say it's true.

IBdaMann wrote:
That's about the stupidest reason for accepting science I have ever heard. Because a person told you that it is true? Really? Science is based on its inherent truth, not on what anyone says. There is no consensus in science. Science is not determined by democratic vote. No one's opinion is considered. No one's approval is required for science to be created and no one gets a veto.


Actually in this day and time when there is so much knowledge about so many things the stupidest thing is when someone thinks they can understand everything about everything. Science is based on the consensus of the evidence. There is no inherent truth in science since science cannot prove anything. What's accepted as factual today might be overturned tomorrow as it has been in the past. However there are some theories that are so well established by the evidence that overturning them is considered remote.

IBdaMann wrote:
Science is a collection of falsifiable models. Falsifiable. That means that any and all people are free to verify for themselves any model to their desired confidence level. Any and all people are free to prove any model false if possible.


Any and all people are free to show any model false but it's stupid for someone who doesn't have the science and math background to attempt to falsify something they don't understand. Just like it's stupid for someone to self-diagnosis themselves with a heart problem or any other complicated medical problem if they don't have proper medical training. But it's true that people are free to be stupid.

IBdaMann wrote:
Why don't you accept Jesus as your lord and savior? I assure you that experts in Christianity will assure you that it's absolutely true that Jesus died for your sins. Accepting some relationship about nature based on someone telling you that it's true is absolutely absurd.


How do you know I don't. But if I do it's because of belief not science which is completely different. Science is based on knowledge and evidence, not beliefs.

IBdaMann wrote:
So, when Stefan-Boltzman destroys your "greenhouse effect" beliefs, are you going to pout that you no longer accept it? Is your acceptance of science based only on whether it supports your WACKY religion?


As I said I'm not knowledgeable enough about that field to accept what one person tells me about it. But if a preponderance of scientific experts in that field say the Stefan-Boltzman law 'destroys' the greenhouse effect I would accept that. Just like if 1 Oncologists ran test and said I was fine but 20 other Oncologists ran test and said I would die without an operation, I would have the operation because I would accept their expertise.

IBdaMann wrote:
By the way, you run a circular argument when you use the tabloid word "experts." Who do you accept as an expert? Why someone who worships your religion. Do you accept me as an expert? No. Why not? Because I don't accept your WACKY religion.


I attended an accredited university and have 30 years of experience in my field that has been validated by the structures I have designed withstanding the forces they were designed for and I am accepted by my peers as an expert in my field. I'm perfectly capable of looking at someone's credentials, their life work and the acceptance of their peers to determine whether I should accept them as an expert or not. I would extend you the same curtesy if you wanted to show me the evidence. There is a legitimate reason structures in the United States are not approved unless they are designed by a Registered Professional Structural Engineer. And that's because only Structural Engineers are knowledgeable enough in that field to safely determine how the structure should be built. And that goes for a lot of fields.

IBdaMann wrote:
Basically you seek to subvert science under your religious dogma and you fight with people like myself who simply try to help you with science.


Well I don't feel like I'm fighting with you but just having a discussion. And I appreciate the intent but I'm going to stick with the experts in the field for the reasons I explained above. But if you are interested in providing me with the evidence of your knowledge and experience in this field I'll certainly consider it.

Hank wrote:Just like people accept what I say about the field I'm an expert in.

IBdaMann wrote:
What "field" would that be?


Structural Engineering. So what about you? Are you an expert in any field or fields?
03-09-2016 01:12
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4312)
Hank wrote:And I wish you wouldn't speak for me like saying I said that greenhouse gases increase the earth's temperature around 33 degrees C.

Then stop whining and clarify your position. I'f you don't tell me how I'm mistaken then I'll presume I'm correct.

Hank wrote:Actually in this day and time when there is so much knowledge about so many things the stupidest thing is when someone thinks they can understand everything about everything.

This absurd extreme is a stupid rationalization for accepting ideas based on who manipulates you.

Sad.


Hank wrote:Science is based on the consensus of the evidence.

This is also stupid. Evidence is not people. Evidence cannot form a consensus. What people are you claiming have the power to be the approving consensus? Tibetan monks?

There is no evidence in science. That's religion. You honestly cannot distinguish religion from science. You need others to do your thinking for you.

When you looked at Stefan-Boltzmann, did you notice that there was some math and no "evidence"? Do you know why that is? Because there is no evidence in science. "Evidence" is subjective and is the stuff of religion.

Hank wrote: There is no inherent truth in science since science cannot prove anything.

Totally stupid.

Is there no water in swimming pools because pools cannot prove anything?

Get your terms straight

Hank wrote:Any and all people are free to show any model false but it's stupid for someone who doesn't have the science and math background to attempt to falsify something they don't understand.

Science models are EASY to understand. Why are you making people out to brainless morons? Not everyone is a scientifically illiterate warmizombie.

In fact, didn't you say you are an engineer? How is it you find science models daunting?




Hank wrote: Science is based on knowledge and evidence, not beliefs.

For you it is apparently based entirely on faith in other people's opinions.

Hank wrote:As I said I'm not knowledgeable enough about that field to accept what one person tells me about it.

Exactly, for you it's all about people's opinions and not what the science says ... a devotionally religious approach and completely antithetical to science.

Stefan-Boltzmann uses standard multiplication and a fourth order exponent. That's too much for you?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
03-09-2016 04:04
Hank
★☆☆☆☆
(77)
IBdaMann wrote:

Hank wrote:And I wish you wouldn't speak for me like saying I said that greenhouse gases increase the earth's temperature around 33 degrees C.

IBdaMann wrote:
Then stop whining and clarify your position. I'f you don't tell me how I'm mistaken then I'll presume I'm correct.


You told me what you wished and I told you what I wished. How about you stop whining if that's what you think it is.

You can presume anything you want, that doesn't make it correct. If you can't look and see that I never made that statement then I would suggest a class in remedial reading at the local high school or maybe a physiologist.

Hank wrote:Actually in this day and time when there is so much knowledge about so many things the stupidest thing is when someone thinks they can understand everything about everything.

IBdaMann wrote:
This absurd extreme is a stupid rationalization for accepting ideas based on who manipulates you.

Sad.


Since you know everything and are so smart about science why don't you use it to cure cancer or any of the other diseases?


Hank wrote:Science is based on the consensus of the evidence.

IBdaMann wrote:
This is also stupid. Evidence is not people. Evidence cannot form a consensus. What people are you claiming have the power to be the approving consensus? Tibetan monks?

There is no evidence in science. That's religion. You honestly cannot distinguish religion from science. You need others to do your thinking for you.

When you looked at Stefan-Boltzmann, did you notice that there was some math and no "evidence"? Do you know why that is? Because there is no evidence in science. "Evidence" is subjective and is the stuff of religion.


So how do you know the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is correct or that it even means anything. Anyone can write an equation but without evidence to show it means something what good is it.

Hank wrote: There is no inherent truth in science since science cannot prove anything.

IBdaMann wrote:
Totally stupid.

Is there no water in swimming pools because pools cannot prove anything?

Get your terms straight


Anything that can not be falsified is not science.

Hank wrote:Any and all people are free to show any model false but it's stupid for someone who doesn't have the science and math background to attempt to falsify something they don't understand.

IBdaMann wrote:
Science models are EASY to understand. Why are you making people out to brainless morons? Not everyone is a scientifically illiterate warmizombie.

In fact, didn't you say you are an engineer? How is it you find science models daunting?


I don't think people are brainless morons. But no one knows everything even though you obviously think you do.

You wouldn't last 5 minutes in my job because you would be clueless.

Hank wrote:As I said I'm not knowledgeable enough about that field to accept what one person tells me about it.

IBdaMann wrote:
Exactly, for you it's all about people's opinions and not what the science says ... a devotionally religious approach and completely antithetical to science.

Stefan-Boltzmann uses standard multiplication and a fourth order exponent. That's too much for you?

All you have done is talk about the Stefan-Boltzman equation and how simple it is. You haven't used it to show anything. So what good is something you don't use. It's obvious you know nothing about science and probably not much about anything. Especially since you didn't say what field you thought you were an expert in. Except of course you are an expert in everything.
08-09-2016 16:15
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4312)
Hank wrote: You can presume anything you want, that doesn't make it correct.

Yet another stupid "say-nothing" statement from you. Why don't you just write "breathing is good"? It's shorter and is equally uninformative.

Hank wrote:Since you know everything and are so smart about science why don't you use it to cure cancer or any of the other diseases?

What a terrible existence you must endure to only be able to comprehend the extremes. This might very well explain why it is not possible to have a rational discussion with you.

Since I know everything? Really?


Hank wrote: So how do you know the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is correct or that it even means anything.

No one knows whether it is correct. This is science. No model can ever be "confirmed." I shouldn't have to explain this to you again.

All you, I or anyone else needs to know is that:
1. It is clearly falsifiable
2. It has survived a rigorous scientific method
3. No supporting evidence involved.

I, personally, have not been able to show it to be false. Have you?

Hank wrote: Anyone can write an equation but without evidence to show it means something what good is it.

See points 1. and 2. above. All the supporting evidence in the world and $5 will get you a coffee at Starbucks.

Hank wrote:I don't think people are brainless morons. But no one knows everything even though you obviously think you do.

No one knows everything. Wow. Yet another completely uninformative statement of the extreme.

Hank wrote:You wouldn't last 5 minutes in my job because you would be clueless.

Are you sure? On what would I need to brush up?

Hank wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote:Stefan-Boltzmann uses standard multiplication and a fourth order exponent. That's too much for you?

Hank wrote:All you have done is talk about the Stefan-Boltzman equation and how simple it is. You haven't used it to show anything.

Did you just DODGE my question because standard multiplication *IS* too much for you? I'm thinking that I could probably move into your job pretty easily.

In any event, I used Stefan-Boltzmann to successfully show that you and your warmizombieism are full of bunk and that your WACKY religion runs counter to science.

Naturally I expect you to bemoan the science that shatters your faith.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
09-09-2016 15:06
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
33 C? Doubt it. Even Mars is not much colder than Earth and Mars is quite further from the Sun compared to Earth is.
09-09-2016 18:43
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
I don't think the CO2 in the air increases temperature by 33 C. If anything, the O2 and N2 which make up almost the entire atmosphere do by conduction. CO2 is a very minor part of the atmosphere.
11-09-2016 17:21
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4312)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
I don't think the CO2 in the air increases temperature by 33 C. If anything, the O2 and N2 which make up almost the entire atmosphere do by conduction. CO2 is a very minor part of the atmosphere.


How would ANY atmospheric gas increase the temperature of the planet? "Greenhouse effect" has long since been debunked.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
21-09-2016 21:43
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
"Actually in this day and time when there is so much knowledge about so many things the stupidest thing is when someone thinks they can understand everything about everything. Science is based on the consensus of the evidence. There is no inherent truth in science since science cannot prove anything. What's accepted as factual today might be overturned tomorrow as it has been in the past. However there are some theories that are so well established by the evidence that overturning them is considered remote."

I was going to write this someplace else, but I figured, why reinvent the wheel?

IB, the truth of a theory is not self-evident. Scientific consensus tells us what the accepted models and theories are. THAT is the value of scientific consensus.
22-09-2016 00:02
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
jwoodward48 wrote:
"Actually in this day and time when there is so much knowledge about so many things the stupidest thing is when someone thinks they can understand everything about everything. Science is based on the consensus of the evidence. There is no inherent truth in science since science cannot prove anything. What's accepted as factual today might be overturned tomorrow as it has been in the past. However there are some theories that are so well established by the evidence that overturning them is considered remote."

I was going to write this someplace else, but I figured, why reinvent the wheel?

IB, the truth of a theory is not self-evident. Scientific consensus tells us what the accepted models and theories are. THAT is the value of scientific consensus.


There is no value for consensus in science.

It was consensus that gave us incorrect ideas about why things float.

It was consensus that gave us the terracentric universe.

It was consensus that gave us every form of religion you can name.

It is your God. The Great God of Consensus. It is the God of the Church of Global Warming.


The Parrot Killer
22-09-2016 00:50
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Consensus is important because it tells us what the accepted scientific models and theories are. It is not all-knowing, certainly not any more than the rest of science is. But it's useful because it is a slightly-less-volatile representation of modern science.
22-09-2016 04:35
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4312)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Consensus is important because it tells us what the accepted scientific models and theories are. It is not all-knowing, certainly not any more than the rest of science is. But it's useful because it is a slightly-less-volatile representation of modern science.

Got it! Consensus is key in your religion.

In science, consensus has no role. Science is not subjective and is not determined by democratic vote. No one's opinion matters.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
22-09-2016 05:08
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
We are operating under fundamentally different definitions of science. I recommend you start using the accepted definition.
22-09-2016 12:42
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
jwoodward48 wrote:
We are operating under fundamentally different definitions of science. I recommend you start using the accepted definition.


He IS using the accepted definition.


The Parrot Killer
22-09-2016 13:13
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Here's how the Oxford English Dictionary defines science:

The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

I suggest we all use the word "science" in accordance with this definition in order to avoid confusion.
22-09-2016 15:42
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Oh noes! The Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy has spread to the dictionaries! BURN THEM ALL
22-09-2016 15:45
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4312)
Surface Detail wrote:I suggest we all use the word "science" in accordance with this definition in order to avoid confusion.

Suggestion dismissed.

See "Clarification" thread OP.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
22-09-2016 16:20
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:I suggest we all use the word "science" in accordance with this definition in order to avoid confusion.

Suggestion dismissed.

See "Clarification" thread OP.

OK, stay confused then.
22-09-2016 17:14
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4312)
Surface Detail wrote:OK, stay confused then.

Translation: "If I'm not allowed to misconstrue your position then you must be confused.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
22-09-2016 17:38
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:OK, stay confused then.

Translation: "If I'm not allowed to misconstrue your position then you must be confused.

I just think communication works better if we stick to the commonly accepted definitions of words.
22-09-2016 17:46
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4312)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:OK, stay confused then.

Translation: "If I'm not allowed to misconstrue your position then you must be confused.

I just think communication works better if we stick to the commonly accepted definitions of words.

I took the time write out the terms and what they mean. You could go with that.

But you won't. Why not? Because what I wrote is reality and what you NEED is weasel room for your bogus semantics in defense of your WACKY religion.

Either go with what I wrote in the OP of the "Clarification" thread or just admit that you still haven't acquired any intention for a rational discussion.

You can give up on trying to get me to hand you the definitions of your WACKY religious dogma, even if you perceive yourself as being a genius because you are a Brit. We're not going with "The Science." Sorry.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
22-09-2016 18:06
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:OK, stay confused then.

Translation: "If I'm not allowed to misconstrue your position then you must be confused.

I just think communication works better if we stick to the commonly accepted definitions of words.

I took the time write out the terms and what they mean. You could go with that.

But you won't. Why not? Because what I wrote is reality and what you NEED is weasel room for your bogus semantics in defense of your WACKY religion.


It's the OED! How is that "bogus"?

Either go with what I wrote in the OP of the "Clarification" thread or just admit that you still haven't acquired any intention for a rational discussion.


If you don't agree to everything I say, you must not want to discuss anything.

Yeaaaaaaah, someone doesn't have an interchangeable set of expectations.

You can give up on trying to get me to hand you the definitions of your WACKY religious dogma, even if you perceive yourself as being a genius because you are a Brit. We're not going with "The Science." Sorry.


We're going with what everybody else calls science.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
22-09-2016 18:21
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4312)
jwoodward48 wrote: It's the OED! How is that "bogus"?

Because it's bogus. Dictionary's are authorities on the spelling of words. They give examples of common usage (and misusage).

This particular example of misusage is correctly spelled as you would expect.

jwoodward48 wrote: If you don't agree to everything I say, you must not want to discuss anything.

Yeaaaaaaah, someone doesn't have an interchangeable set of expectations.

On this matter, you are correct. I'm not inclined to waste my time encouraging weaseling. If you have no intention of discussing honestly then I prefer to establish that up front.

If all you want to do is preach your WACKY religion then at least we know in advance to expect a one-way sermon.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
22-09-2016 18:28
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: It's the OED! How is that "bogus"?

Because it's bogus. Dictionary's are authorities on the spelling of words. They give examples of common usage (and misusage).

This particular example of misusage is correctly spelled as you would expect.


Someone sounds like a grumpy prescriptivist who's watching the world constantly changing, yelling at it to stop.

Words mean what people use by them. Science is most often used to mean an endeavor, a process, a method, plus possibly the body of knowledge (data, theories, laws, models). Even scientists use this definition.

jwoodward48 wrote: If you don't agree to everything I say, you must not want to discuss anything.

Yeaaaaaaah, someone doesn't have an interchangeable set of expectations.

On this matter, you are correct. I'm not inclined to waste my time encouraging weaseling. If you have no intention of discussing honestly then I prefer to establish that up front.

If all you want to do is preach your WACKY religion then at least we know in advance to expect a one-way sermon.


Someone doesn't have a good rebuttal. Someone's falling back on accusing people of weaseling and throwing ad hominems around.

Guess who that person is! (Hint: It's not me, and it's not Surface.)

You know what "weaseling" mean? It means "evasion", which means "to avoid giving a direct answer to a question". Someone's misusing words. Someone's a hypocrite.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
22-09-2016 18:59
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4312)
jwoodward48 wrote: Someone sounds like a grumpy prescriptivist who's watching the world constantly changing, yelling at it to stop.

Someone sounds like a terrified worshiper, praying on his knees, realizing that his religion isn't real and who's desperately to delude himself by screaming "It is true, it is so true...true, true, true...."

jwoodward48 wrote: Even scientists use this definition.

You would have no way of knowing. Besides, you don't speak for anyone but yourself.

In any event, this is a public forum for the exchange of ideas. You and I are discussing, well, I'm offering to discuss. You simply want to preach your religion and insult non-believers.

I am telling you that if you want to hold a discussion that you can use my terminology or you can just go on preaching. You get to choose. I'm not going to adopt your religion just to discuss it.

Let me know when something changes.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
22-09-2016 20:50
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
"I'll only agree to a discussion if it's entirely on my own terms, including giving me the ability to redefine any word at any time."

Suuuuuuuuure. No thanks.

It's not "adopting my religion" to use the words the way EVERYBODY ELSE does.
22-09-2016 21:23
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4312)
jwoodward48 wrote:It's not "adopting my religion" to use the words the way EVERYBODY ELSE does.

One of the main dogmatic teachings of your religion is that you speak for EVERYBODY ELSE! (clouds part, shafts of light rain down upon you from the heavens, angels sing your praises, etc...)

I'm not interested in your religion. Try the guy down the street.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
22-09-2016 21:33
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Except that I can give a thousand sources for the use of "science" to refer to a process, many of them as prestigious as the OED. I CAN speak for the world - in that I can quote it.
22-09-2016 23:36
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
jwoodward48 wrote:
"I'll only agree to a discussion if it's entirely on my own terms, including giving me the ability to redefine any word at any time."

Suuuuuuuuure. No thanks.

It's not "adopting my religion" to use the words the way EVERYBODY ELSE does.


You don't get to speak for everybody else. You only get to speak for you .

A dictionary is not a philosophy book. It is not a science book. It is not a logic book. It is not an authoritative reference of meanings at all. No dictionary owns the language.

Just for fun, let's try to turn the dictionary into an economics text.

How does he Oxford dictionary define 'income tax'? Once you have looked that up, look up the definition in the same dictionary for 'income'.

Then answer these questions:

Is 'income' money I receive from a regular salary?

Is 'income' the money received by a corporation?

Is 'income' money I receive from a friend paying a no interest loan back? Is it 'income' when my friend borrows the money in the first place?

Is 'income' money I received from a single win on a slot machine, or do I get to subtract my losses (which are greater) from playing slot machines? I can't document the losses, slot machines provide any way to do that. How do I determine taxes?

Is 'income' money a bank teller receives to deposit into your account? Does the bank owe taxes for it?

Is 'income' the money I receive in change for the purchase of an item?

Is 'income' the money the government receives as a result of taxing my income?

ALL of these satisfy the definition of 'income'.


The Parrot Killer
23-09-2016 01:19
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Look, this is beside the point. The OED doesn't matter so much as the fact that the vast majority of websites, professors I ask, and definitions in books saying that "science is a process". This isn't science - it's linguistics. And while science isn't democratic, word meanings are. The meaning of "science" is what people mean when they say "science". No more and no less. Your definition may be used by some people, but mine is in common use. Let's go with it. And your claim that "science is a process" is part of my "WACKY religion"? It's not. I'm using the definition of science that is used by everyone else. If it's religious to use accepted definitions, then praise the Lord Linguistics.
Edited on 23-09-2016 01:24
23-09-2016 01:22
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4312)
jwoodward48 wrote: I CAN speak for the world - in that I can quote it.

I never denied that you BELIEVE this.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
23-09-2016 01:24
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
I never denied that you can deny anything you like.
23-09-2016 01:32
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Look, this is beside the point. The OED doesn't matter so much as the fact that the vast majority of websites, professors I ask, and definitions in books saying that "science is a process". This isn't science - it's linguistics. And while science isn't democratic, word meanings are. The meaning of "science" is what people mean when they say "science". No more and no less. Your definition may be used by some people, but mine is in common use. Let's go with it. And your claim that "science is a process" is part of my "WACKY religion"? It's not. I'm using the definition of science that is used by everyone else. If it's religious to use accepted definitions, then praise the Lord Linguistics.


Coward. You can't even address this simple set of definitions I referred to. I even gave you which dictionary to look them up in.

Instead, you redirect back to chanting your mantras. All Hail the Great God Consensus!


The Parrot Killer
23-09-2016 01:32
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4312)
jwoodward48 wrote:I never denied that you can deny anything you like.

...and you BELIEVE that?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
23-09-2016 04:26
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Yes, I believe that you can deny anything.
23-09-2016 05:34
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4312)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Yes, I believe that you can deny anything.

I deny that.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
23-09-2016 14:22
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Just giving me more proof!


So how do you explain the 33C discrepancy?
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate 33 degrees C:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Temperatures leap 40 degrees above normal as the Arctic Ocean and Greenland ice sheet see record June mel318-06-2019 06:22
Radio Ecoshock: Two Degrees Beyond Safe329-05-2018 19:23
▲ 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