Remember me
▼ Content

All Governments & Organizations Are Making A Critical Basic Mistake About Climate Change Global Warmi



Page 2 of 3<123>
25-01-2020 00:31
gfm7175Profile picture★★☆☆☆
(313)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
There is no "book" of fallacies.

Oral tradition gfm?

How'd you learn them?


Already answered.


gfm7175 wrote:
The same way that I learned how to ride a bike, drive a car, drive a tractor, use semi-complex formulas in Microsoft Excel, etc...


Is not an answer. It alludes to something without naming it.

Yes it is.

How does one learn how to ride a bike or drive a car? Is it just from reading a book about it, or is there more to the equation?
25-01-2020 00:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Do you know what mathematical errors are? How did you learn them?
From the textbooks I've had in mathematics.

Have you really never used a textbook?

Did you ever do any homework in math class? Any classwork? Quizzes? Tests? Ever ask the teacher any questions?


In my case, I had to correct the teacher's math. He didn't know mathematics.
It was the same with my electronics instructor, and an aviation ground school instructor. They simply didn't know their subjects.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 25-01-2020 00:47
25-01-2020 00:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Do you know what mathematical errors are? How did you learn them?
From the textbooks I've had in mathematics.

Have you really never used a textbook?

Did you ever do any homework in math class? Any classwork? Quizzes? Tests? Ever ask the teacher any questions?


I didn't ask the teacher questions at home no. They lived somewhere else.


You never learned mathematics anyway. You deny mathematics.


The Parrot Killer
25-01-2020 01:31
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2265)
gfm7175 wrote:
How does one learn how to ride a bike or drive a car? Is it just from reading a book about it, or is there more to the equation?


So you only and exclusively learned from an oral tradition? You have never learned from books?

I had books for drivers training. You went out of your way to pick physical activities.

You do see how it sounds completely insane for you, as a group, to deny all books so far.

Come on gfm. Do you really deny all 12 of these references? Really?
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
TWELVE REFERENCES ON NET RADIANCE ITN/IBD DENY
...False authority fallacy.
25-01-2020 05:49
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5955)
tmiddles wrote:So you only and exclusively learned from an oral tradition? You have never learned from books?

You'll do better when you leave the goalposts fixed in place. Of course humans CAN learn from books. When it comes to learning something in particular, the tacit knowledge is a culmination of a broad range of experiences. That's how humans learn.

I'm great at logic but only a fraction of my proficiency came from reading. A lot came from personal interaction with others. A lot from thinking and pondering and working stuff out. In schools, there's a reason for "homework." It's not the reading; it's the "work." A lot of my logic proficiency came from countless hours of computer programming. A good chunk came from getting good at math. There was even some actual philosophy in there. Then you have the electrical engineering ... specifically the digital logic design and the boolean algebra.

Now that I think about it, asking me for a link justifying what I know is utterly stupid, as is you not taking notes on what I tell you.

tmiddles wrote: I had books for drivers training.

So did I. You can use them to pass a written test. They won't help you learn to drive.

Before my son took his driver's exam, I taught him how to drive. He already knew everything that was in the book without having to study the book. The important thing is that he was very good at driving. He nonetheless managed to incorrectly answer one question on the test because he wasn't paying attention carefully when he read the question ... but he took the test cold without studying or "reading" because he already "knew" it all. I am imagining you asking him to recommend a book on how he learned the safety rules for driving on back roads.

tmiddles wrote: You went out of your way to pick physical activities.

Do you mean "reality" and "life" and "nature." I assure you, it wasn't out of my way at all. Do you realize that humans learned things and made great inventions before the internet, ... even before Wikipedia. People actually learned things. The Incas were really smart despite being an illiterate society. Pre-Incan tribes were able to locate the equator line and build a temple/observatory on it ... in the 9th century. I'd love to know how they managed to do that. In the 18th Century, the French Academy of Science came rolling into what is now Ecuador with their advanced math and "modern" surveying equipment and declared the equator line to be about 100 meters south of the Pre-Incan sites. With the advent of GPS we were able to see that the French were about 100 meters too far to the south. I'm not sure that Wikipedia was around in the 9th century but I'd have to check.

tmiddles wrote:You do see how it sounds completely insane for you, as a group, to deny all books so far.

Who is denying "books"? ... or is this today's bogus position assignment?


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
25-01-2020 05:57
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2265)
IBdaMann wrote:
Who is denying "books"? ... or is this today's bogus position assignment?

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
TWELVE REFERENCES ON NET RADIANCE ITN/IBD DENY
...False authority fallacy.

What does "False authority fallacy" mean IBD?
25-01-2020 06:26
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5955)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Who is denying "books"? ... or is this today's bogus position assignment?

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
TWELVE REFERENCES ON NET RADIANCE ITN/IBD DENY
...False authority fallacy.

What does "False authority fallacy" mean IBD?


It's a version of the "appeal to authority" fallacy. Leftists do this a lot.

If you and I were to debate abortion and I were to state that the Pope says that abortion is wrong in all cases therefore you are wrong ... that is a classic "appeal to authority" fallacy.

If instead of referencing the Pope I were to cite text from the Magna Carta ... sure that would fall under "appeal to authority" but it isn't even something that can be called an authority. If you and I are debating whether Global Warming is just a religion and you were to cite a National Geographic article with the headline "Global Warming Verified to be Worse than Ever Imagined!" ... then I wouldn't waste any time declaring that a false authority. Actually Into the Night wouldn't waste any time. I would write out something sarcastic.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
25-01-2020 06:37
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2265)
IBdaMann wrote:
It's a version of the "appeal to authority" fallacy.
Why the different wording? Why not call it "appeal to authority"?

You're saying the meaning is no different correct?:
"appeal to authority fallacy"
"false authority fallacy"
have an identical meaning?
Edited on 25-01-2020 06:38
25-01-2020 07:59
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5955)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
It's a version of the "appeal to authority" fallacy.
Why the different wording? Why not call it "appeal to authority"?

You're saying the meaning is no different correct?:
"appeal to authority fallacy"
"false authority fallacy"
have an identical meaning?


No. I am not saying that.

I am saying that a "false authority" fallacy, ... or "appeal to false authority" fallacy is a type of "appeal to authority."

Does the word "subset" help? How about "member class"?

How about: all 'false authority' fallacies are 'appeal to authority' fallacies but not all "appeal to authority' fallacies are 'false authority' fallacies.

You've got to give me some tools to work with here.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
25-01-2020 13:33
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2265)
IBdaMann wrote:
How about: all 'false authority' fallacies are 'appeal to authority' fallacies but not all "appeal to authority' fallacies are 'false authority' fallacies.

Got you. So an "appeal to authority" may not always be an "appeal to false authority" as you see it.

But we're missing definitions. Let's try the one's as I understand them now:

"Appeal to authority"
is the fallacy that a fact should be believed simply because the source is respected/authoritative. A good example would be "Einstein believes in a steady state universe (which he did) so you've got to find this big bang nonsense is ridiculous". The point being that even if someone is authoritative they still have to prove their points. And that's a good one because Einstein is as authoritative as you get and likely wrong on that one.

"False authority" is when a source is not credible or knowledgeable in the area at all. The accusation implicit in a "False authority fallacy" is that the authority is not legitimate, bogus, and/or simply not qualified. I would think this would generally come up with references to industry standards, common knowledge for an expert and the like. Something like "look my uncle assured me that won't cure cancer, and he's a doctor while you are not", "that's a false authority fallacy your uncle is a doctor of psychology".

So if you say "False authority fallacy" it begs the question every time "Well then who is qualified?".
26-01-2020 02:12
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5955)
tmiddles wrote:
But we're missing definitions. Let's try the one's as I understand them now:

"Appeal to authority"
is the fallacy that a fact should be believed simply because the source is respected/authoritative. A good example would be "Einstein believes in a steady state universe (which he did) so you've got to find this big bang nonsense is ridiculous". The point being that even if someone is authoritative they still have to prove their points. And that's a good one because Einstein is as authoritative as you get and likely wrong on that one.


Sure, but I wouldn't accept it under that wording. I would submit this:

"Appeal to authority"[/b] is the fallacy that an argument should be accepted simply because someone respected (or viewed as an authority) by the arguer is referenced by the arguer. A good example would be a Christian referring to what his minister says on the matter.

The point being that the parties did not agree on that reference being authoritative. If it had been a "fact" then it would have already been accepted by all parties.

tmiddles wrote:"False authority" is when a source is not credible or knowledgeable in the area at all. The accusation implicit in a "False authority fallacy" is that the authority is not legitimate, bogus, and/or simply not qualified. I would think this would generally come up with references to industry standards, common knowledge for an expert and the like. Something like "look my uncle assured me that won't cure cancer, and he's a doctor while you are not", "that's a false authority fallacy your uncle is a doctor of psychology".


I wouldn't go for that wording. I would use this:

"False Authority Fallacy" [/b] occurs when an arguer tries to reference something that isn't even a valid reference, e.g. citing a dictionary for a meaning and not for a spelling.

The point being that a dictionary might very well be a reference but no dictionary owns any language. It would be like a devout Catholic citing the Pope on proper tire pressure. The Pope is certainly accepted as an authority ... but not on that. Or citing a CNN video on YouTube about what the Constitution reads as a rebuttal to someone directly citing the US Constitution.


tmiddles wrote: [/b] So if you say "False authority fallacy" it begs the question every time "Well then who is qualified?".

Get away from the word "qualified" and go with the question "is that the reference for this topic?" In my example concerning what the Constitution reads, obviously the authority is the Constitution itself and any other reference that contradicts that is a "false authority." It never gets to the question of "qualification." If you and I are debating whether emissivity in Stefan-Boltzmann has a wavelength term, you have to cite Stefan-Boltzmann. If you try to cite Wikipeida you can expect to be hit with a "false authority" claim, even if you don't realize the errors in your citation.

Of course, the reason this is a sub-category of "appeal to authority" is that the arguer considers the false authority as a proper authority and thus makes the appeal.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
Edited on 26-01-2020 02:15
26-01-2020 06:15
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2265)
IBdaMann wrote:
Sure, but I wouldn't accept it under that wording. I would submit this:

"Appeal to authority"[/b] is the fallacy that an argument (in place of "fact")...
Oops!! Yes yes. Total error on my part and I used the word "fact" incorrectly.

IBdaMann wrote:
If it had been a "fact" then it would have already been accepted by all parties.
We define the word differently. I define "fact" as "the actually reality truth" in which case no one is ever the mouth piece for it directly as that's not possible. I believe you define it as something along the lines of "agreed upon assumptions" which I would use other words for like "common ground", "stipulations", "consensus" and so on.

IBdaMann wrote:
"False Authority Fallacy" [/b] occurs when an arguer tries to reference something that isn't even a valid reference, e.g. citing a dictionary for a meaning ...
But why do you stop there? What would a reference be for the meaning of a word that is NOT false authority?

Totally unclear without making a distinction between what commits the error and what does not.

I believe I know your answer to that?:
"The only authoritative reference for any word is the person who has used the word"
That about right?

How about this:

What is a false authority on the laws of thermodynamics and what is an authority on it?

Now it would still be an appeal to authority to make an argument that isn't agreed upon by claiming it's true simply because that authoritative source is cited, but it would not be a false authority as with:
IBdaMann wrote:
...the Pope on proper tire pressure...

On that note I would offer that David Muller is an authoritative source on tire pressure.

If I cited Mr. Muller and you said it was a "false authority fallacy" you would be saying that you don't think Mr. Muller is qualified in the subject area as an authority/expert, along with the Pope.

This is a distinct point from saying someone isn't bother to make an argument and relying on authority. You are saying a source is not reliable or believable because they don't know the subject matter authoritatively.

But to sum up the lack of clarity from you guys I would put it this way. If you were writing cook book it would be:
"How to not cook anything, ever"

You really need to give some examples of something done properly.

So would you also find that referencing Einstein in making an argument about relativity that is not agreed to, and stopping there (or acting as though it proves the point) would be an "Appeal to authority" but it would not be a "False Authority" fallacy?
26-01-2020 08:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5955)
tmiddles wrote: I define "fact" as "the actually reality truth"

Sure, and you can do that. You are welcome to specify the meaning of your word usage.

What you cannot do is claim that your argument is reality, period, done, end of story. If I make a statement X and you say that it is a FACT that not-X, well obviously if we are disputing X and you have not yet specified that you mean "reality" then you should expect incoming direct fire. If you specify that you mean "reality" then clearly the ball is in your court to provide the required dose of support for not-X.


tmiddles wrote: But why do you stop there? What would a reference be for the meaning of a word that is NOT false authority?

This is only a problem if you are quibbling over words for quibbling's sake. Grown adults will agree on the terms of discussion in order to have a conversation. You cannot have a conversation if there is no agreement on semantics. If I tell you that I learned an ideal black body to be a black body of emissivity 1.0 and other black bodies of less than 1.0 to be just black bodies ... you have two choices: 1) you can engage in a coversation with me using those semantics or 2) you can quibble over my semantics citing some reference you found. If you choose option 2), what do you think my response is going to be? [hint: "false authority"]. It won't matter that you might not consider it a false authority, we simply aren't going to have a conversation because we have effectively agreed to disagree on semantics, precluding any discussion.

tmiddles wrote: Totally unclear without making a distinction between what commits the error and what does not.

Like the word "fact," it ultimately comes down to agreement amongst participants in a conversation because there is no absolute authority to make that determination.



tmiddles wrote: What is a false authority on the laws of thermodynamics and what is an authority on it?

I certainly don't want to make this point any more complicated than it need be, but the caution anyone is going to have in trying to pin down one absolute source is that you don't know what it DOESN'T cover that will called into question. For example, if I tell you that the Yin and Yang of thermal radiation for substances are absorptivity and radiativity, but then you fire back "Google doesn't say that so you're wrong" ... well you can bet that Google is clearly out as an authoritative reference from that point forward. I know I'm not going to sign up for everything that is not in a particular reference.

Sooo, the way most people work this is they pick someone in the discussion to serve as the authority for a given topic. For example, we could pick you as the authority on art ... or whatever art specialty is yours. We could declare Into the Night as the authority on instrumentation and engineering.

Naturally the problem comes in when strong beliefs are involved, religious or otherwise. You came here with a strong faith in Global Warming so you really can't accept anyone in the discussion as an authority if that person does not support your beliefs. Ergo, there will be no agreement on "authority" which means there will be no agreement on semantics, which means that productive conversation will not occur.

tmiddles wrote: On that note I would offer that David Muller is an authoritative source on tire pressure.

Perhaps. Would you be able to bring him into the discussion to answer questions? One thing you can't do is to pretend to speak for someone. You can't use a "reference" as a trump card when you need a win.

This is why a lot of what people bring to an anonymous message board is what they know and what they learned. The only points that will be made will be centered around basic axioms of agreement.

Who is the authoritative source for the unambiguous definition of the global climate? [don't worry, I'm not expecting you to answer]

tmiddles wrote: You really need to give some examples of something done properly.

Have I promised such but not delivered?

What would you like? An example of how to properly prove the Pythagorean theorem?



.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
26-01-2020 12:40
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2265)
IBdaMann wrote:...you cannot ... claim that your argument is reality....
Agreed. Though I'd say I can "claim it" but that doesn't make it so. A human mind speaking words can only ever have a telling of what they believe the facts to be. I would use the words:
claim, assertion, argument, belief, rational, take, version, explanation, perception ect. "of the facts".

Facts existing entirely independent of what we think about them. Though I have no problem accepting alternate word choice. Call them the "realities" or something else and they remain unchanged by the language.

IBdaMann wrote: ...quibbling over words...other black bodies of less than 1.0...
As for "black body" you had identified what you meant some time ago and I simply forgot you also called what some call grey bodies, black bodies. I accepted your correcting me on that.

As for quibbling over words let's lay this to rest as far as I am concerned. Since I'm allowed to define my own vocabulary for you:

When I say: "Global Warming" or "Climate Change" my definition is that these identify Earth's annual mean temperature increasing at ground level (world wide and specifically 2 meters above the ground/water). I believe that the Earth, atmosphere included, is in fact a discreet "body" and that the level 2 meters above it's ground/water level has a mean temperature over any specified period of time including annually. Any problem with that definitions clarity?

2 meters above the ground is the standard for gathering the temperature at a location as it concerns humans given our height.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Totally unclear without making a distinction between what commits the error and what does not.
Like the word "fact," it ultimately comes down to agreement amongst participants in a conversation because there is no absolute authority to make that determination.
Yes and what is an authority for you? ITN too if you're reading this. What are examples of authorities on these topics you regard as "Not false" or legitimate.

I'm essentially saying (again) that the discussion goes like this:
Tmid: Blah Blah Blah
INT/IBD: You're doing it all wrong (period)

And that lacks the clarity of:
Tmid: Blah Blah Blah
INT/IBD: You're doing it all wrong, you see this is the right way to do it.

Understanding a defect is fully clarified by showing how it ought to be. "False Authority" is a perfect example. "Look why would you trust the Pope on tire pressure? He's no David Muller".

IBdaMann wrote:
...the way most people work this is they pick someone in the discussion to serve as the authority for a given topic. ...
Yes! My experience as well. Yet you and ITN never do that to my recollection. I have of course pointed this out a lot. "False authority" as an accusation is not easy to understand absent an approved authority. And no I have not forgotten, and have never thought any authority has the power to declare reality (that would be an appeal to authority fallacy I've understood since I was knee high).

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: On that note I would offer that David Muller is an authoritative source on tire pressure.

Perhaps. Would you be able to bring him into the discussion to answer questions?
No! So he would only be able to exist as a reference, but an authoritative one (as in he's qualified). I would still have to make the argument, or remake his, and defend it.

If I simply said "David Muller say's so you fool" that would be an appeal to authority (but not false authority, unless you know something about Mr. Muller I don't in which case the accusation should be accompanied by that argument). Incidentally we will eventually freak this guy out when he googles himself in a month.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: You really need to give some examples of something done properly.

Have I promised such but not delivered?
What would you like? An example of how to properly prove the Pythagorean theorem?
You have not promised it no but I will take you up on the offer. Something real world (as in not abstract) would shed far more clarity on your perspective/beliefs. Certainly not something connected to the CLIMATE-DEBATE but simply an example of form and process. Something we discussed earlier were vaccines for example. Any ideas? It is after all your critique I hope to have clarified.
Edited on 26-01-2020 12:40
26-01-2020 19:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...you cannot ... claim that your argument is reality....
Agreed. Though I'd say I can "claim it" but that doesn't make it so. A human mind speaking words can only ever have a telling of what they believe the facts to be. I would use the words:
claim, assertion, argument, belief, rational, take, version, explanation, perception ect. "of the facts".

Facts existing entirely independent of what we think about them.

WRONG. Facts are an assumed predicate. They only exist as long as the predicate is agreed to as True.
tmiddles wrote:
Though I have no problem accepting alternate word choice. Call them the "realities" or something else and they remain unchanged by the language.

I have already defined 'reality'. It is not 'facts'. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: ...quibbling over words...other black bodies of less than 1.0...
As for "black body" you had identified what you meant some time ago and I simply forgot you also called what some call grey bodies, black bodies. I accepted your correcting me on that.

As for quibbling over words let's lay this to rest as far as I am concerned. Since I'm allowed to define my own vocabulary for you:

A good direction to take.
tmiddles wrote:
When I say: "Global Warming" or "Climate Change" my definition is that these identify Earth's annual mean temperature increasing at ground level (world wide and specifically 2 meters above the ground/water).

It is not possible to measure this temperature. You say 'increase'. From when to when? Why are those points in time significant? Why are any other two points in time NOT significant?

Define 'global warming'. Define 'climate change'.
tmiddles wrote:
I believe that the Earth, atmosphere included, is in fact a discreet "body" and that the level 2 meters above it's ground/water level has a mean temperature over any specified period of time including annually. Any problem with that definitions clarity?

Yes. Stated above.
tmiddles wrote:
2 meters above the ground is the standard for gathering the temperature at a location as it concerns humans given our height.

There is no standard, other than your personal one.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Totally unclear without making a distinction between what commits the error and what does not.
Like the word "fact," it ultimately comes down to agreement amongst participants in a conversation because there is no absolute authority to make that determination.
Yes and what is an authority for you?

Void question. RQAA
tmiddles wrote:
ITN too if you're reading this.

I am.
tmiddles wrote:
What are examples of authorities on these topics you regard as "Not false" or legitimate.

Void question. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
I'm essentially saying (again) that the discussion goes like this:
Tmid: Blah Blah Blah
INT/IBD: You're doing it all wrong (period)

And that lacks the clarity of:
Tmid: Blah Blah Blah
INT/IBD: You're doing it all wrong, you see this is the right way to do it.

Understanding a defect is fully clarified by showing how it ought to be. "False Authority" is a perfect example. "Look why would you trust the Pope on tire pressure? He's no David Muller".

Word salad.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
...the way most people work this is they pick someone in the discussion to serve as the authority for a given topic. ...
Yes! My experience as well. Yet you and ITN never do that to my recollection.

Lie. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
I have of course pointed this out a lot.

Because you deny all authority except yourself, and continue to speak for everyone. You only get to speak for yourself.
tmiddles wrote:
"False authority" as an accusation is not easy to understand absent an approved authority.

There is no 'approved authority' in science, mathematics, logic, or philosophy. It is YOU that is trying to impose Google, Wikipedia, and a list of books as the 'approved authorities'.
tmiddles wrote:
And no I have not forgotten, and have never thought any authority has the power to declare reality

Lie. You have made this EXACT argument many times. This is your problem.
tmiddles wrote:
(that would be an appeal to authority fallacy I've understood since I was knee high).

Lie. You yourself keep asking the meaning of that fallacy. RDCF. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: You really need to give some examples of something done properly.

Have I promised such but not delivered?
What would you like? An example of how to properly prove the Pythagorean theorem?
You have not promised it no but I will take you up on the offer. Something real world (as in not abstract) would shed far more clarity on your perspective/beliefs. Certainly not something connected to the CLIMATE-DEBATE but simply an example of form and process. Something we discussed earlier were vaccines for example. Any ideas? It is after all your critique I hope to have clarified.

Void question.


The Parrot Killer
27-01-2020 22:37
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5955)
tmiddles wrote: I would use the words:
claim, assertion, argument, belief, rational, take, version, explanation, perception ect. "of the facts".

The problem here becomes a circular argument. You end up in a situation whereby you are claiming that a fact is an argument of (a) fact ... which is an argument of an argument of (a) fact ... which is an argument of an argument of an argument of (a) fact ...

It really is just an "argument" and is not a fact. If you and I agree on it, however, there is no argument. Voila! To us it is accepted as a fact.

Perhaps the problem that has you wrapped around the axle is that you aren't connecting the dots between the word "fact" and its intended use in discourse. In constructing any theorem/proof/argument you have three things: 1) axioms which are accepted truths, 2) postulates for the particular case and 3) the rules of logic.

Euclidean geometry is based on Euclid's axioms. Each geometry word problem opens with the postulates of the problem. The Euclidean axioms are never rehashed because they are agreed to be true in all cases. You use the rules of math and logic to solve that problem.

Then comes along a mathematician who disputes one of Euclid's axioms and suddenly you have a non-Euclidean geometry by changing the set of axioms.

In discourse, axiom = fact and postulate = assumption. Yes, the word "fact" carries the connotation of being "reality" because we agree that they are true and that they are "reality." With those facts being forthwith agreed as TRUE ... we can then discuss any and all things without ever having to explain/justify those axioms. For example, between spot and yourself, Greenhouse Effect is absolutely TRUE and no explanation is required. Between the two of you, Greenhouse Effect is an axiom, a fact.

But then IBDaMann comes along and you immediately sense a "troll", i.e. someone who doesn't accept your axioms. This means aaaaaagggghhhhh they are no longer "facts" and are now merely "arguments" that you must explain to the painful scrutiny of others. But, you think, I can still call them "facts" and insist that they be accepted as TRUE. When IBDaMann doesn't play along and accept them as axioms but instead is explaining why they are FALSE, now you have a debate on your hands for which there can be no absolute authority because there isn't a common shared set of axioms.


tmiddles wrote: When I say: "Global Warming" or "Climate Change" my definition is that these identify Earth's annual mean temperature increasing at ground level (world wide and specifically 2 meters above the ground/water). I believe that the Earth, atmosphere included, is in fact a discreet "body" and that the level 2 meters above it's ground/water level has a mean temperature over any specified period of time including annually. Any problem with that definitions clarity?

I have no problem with the definition. The problem will come the moment you make an assertion under that definition.

1) You have never stated what you consider to be an acceptable margin of error for either Global Warming or Climate Change, and ...

2) You won't have any valid dataset supporting any assertion you make, meaning you are making it up, meaning Into the Night will declare a RandU fallacy and IBDaMann will assert that you are claiming to be omniscient.

You haven't studied statistical math. If you had you would have a much keener awareness of the impossibility of computing a temperature for the domain that you have defined for any acceptable/usable error margin you declare in advance. This is why warmizombies never mention any margin of error and hope that no one notices or mentions it. Imagine 100% of Climate Change claims being debunked on that point alone.

Bonus point if you are actually reading this: I really don't know how discreet the earth can be. It's a planet after all. It kind of sticks out and in a rather obtrusive manner. Nonetheless, it is a discrete body, atmosphere and all.

IBdaMann wrote:Yes and what is an authority for you? ITN too if you're reading this. What are examples of authorities on these topics you regard as "Not false" or legitimate.

For me, what/who I accept as an authority is usually someone on the board who is participating in the discussion. For science and math and computer science and others disciplines of my background, I normally go with me as the authority. I go with Into the Night as the authority on engineering and engineering materials, among other things. I go with tmiddles as the authority on art. I actually accept most everyone as authorities on the elements of their background in which I am not strong.

I am an atheist. I have no theism and thus I have no axioms/facts pertaining to any theism.

The axioms I do have come from science and my experience. For example, I have seen the ocean not rise for decades so anyone arguing that the ocean is rising needs to provide me a way to verify this claim. Also, you have used the term "net" flow of thermal energy which implies some thermal energy flows from cooler to warmer which conflicts with my "axiom/fact" that no thermal energy ever goes from cooler to warmer.

tmiddles wrote: Understanding a defect is fully clarified by showing how it ought to be.

The word "ought" is subjective and requires agreement. A "defect" could be a danger, like a shark in the waters, which is nonetheless how it "ought" to be.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: On that note I would offer that David Muller is an authoritative source on tire pressure.

Perhaps. Would you be able to bring him into the discussion to answer questions?
No! So he would only be able to exist as a reference, but an authoritative one (as in he's qualified). I would still have to make the argument, or remake his, and defend it.[/quote]
... at which point you are not appealing to David Muller as an authority. Your argument stands on its own if it is sound.

I normally use the Pythagorean theorem as my example in this case. Supposing that we have a right triangle whose legs are of length 3 and 4. I claim the hypotenuse is of lenght 5. We have no ruler and your eyeball estimate is around 4.87 ... you don't believe my answer. I try to appeal to authority, i.e. "Pythagoras says so in his theorem." You rightfully claim that Pythagoras is not here to be cross-examined and maybe he didn't make that claim, and maybe he's wrong if he did.

At that point I become the authority by proving the theorem as well as showing the correct answer to be 5.

tmiddles wrote: If I simply said "David Muller say's so you fool" that would be an appeal to authority (but not false authority, unless you know something about Mr. Muller I don't in which case the accusation should be accompanied by that argument).

Correct. If I simply don't accept Dave as an authority then we have not agreed upon Dave as the authority. This is why you have to agree in advance which dictionary will serve as the referee in Scrabble.


tmiddles wrote: Incidentally we will eventually freak this guy out when he googles himself in a month.

"... for tire pressure? Me?"

tmiddles wrote: You have not promised it no but I will take you up on the offer. Something real world (as in not abstract) would shed far more clarity on your perspective/beliefs. Certainly not something connected to the CLIMATE-DEBATE but simply an example of form and process. Something we discussed earlier were vaccines for example. Any ideas? It is after all your critique I hope to have clarified.

When we come to something, just ask ...I'm happy to walk through the process.

... but the dark side /bad news up front: If you are asking me, I'm a stickler on logic and proofs. I'm happy to help but you can expect a lot of red ink on the paper.

If it's a question of data, Into the Night is going to hold you to a higher standard (he just isn't going to accept any fudging of numbers). I totally agree with him too. The world is full of people trying to make money or to achieve a political agenda and getting valid data takes money, resources, time and effort ... and there is never any guarantee that the results will be what you wanted or will support your efforts. Ergo, the world is full of people who simply fabricate data and move on. When I do a system test I never care what data any has ever had. I'm looking to break the system. The world is full of people who want funding and who tell fibs with fabricated data to get what they want. Christopher Columbus was not the first person to do this and the world hasn't changed. If you want to perform an exploratory primer on acquiring proper data, let's start with you selecting an acceptable margin of error and then stating what you believe is the temperature of Denver. Then we'll look at the data on which you based your calculation ... and we'll see that it doesn't get you within your usable margin of error.

It'll be fun.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
28-01-2020 13:34
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2265)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: I would use the words:
claim, assertion, argument, belief, rational, take, version, explanation, perception ect. "of the facts".

The problem here becomes a circular argument. You end up in a situation whereby you are claiming that a fact is an argument of (a) fact ... which is an argument of an argument of (a) fact ...

Why would you say that? I can't imagine how or why those phrases would come up.

However it's really not necessary in most cases to use the word fact. You simply refer to the information directly: length, weight, time, location.

I may say it's a fact that Denver is north of Dallas. Or simply say Denver is north of Dallas.

I fail to see why there is any controversy about "something that actually exists; reality; truth:"

If you're disputing "something that actually exists; reality; truth:" let me know I'd be curious.

Accepting false information as true, does not make it true.

In fact! ha ha, I can say "The reality is that" just as readily as "The fact is that".

Do you have a problem with the world reality? You used it the same way I would:
IBdaMann wrote:Yes, the word "fact" carries the connotation of being "reality"


Like I said I can accept the word "Realities" sure enough.

If you are saying something beyond semantics and it's some schrodinger's cat thing I wasn't reading that in what you had to say.

The bottom line for me is that I fundamentally agree with you that people define words when they use them. Most people mean "Realities" when they say facts and most sane people are well aware they may be wrong when they make the claim.

IBdaMann wrote:Between the two of you, Greenhouse Effect is an axiom, a fact.
I don't accept your definition of fact as my own remember. I recognize that "Greenhouse Effect" has more than one meaning. I would say generally speaking that I don't know if it's a fact.

Now since I don't share your meaning of fact being "something socially accepted between two conversants" I'll just have to replace "Fact" with "something socially accepted between two conversants" unless you've got a better definition.

It would help to actually spell out a definition for a word you use where the meaning is unclear to others.

IBdaMann wrote:But then IBDaMann comes along and you immediately sense a "troll", i.e. someone who doesn't accept your axioms. This means aaaaaagggghhhhh they are no longer "facts" and are now merely "arguments" that you must explain to the painful scrutiny of others.

I think that description is generally true anytime someone questions what has been accepted as factual by another. It's frustrating. Keep in mind most parents hit this wall when a 5 year old asks why indefinitely. The frustration though is with the challenged persons inability to understand their own position and beliefs. Which is why I don't consider this to be a waste of my time at all. One should be able to support their own position and friends aren't good at helping you really get to that, only enemies are.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: When I say: "Global Warming" ...my definition is...
...The problem...
1) ...an acceptable margin of error for either Global Warming or Climate Change, and ...
2) ...a valid dataset....
But you recognize the definition is coherent? It is in fact a valid, non-circular definition?

The inability to solve a problem does not make the question incoherent, correct?

I could define:
Black Hole Compression: The compression of matter at the core of of a dying star.

Needless to say I won't be producing in valid data sets on that. Maybe I will weirdly claim the compression is 10cm per year with nothing to back that up. But the definition is perfectly fine.

IBdaMann wrote:
For me, what/who I accept as an authority is usually someone on the board who is participating in the discussion. For science and math and computer science and others disciplines of my background, I normally go with me as the authority.
I was asking about a distinction being made between "false authority" and "legitimate authority". No one on this board is "legitimate" by virtue of it being anonymous. You have, as I'm fond of pointing out, never accepted any external information. That is unheard of in science. Stefan and Boltzmann built their work on the research of others, who they considered authoritative enough to not be a waste of time, Tyndall included.

I cannot make you answer this question but as you know my allegation is that you don't want to have anything successfully discussed here.

So, like a court of law disallowing all evidence, it's a sure way to guarantee no progress is made.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Understanding a defect is fully clarified by showing how it ought to be.

The word "ought" is subjective and requires agreement.
I was asking for your opinion so of course it's subjective. If you say something is wrong it is in reference to what is right. So I ask again. In your view what's a model example?

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: On that note I would offer that David Muller is an authoritative source on tire pressure.
Perhaps. Would you be able to bring him into the discussion to answer questions?
No! So he would only be able to exist as a reference, but an authoritative one (as in he's qualified). I would still have to make the argument, or remake his, and defend it.
... at which point you are not appealing to David Muller as an authority. Your argument stands on its own if it is sound.
Authority is based on credibility and qualification. Now you might not accept that one persons source, which they consider credible, is in fact trustworthy. It doesn't mean they are making an argument you must accept but that you don't consider them to be suspicious, stupid, inept or a myriad of other defects that would cause someone to dismiss a reference/source as "false authority". In using David Muller as a reference on tire pressure having the information he provides, the method in which he gathered it, and data he supplies the benefit of the doubt is what most people would do as they would consider him to be authoritative and not a "false authority".

IBdaMann wrote:
If I simply don't accept Dave as an authority then we have not agreed upon Dave as the authority.
In which case why you don't is worthy of discussion and probably very central to the debate. Having no reason seems to me like not having an argument to begin with. Not trusting the IPCC and NASA on this board IS an important key component of the argument against climate hysteria, that the books are being cooked. To skip that bit is to skip the argument itself. It's like instead of saying "I call bullshit" you say "I call, just, well just no, it's just no OK, I'm not gonna say why".

Since none of us can personally be an authority on everything this process is necessary if any progress in investigating an issue is to be made.

Mistakes are made! The Piltdown Man discovery was considered by authoritative sources to be legitimate for 40 years and it was a hoax.

But accepting some, I'd say most, of what the rest of the human tribe put together before you got here is what we have to do to make progress. I think you should watch this as it really resembles a lot of online interactions on science:
3 Flat Earthers Debate/Discuss with 3 Scientists

IBdaMann wrote:...Pythagorean theorem as my example...I become the authority by proving the theorem as well as showing the correct answer to be 5.
I like that example.

What if even after you did all that the person pointed out, correctly, that it was actually 4.9943, and not 5, on your caliper, and claimed that made you wrong? Technically you would in realities be wrong because 4.9943 is not 5.

And what if a 3rd observer stated that the length cannot be known because the caliper, being limited to 4 decimal places is simply not capable of giving us that information?

IBdaMann wrote:
If I simply don't accept Dave as an authority then we have not agreed upon Dave as the authority.
But this is not necessarily a case where you'd claim "False Authority Fallacy" because it may simply be because you're not familiar with Dave's tire work.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: You really need to give some examples of something done properly.

When we come to something, just ask ...I'm happy to walk through the process.
...expect a lot of red ink ...
Ah no, there's no need for us to critique my attempt at work.

You love science. What's some real work you admire. Actual research where you're like "well done with the science there scientists!".

IBdaMann wrote:
If you want to perform an exploratory primer on acquiring proper data, let's start with you selecting an acceptable margin of error and then stating what you believe is the temperature of Denver.
That's a good question. I'm of course a civilian, not a meteorologist, and in fact, don't live in Denver. So I can't gather my own data. I admitted initially I "trust", and "Take of faith" the word done by meteorologists in Denver. I do however remain very interested in understanding range and margin of error as it applies. As I've stated my understanding is that temperature is always a range, though a measurement may produce a single value. So there would be two truths about the temperature of Denver at 2 meters above ground: the range of existing temperatures, and the error in assessing them. But again, I'm not a professional in that area as I'm not in many many others. However as a user of the information I know it to be accurate for the purposes of a picnic or wardrobe selection.

Of the realities about Denver's Climate the best choice of tshirt, sweater or parka is a reality that can be known.
28-01-2020 19:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: I would use the words:
claim, assertion, argument, belief, rational, take, version, explanation, perception ect. "of the facts".

The problem here becomes a circular argument. You end up in a situation whereby you are claiming that a fact is an argument of (a) fact ... which is an argument of an argument of (a) fact ...

Why would you say that? I can't imagine how or why those phrases would come up.

Because YOU bring it up.
tmiddles wrote:
However it's really not necessary in most cases to use the word fact. You simply refer to the information directly: length, weight, time, location.

Fine, but YOU keep inserting random numbers.
tmiddles wrote:
I may say it's a fact that Denver is north of Dallas. Or simply say Denver is north of Dallas.

You also say it's a fact that the temperature of Denver is known. You also say the temperature of Denver is known. Neither are known. Also, which Dallas? There is a Dallas northwest of Denver. There is another north of Denver. There's two in Canada. Also, which Denver? There's a Denver northeast of Denver, CO. Another a ways to the east.

Are you simply assuming that anyone is talking about Denver, CO or Dallas, TX?

tmiddles wrote:
I fail to see why there is any controversy about "something that actually exists; reality; truth:"
If you're disputing "something that actually exists; reality; truth:" let me know I'd be curious.

You have not yet defined 'reality'. Fact is not not reality. I know what reality is. I have defined it, and the reasoning for that definition was given. Can you define it? Remember, to define a word like this, you will have to use philosophy, which you deny.
tmiddles wrote:
Accepting false information as true, does not make it true.

True, yet you keep presenting false information and declaring it True.
tmiddles wrote:
In fact! ha ha, I can say "The reality is that" just as readily as "The fact is that".

And both are meaningless buzzwords to you.
tmiddles wrote:
Do you have a problem with the world reality?

No, but YOU do.
tmiddles wrote:
You used it the same way I would:
IBdaMann wrote:Yes, the word "fact" carries the connotation of being "reality"


RDCF. He is showing you how YOU use it, dumbass.
tmiddles wrote:
Like I said I can accept the word "Realities" sure enough.

No, you can't. You have rejected any definition given for it, though I've given it several times AND the reasoning for that definition.
tmiddles wrote:
If you are saying something beyond semantics and it's some schrodinger's cat thing I wasn't reading that in what you had to say.

The bottom line for me is that I fundamentally agree with you that people define words when they use them.

No, you don't. You constantly turn to some random dictionary as the authoritative source for words.
tmiddles wrote:
Most people mean "Realities" when they say facts and most sane people are well aware they may be wrong when they make the claim.

You don't get to speak for most people. You only get to speak for you.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:Between the two of you, Greenhouse Effect is an axiom, a fact.
I don't accept your definition of fact as my own remember. I recognize that "Greenhouse Effect" has more than one meaning. I would say generally speaking that I don't know if it's a fact.

You have declared it as a fact. Describe 'greenhouse effect' without violating the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
tmiddles wrote:
Now since I don't share your meaning of fact being "something socially accepted between two conversants" I'll just have to replace "Fact" with "something socially accepted between two conversants" unless you've got a better definition.

Then you automatically condemn yourself to wordy posts.
tmiddles wrote:
It would help to actually spell out a definition for a word you use where the meaning is unclear to others.

RQAA
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:But then IBDaMann comes along and you immediately sense a "troll", i.e. someone who doesn't accept your axioms. This means aaaaaagggghhhhh they are no longer "facts" and are now merely "arguments" that you must explain to the painful scrutiny of others.

I think that description is generally true anytime someone questions what has been accepted as factual by another. It's frustrating. Keep in mind most parents hit this wall when a 5 year old asks why indefinitely.

It is YOU that is that five year old, asking the same questions over and over. It not about facts. It is about being irritating to be irritating.
tmiddles wrote:
The frustration though is with the challenged persons inability to understand their own position and beliefs.

Nope. It's about intentionally being irritating.
tmiddles wrote:
Which is why I don't consider this to be a waste of my time at all. One should be able to support their own position and friends aren't good at helping you really get to that, only enemies are.

So you consider a 5 year old to be an enemy. Riiiight.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: When I say: "Global Warming" ...my definition is...
...The problem...
1) ...an acceptable margin of error for either Global Warming or Climate Change, and ...
2) ...a valid dataset....
But you recognize the definition is coherent? It is in fact a valid, non-circular definition?

It is a circular definition. You can't define 'global warming' as 'global warming', even if you describe the 'globe' in detail. You can't define 'climate change' as 'global warming' since 'global warming' has not yet been defined.
tmiddles wrote:
The inability to solve a problem does not make the question incoherent, correct?

What problem? Void argument fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
I could define:
Black Hole Compression: The compression of matter at the core of of a dying star.

Needless to say I won't be producing in valid data sets on that. Maybe I will weirdly claim the compression is 10cm per year with nothing to back that up. But the definition is perfectly fine.

What about stars that are not 'black holes' and will not form one when they die?
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
For me, what/who I accept as an authority is usually someone on the board who is participating in the discussion. For science and math and computer science and others disciplines of my background, I normally go with me as the authority.
I was asking about a distinction being made between "false authority" and "legitimate authority". No one on this board is "legitimate" by virtue of it being anonymous. You have, as I'm fond of pointing out, never accepted any external information.

Here you deny philosophy again. Philosophy basically only has one rule: You must present your OWN argument. You cannot use the arguments of others as your argument.
tmiddles wrote:
That is unheard of in science.

Science makes use of explanatory arguments. These are called 'theories'. Like philosophy, you need to make your own argument, not use the arguments of others as your argument. Each theory stands on its own. That is the ONLY authoritative reference for any theory of science.
tmiddles wrote:
Stefan and Boltzmann built their work on the research of others, who they considered authoritative enough to not be a waste of time, Tyndall included.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law is its own argument, independent of Stefan or Boltzmann. Science isn't people. It is a set of theories. Only falsifiable theories are used.
tmiddles wrote:
I cannot make you answer this question but as you know my allegation is that you don't want to have anything successfully discussed here.

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that hijacks threads into word quibbling and using random numbers for 'data'. It is YOU that hijacks threads to throw insults.
tmiddles wrote:
So, like a court of law disallowing all evidence, it's a sure way to guarantee no progress is made.

No. It is YOU that is presenting invalid evidence. Random numbers are not data.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Understanding a defect is fully clarified by showing how it ought to be.

The word "ought" is subjective and requires agreement.
I was asking for your opinion so of course it's subjective. If you say something is wrong it is in reference to what is right. So I ask again. In your view what's a model example?

Void question.
tmiddles wrote:
Since none of us can personally be an authority on everything this process is necessary if any progress in investigating an issue is to be made.

I am the authority on everything I say and write. That's all I need to be. A theory of science is its own authority. No people needed, not even the guy that came up with the theory.
tmiddles wrote:
Mistakes are made! The Piltdown Man discovery was considered by authoritative sources to be legitimate for 40 years and it was a hoax.

It was never science to begin with. Neither is the Theory of Evolution. That theory is not falsifiable. Theories of science MUST be falsifiable.
tmiddles wrote:
But accepting some, I'd say most, of what the rest of the human tribe put together before you got here is what we have to do to make progress. I think you should watch this as it really resembles a lot of online interactions on science:

Science isn't people or their interactions.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...Pythagorean theorem as my example...I become the authority by proving the theorem as well as showing the correct answer to be 5.
I like that example.

What if even after you did all that the person pointed out, correctly, that it was actually 4.9943, and not 5, on your caliper, and claimed that made you wrong? Technically you would in realities be wrong because 4.9943 is not 5.

Nope. It simply means you don't accept the proof given.
tmiddles wrote:
And what if a 3rd observer stated that the length cannot be known because the caliper, being limited to 4 decimal places is simply not capable of giving us that information?

Nope. It simply means you don't accept the proof given.
tmiddles wrote:
Of the realities about Denver's Climate the best choice of tshirt, sweater or parka is a reality that can be known.

Really? People often wear the wrong thing in Denver. They wind up with a coat they don't need and have to carry it around since it's too hot to wear, or not having a coat when it becomes too cold.

Happens in most cities.


The Parrot Killer
29-01-2020 06:59
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2265)
Into the Night wrote:...which Dallas? ...assuming that anyone is talking about Denver, CO or Dallas, TX?
As words are only symbols I may be correct in my own mind in saying "Denver is always north of Dallas" and be wrong thinking that's universally true. Good point. The statement would be easy to clarify in that case.

In general almost every word has multiple meanings commonly used. It's too tedious to drill down on every word to discover which meaning was intended but where there is confusion the speaker/writer can clarify that.

None of this changes the realities though. It's just how someone speaks and thinks about them.

Into the Night wrote:I know what reality is. I have defined it, ...
No, you've just said you defined it without doing so. I will never hunt for anything you've written ever again ITN. That is my choice.

Into the Night wrote:
A theory of science is its own authority. No people needed, not even the guy that came up with the theory.
Why do you say:
Into the Night wrote:...He and I both have mentioned the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics ....
"The" implies it is a known commonly agreed upon theory one could look up. Why say "The" 1st or 2nd LTD and not provide a reference to a source where a clean, uncorrupted recording of these laws can be read? Instead you link to your own site (or team site, as I think it's IBD) and pretend that is authoritative.

You do see how fishy that looks don't you?

Into the Night wrote:
Theories of science MUST be falsifiable.
So what about theories that aren't? Useless? Nothing can be done? What are you saying exactly about theories we are not able to falsify today?

That really is the issue often isn't it? We are limited in our ability so we cannot work with a theory as a falsifiable one?
The Greek Democritus had the theory of matter being composed of atoms in 430 BCE. Wasn't falsifiable for thousands of years.
Edited on 29-01-2020 07:01
29-01-2020 07:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:...which Dallas? ...assuming that anyone is talking about Denver, CO or Dallas, TX?
As words are only symbols I may be correct in my own mind in saying "Denver is always north of Dallas" and be wrong thinking that's universally true. Good point. The statement would be easy to clarify in that case.

In general almost every word has multiple meanings commonly used. It's too tedious to drill down on every word to discover which meaning was intended but where there is confusion the speaker/writer can clarify that.

None of this changes the realities though. It's just how someone speaks and thinks about them.

Define 'reality'.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:I know what reality is. I have defined it, ...
No, you've just said you defined it without doing so. I will never hunt for anything you've written ever again ITN. That is my choice.

RQAA. Argument of the stone fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
A theory of science is its own authority. No people needed, not even the guy that came up with the theory.
Why do you say:
Into the Night wrote:...He and I both have mentioned the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics ....
"The" implies it is a known commonly agreed upon theory one could look up. Why say "The" 1st or 2nd LTD and not provide a reference to a source where a clean, uncorrupted recording of these laws can be read? Instead you link to your own site (or team site, as I think it's IBD) and pretend that is authoritative.

Nope. Never said it was authoritative. I simply gave a link where a copy of these equations happen to be stored. The theories (and the equations themselves) are authoritative no matter where they are found.
tmiddles wrote:
You do see how fishy that looks don't you?

RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Theories of science MUST be falsifiable.
So what about theories that aren't?

They are not science. They are nonscientific theories. Examples are the Theory of Creation, the Theory of Evolution, the Theory of Abiogenesis, the Theory of the Big Bang, and the Theory of the Continuum. Since they are not falsifiable, they remain the circular arguments they began as. Each also has arguments extending from them. That means each one is a religion.
tmiddles wrote:
Useless? Nothing can be done? What are you saying exactly about theories we are not able to falsify today?

Not useless. They are simply circular arguments with arguments extending from them. They are arguments of faith as well as theories. They might be True, they might be False. There is no way to tell.
tmiddles wrote:
That really is the issue often isn't it? We are limited in our ability so we cannot work with a theory as a falsifiable one?

Sure. You start getting into philosophy or religion to argue them though.
tmiddles wrote:
The Greek Democritus had the theory of matter being composed of atoms in 430 BCE. Wasn't falsifiable for thousands of years.

It still isn't falsifiable today.


The Parrot Killer
29-01-2020 07:59
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2265)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
The Greek Democritus had the theory of matter being composed of atoms in 430 BCE. Wasn't falsifiable for thousands of years.

It still isn't falsifiable today.


So that matter is composed of atoms. The quantum mechanics of matter. Is not a theory of science because youre saying its not falsifiable. That makes it a religeous faith based theory?

I would think the quantized results we have from chemistry research and the electron mocroscope make it pretty falsifiable.

this-microscope-can-see-down-to-individual-atoms

29-01-2020 09:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
The Greek Democritus had the theory of matter being composed of atoms in 430 BCE. Wasn't falsifiable for thousands of years.

It still isn't falsifiable today.


So that matter is composed of atoms.

As Democritus described as indivisible particles, it is not a falsifiable theory. What we call atoms today are divisible.
tmiddles wrote:
The quantum mechanics of matter.

A theory is not a proof.
tmiddles wrote:
Is not a theory of science because youre saying its not falsifiable. That makes it a religeous faith based theory?

There is no single theory in quantum mechanics.
tmiddles wrote:
I would think the quantized results we have from chemistry research and the electron microscope make it pretty falsifiable.

What we call atoms today are divisible. Democritus was describing indivisible particles, not what we call atoms today.


The Parrot Killer
29-01-2020 11:08
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2265)
Into the Night wrote:
Democritus was describing indivisible particles, not what we call atoms today.


So?

Was/is Democritus' 2400 year old theory science?
Is/was it faith based religion?
29-01-2020 18:49
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5955)
WARNING - LONG POST
(yes this should have broken into smaller chunks but was not)


tmiddles wrote: However it's really not necessary in most cases to use the word fact. You simply refer to the information directly: length, weight, time, location.

Incorrect. In most cases the word "fact" is not used for anything empirical but rather is misapplied to a dear and precious conclusion, e.g. "it is a fact that the ocean is rising and Global Warming is observed (another sneaky way to claim a conclusion is a fact)."

tmiddles wrote: I fail to see why there is any controversy about "something that actually exists; reality; truth:"

Because it is almost always misapplied, e.g. "You are a troll who just can't deal with the facts!" or "The fact of the matter is that we're hosed without the Paris Climate Accord." The word "fact" is almost never used properly because, as you point out, it is usually just dropped when a predicate is forthwith agreed amongst all parties or is empirically verified. You are correct that I would just say "this water over here is warmer than that water over there" without feeling obligated to lead with "it is a fact that ..." The word "fact" is almost always used as a defensive measure when discussing one's conclusions, as an attempt to put them off limits and to remove the details from the spotlight of scrutiny.

The same applies to the word "scientific." This word is almost never applied properly. Instead, it is used in the same sense as the words "holy" or "sacred." Instead of saying "The Bible," Christians say "The Holy Bible" as a way of saying "this needs to be revered and definitely never mocked or ridiculed." A warmizombie will do the same thing to some boolsch't paper by a no-name hack titled "We Need to Halt the Acceleration of Climate Feedbacks Before it's too Late!" by referring to it as a scientific paper. You should realize that I hone in on anything referred to as "scientific" because I know that's the last thing it is and that it will be something in desperate need of being mocked and ridiculed. Whereas religious people have "sacred" rituals and observances, warmizombies have "scientific research." When leftists hear those words, they know immediately that they have marching orders to revere that preaching and to defend to the death any mocking or ridiculing thereof.

tmiddles wrote: Do you have a problem with the world reality?

I do not. For me, the word "reality" is what actually is despite our inability to know it completely.

tmiddles wrote: it's some schrodinger's cat thing

Since you mentioned it, what concept do you believe is represented by the term "Schroedinger's cat"?

tmiddles wrote: Now since I don't share your meaning of fact being "something socially accepted between two conversants" I'll just have to replace "Fact" with "something socially accepted between two conversants" unless you've got a better definition.

You are fine if you are using it as "reality" ... assuming you are applying it to something empirical. It's the application of the word "fact" to arguments that are in dispute that garners the quip "Hey, learn what a "fact" is!"

tmiddles wrote: The frustration though is with the challenged persons inability to understand their own position and beliefs.

... compounded by a sense of urgency to provide a response ASAP. This normally results in responses that are not well thought out. We have this unwritten prohibition against saying "Give me a moment to gather my thoughts" because that comes across as "weakness" and "lacking authority."

The frustration comes from having been duped. In the case of Global Warming / Climate Change, the belief is propagated that it is "settled science." You may have learned of the human psychology principle that once someone verbalizes/vocalizes/expresses an opinion, human pride takes over like the dark side of the Force and forever dominates the destiny. Warmizombies not only commit to mocking others for not accepting "The Science" but they then go so far as to bully others into not being "deniers" ... and the belief propagates, and gets vocalized/expressed and propagated and vocalized and propagated, ad infinitum. Warmizombies are not capable of accepting any realization that they were duped in the first place and that there is no science at all supporting their beliefs. The almost universal reaction is denial ... which is the true source of frustration. There is no science ... but they had bullied and badgered and mocked people who knew this ... and this becomes an unbearable humiliation, but they must cling to their beliefs that they now know are bogus.

By the way, the moment you changed your avatar to the picture in the textbook, there became really no way for you to get back over to this side of the fence. You had committed to the belief that there was Greenhouse Effect science. Of course that manifested itself in a bastardized form whereby you had to show that Into the Night and I were just wrong ... about something ... anything ... anything at all, because we were otherwise forcing you to face the complete lack of science that you have supporting your beliefs, which equates to the complete lack of knowledge you thought you had.

So don't think that I don't understand that I appear to be a source of frustration ... but I'm not the actual source. I have made no affirmative statements. I am not pushing any beliefs. I'm a bucket of cold water.

tmiddles wrote: But you recognize the definition is coherent? It is in fact a valid, non-circular definition?

Correct ... but you are focusing on the wrong thing. What is needed is an unambiguous definition ... which is then consistently applied. No one ever gets close to that, i.e. the discussion is nonetheless not advanced.


tmiddles wrote: I was asking about a distinction being made between "false authority" and "legitimate authority". No one on this board is "legitimate" by virtue of it being anonymous.

In an absolute sense, you are correct. But that's how it is in life. You always get to determine who you accept as an authority. I go with what Into the Night has to say about engineering. Anonymity is a valid excuse for NOT accepting anyone you don't want to accept as an authority, but anonymity doesn't prevent you from accepting as authoritative anyone you wish. That doesn't mean that I have to accept that person as an authority but one thing you do on any forum is determine whose words you accept and whose words you don't.

tmiddles wrote: You have, as I'm fond of pointing out, never accepted any external information.

Do I need to?

On that point, I have accepted some photographs. I have also rejected photos that were either obviously staged or obviously Photoshopped. I have accepted map data, weather data and other forms of data. The problem is that you want me to commit to an entire source whereas I apply scrutiny to a much more granular level. I might accept an equation out of a textbook but reject an illustration from that same textbook. When you ask me to accept everything in an entire particular reference as an authority, I can't agree to that.

tmiddles wrote: That is unheard of in science.

Incorrect. All of science is the rejection of everything prior (related to the matter). Science continually establishes new paradigms.

tmiddles wrote: I cannot make you answer this question but as you know my allegation is that you don't want to have anything successfully discussed here.

I can't make you face the idea that maintaining adherence to science and math is nowhere considered disruptive but rather is considered constructive. Only those who are preaching religion without any rational basis view adherence to science and math as disruptive and bothersome.

tmiddles wrote: So, like a court of law disallowing all evidence, it's a sure way to guarantee no progress is made.

Yes, you would necessarily view it that way. The court of science will certainly disallow all of your religion. You will therefore not be able to make any progress preaching your religion.

You are spot-on, from your point of view as a preacher of your beliefs.



IBdaMann wrote: Authority is based on credibility and qualification.

... but science is not based on any of that.

tmiddles wrote: Now you might not accept that one persons source, which they consider credible, is in fact trustworthy. It doesn't mean they are making an argument you must accept but that you don't consider them to be suspicious, stupid, inept or a myriad of other defects that would cause someone to dismiss a reference/source as "false authority".

... but it would absolutely be the case if I were to have knowledge of this "reference" that causes me to think said person is being dishonest, stupid, inept, or a myriad of other "defects."


tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
If I simply don't accept Dave as an authority then we have not agreed upon Dave as the authority.
In which case why you don't is worthy of discussion and probably very central to the debate. Having no reason seems to me like not having an argument to begin with.

Worthy? ... perhaps. Mandatory? ... nope.

Let's say hypothetically that you are preaching a belief. I am neither required to accept your belief nor to justify my decision. If you attempt to hand me church material, I am free to say "no, thanks."

By the same token, if you are trying to convince me that Global Warming is real and active in our lives, I am free to not accept and I need not justify to anyone. If you try to hand me Wikipedia, I am free to say "no, thanks."

I am anticipating your follow-on question which will lead to us discussing the requirement for falsifiable models and unambiguous definitions.

tmiddles wrote: Not trusting the IPCC and NASA on this board IS an important key component of the argument against climate hysteria, that the books are being cooked. To skip that bit is to skip the argument itself.

This has been covered extensively and is one of those subjects you routinely ignore.

The IPCC is a purely political organization whose purpose it to create Marxist propaganda. Period. End of story.

NASA is a government organization, not a science lab, that has seen fit to espouse the Global Warming religion. The need to justify falls on those who have been duped into touting NASA as a science lab, not on those who know that the weather has never been NASA's job.

The US government is not an authoritative reference on science. The government is an authority on the law and on government proceedings. Marxists fixate on the government being the omniauthority because Government is the deity of the Marxist religion.


tmiddles wrote: Since none of us can personally be an authority on everything this process is necessary if any progress in investigating an issue is to be made.

No, I will not accept the government as the authority on everything. I recognize the government as the authority on the law and on government proceedings.

We could all just accept me as the authority on everything. IBDaMann after all. ... or we could just leave it to each individual to determine his/her authorities.

tmiddles wrote: What if even after you did all that the person pointed out, correctly, that it was actually 4.9943, and not 5, on your caliper, and claimed that made you wrong?

Yes, I would ask for the margin of error and discuss that ... as I do here on this site.

tmiddles wrote: And what if a 3rd observer stated that the length cannot be known because the caliper, being limited to 4 decimal places is simply not capable of giving us that information?

Then the third observer will not accept the Pythagorean theorem and will have one tool fewer than I have.


tmiddles wrote: But this is not necessarily a case where you'd claim "False Authority Fallacy" because it may simply be because you're not familiar with Dave's tire work.

Correct. For any number of reasons I might call "appeal to authority" until I perhaps come to accept him as an authority.

tmiddles wrote: You love science. What's some real work you admire. Actual research where you're like "well done with the science there scientists!".

Chemistry and the work to continually reduce the size of transistors and microprocessors. Chips are now painted, not assembled. The theory for bits the size of a clump of molecules is exceptional.


tmiddles wrote: I admitted initially I "trust", and "Take of faith" the word done by meteorologists in Denver.

But you are willfully misinterpreting what those meteorologists are saying. They are not claiming that a temperature is for anything other than a particular point. For example, a temperature reading taken at the Denver Airport is just a temperature at one point somewhere in the area of the Denver airport. No one but you is claiming that there is a known temperature for the undefined volume of "Denver."

tmiddles wrote: I do however remain very interested in understanding range and margin of error as it applies.

Neither of those apply for one temperature reading. You are going to have to get used to taking a lot of flack for trying to use "range" and "margin of error" for a single temperature reading.

The temperature read at the Denver airport is just one number. It is not a range. Let's say the temperature read is 36.032 degF. That is the temperature. The sensor used to measure the temperature has an engineering tolerance which adds some error. Let's say in this case this model of sensor has +/- 0.002 degF tolerance. The sensor also has an amount of time since it was last calibrated. This also adds some error per an established formula. Let's say in this case that it is +/- 0.0006 per week and it has been six weeks since calibration. The correct reporting would be 36.032 +/- 0.0056

I don't know where you got the idea of "range" but you should discard it. "Margin of error" applies when there are multiple data figures combined to get an average of some sort. This is where statistics enters the picture. The margin of error factors in the distances and relative positions of the figures, the error from time discrepancies as well as the individual above-mentioned tolerance and calibration errors for each sensor to get a combined margin of error for the whole thing.

Again, this is for multiple measurements. One single temperature reading is just that. One single value with tolerance.



.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
29-01-2020 21:58
spot
★★★★☆
(1302)
Into the Night wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Do you know what mathematical errors are? How did you learn them?
From the textbooks I've had in mathematics.

Have you really never used a textbook?

Did you ever do any homework in math class? Any classwork? Quizzes? Tests? Ever ask the teacher any questions?


In my case, I had to correct the teacher's math. He didn't know mathematics.
It was the same with my electronics instructor, and an aviation ground school instructor. They simply didn't know their subjects.


I bet they remembered you, but wish they could forget.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
29-01-2020 22:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Democritus was describing indivisible particles, not what we call atoms today.


So?

Was/is Democritus' 2400 year old theory science?
Is/was it faith based religion?


Religion.

ALL theories begin as circular arguments. That in and of itself is not a fallacy. It takes a certain amount of faith to develop tests for a theory. It is those tests of falsifiability that fail that make a theory of science more than just a simple circular argument.

Nonscientific theories are not testable, falsifiable, and so remain circular arguments, the way they started.

A religion can best be described as some initial circular argument, with arguments extending from that. The circular argument itself is also known as the argument of faith. That itself is not a fallacy. Religions do not require a god or gods. They do not require a demon or any 'supernatural' character (just what IS 'supernatural' anyway?).

Attempting to construct a proof of a circular argument, or use it in a proof, is the circular argument fallacy. That is what a fundamentalist does. That is what YOU do.


The Parrot Killer
29-01-2020 22:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Do you know what mathematical errors are? How did you learn them?
From the textbooks I've had in mathematics.

Have you really never used a textbook?

Did you ever do any homework in math class? Any classwork? Quizzes? Tests? Ever ask the teacher any questions?


In my case, I had to correct the teacher's math. He didn't know mathematics.
It was the same with my electronics instructor, and an aviation ground school instructor. They simply didn't know their subjects.


I bet they remembered you, but wish they could forget.


They certainly do remember me. Most actually learned something, and didn't forget it. One was fired for incompetence. That was the aviation instructor. The FAA made a stink about it too.


The Parrot Killer
30-01-2020 00:11
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5955)
Into the Night wrote:ALL theories begin as circular arguments. That in and of itself is not a fallacy. It takes a certain amount of faith to develop tests for a theory. It is those tests of falsifiability that fail that make a theory of science more than just a simple circular argument.

Nonscientific theories are not testable, falsifiable, and so remain circular arguments, the way they started.

A religion can best be described as some initial circular argument, with arguments extending from that. The circular argument itself is also known as the argument of faith. That itself is not a fallacy. Religions do not require a god or gods. They do not require a demon or any 'supernatural' character (just what IS 'supernatural' anyway?).

Attempting to construct a proof of a circular argument, or use it in a proof, is the circular argument fallacy. That is what a fundamentalist does. That is what YOU do.


Your treatise on this point is excellent. I would like to expand on it, especially the aspect of "circular argument."

All theories and religions are (sets of) assumptions that are posed as arguments. It is silly to ask a Christian to prove that God exists because he is simply operating under the assumption that God exists. To any mathematician who also happens to be a Christian, the asnwer is "That's too easy. Trivial, in fact. God exists by prior supposition. QED."

In a math class a teacher asks "A farmer has 220 meters of fence and wants to construct two equivalent, but divided pens for his goats and his pigs." Before the teacher can finish the question, a student interjects "Prove that the farmer has pigs." The student will not do well in that class.

To a mathematician, it is not a circular argument to prove what one is assuming. It is merely applying assumptions. To a mathematician, the distinction comes from how the conclusion is derived. If the theorem or conclusion requires logical reasoning, i.e. a logical proof/argument of some sort, then it is a "valid" argument. If it is merely something that is already assumed then it is refered to as "trivial". My favorite "trivial" argument and classic example is Intelligent Design, which assumes that everything was "created" and then uses that assumption to prove that there was a "creator." It's not wrong. It's not circular. It's simply proving what was essentially assumed.

Everything about Global Warming is assumed, e.g. we are facing a threat," "reducing CO2 will ease the problem," "THE climate's sensitivity is becoming brittle," etc... There is no room for any science to support something that is already just assumed. There are no valid datasets because they are not needed when everything is assumed. No unambiguous definitions are needed when everything is assumed.

Global Warming, Climate Change and Intelligent Design are not wrong. They are merely assumed faiths. They cannot be proven; they cannot be demonstrated; they cannot be shown. They must be believed.



.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
30-01-2020 02:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
IBdaMann wrote:
To a mathematician, it is not a circular argument to prove what one is assuming. It is merely applying assumptions. To a mathematician, the distinction comes from how the conclusion is derived. If the theorem or conclusion requires logical reasoning, i.e. a logical proof/argument of some sort, then it is a "valid" argument. If it is merely something that is already assumed then it is refered to as "trivial". My favorite "trivial" argument and classic example is Intelligent Design, which assumes that everything was "created" and then uses that assumption to prove that there was a "creator." It's not wrong. It's not circular. It's simply proving what was essentially assumed.

It actually is circular. Attempting to use a circular argument as a proof of a 'creator' is a circular argument fallacy. It doesn't matter if the guy is a mathematician or not.
IBdaMann wrote:
Everything about Global Warming is assumed, e.g. we are facing a threat," "reducing CO2 will ease the problem," "THE climate's sensitivity is becoming brittle," etc... There is no room for any science to support something that is already just assumed. There are no valid datasets because they are not needed when everything is assumed. No unambiguous definitions are needed when everything is assumed.

The circular argument in and of itself is not a fallacy. It merely is. It is also called the argument of faith. IF and only if, someone stating their belief in 'global warming' , and leaves it at that, that is not a circular argument fallacy. It is merely stating their faith. Oddly enough, one does not need to define what they believe in. Many Christians, for example, cannot even describe the character of the God they believe in. They don't know what He looks like, how He moves about and can observe the world or the universe, etc.

It is the same for 'global warming'. A lack of definition does not preclude belief in something.
IBdaMann wrote:
Global Warming, Climate Change and Intelligent Design are not wrong. They are merely assumed faiths.

An assumed faith IS that faith. Again, not a fallacy. You actually demonstrated this rather well with your mathematician.
IBdaMann wrote:
They cannot be proven; they cannot be demonstrated; they cannot be shown. They must be believed.

Absolutely right. This is why the circular argument is also called the argument of faith.

Faith is not a fallacy. It simply is. It exists. Without faith in his theory, a scientist will never get to the point of testing its null hypothesis. Without faith, a mathematician will never go through the effort to construct the proof for his contribution. Faith is everywhere. It is necessary, even in science, even in mathematics.

It is only when one tries to prove a circular argument, or use one in a proof, does the fallacy occur. Attempting to prove a god does not exist is just as much a fallacy as attempting to prove a god does exist.

Attempting to prove a circular argument is what a fundamentalist does.


The Parrot Killer
01-02-2020 13:55
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2265)
IBdaMann wrote:...In most cases the word "fact" is not used for anything empirical but rather is misapplied to a dear and precious conclusion,...same applies to the word "scientific."...."The Holy Bible"...
I recognize the prevalence of all of that and well said. It is important to clarify that it's a misuse of the term in the sense that the speaker is wrong and not a redefinition.

For example "literally" is abused in a redefinition as in "there were literally a million people at the mall". The speaker does not actually think there were a million people and is using literally to mean extremely. This is actually now popular enough to be in some Dictionaries:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally
"2: in effect : VIRTUALLY —used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible"

If you tell the person there were not a million people at the Mall you're wasting their time and yours because they know that. If you tell the person who says it's a "Fact" that big foot has been captured on film that they are wrong, you have zero'd in on the real point of the big foot debate for them and you can discuss men in monkey suits.

But don't take a false, unsupported or BS statement and make it legitimate by redefining for someone else what they meant. "Fact" may be misused because people lie, but they know what they intended to say.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: it's some schrodinger's cat thing
Since you mentioned it, what concept do you believe is represented by the term "Schroedinger's cat"?
I understand it as a way to point out the absurdity of the idea that something is not decided until you look at it. The cat, which is either alive or dead in the box is of course one or the other before you open it and not hovering between the two states awaiting your gaze. An example of something that would dispute that a fact is independent of our assessment of that fact.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: ...meaning of fact...
You are fine if you are using it as "reality" ... assuming you are applying it to something empirical.
I don't think that's quite right. Something can be observed/experienced and not be a fact and abstractions contain facts. I could say "we don't know the facts" and I'm using the word correctly and it is certainly not empirical. But I think you'll agree this isn't an important distinction as the whole point is that a speakers meaning should be understood in what they say.

IBdaMann wrote:
...prohibition against saying "Give me a moment to gather my thoughts" because that comes across as "weakness" and "lacking authority."....human pride takes over...
Excellent point. Anyone honest person has to say "I don't know" to most questions about how and why the universe works as it does.

Related side note, I knew someone cruel enough to bate BSers with made up books by authors "Did you like The Anvil by Hemingway?". Aziz Ansari asked his audience if they were aware of the Swatika PizzaHut incident and if they agreed it looked like a swastika and had them vote without seeing a photo. They did.

But he made up the story it had never happened.

IBdaMann wrote:
By the way, the moment you changed your avatar to the picture in the textbook, there became really no way for you to get back over to this side of the fence.
My Avatar has nothing to do with Climate Change or Global Warming. It's an image used to sell an infrared camera (link). I found it when I posted:
NET THERMAL RADIATION : You in a room as a reference.
Which also has nothing directly to do with Climate Change or Global Warming. It is a fundamental lesson in "BODY PHYSICS: MOTION TO METABOLISM" for students just learning physics.

IBdaMann wrote:you had to show that Into the Night and I were just wrong ... about something ... anything ...
The moment you and ITN were very wrong about something fundamental was right here:
IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.
2) what the photons actually do is governed more by uncertainty than by any science that predicts what will happen. Like I said before, photons can deflect, do back-flips, take selfies and interact in any way other than being absorbed.

As I'm sure you recall we were stepping through thermodynamics when you both insisted radiance from a cooler object is never absorbed by a hotter one. I looked it up, found that every text book (TWELVE REFERENCES ON BASIC PHYSICS) I could find contradicted you. At which point I posted the person in a room problem from one of the text books. You've had no answer to that to this day as far as I'm aware.

IBdaMann wrote:...the complete lack of science that you have supporting your beliefs,...The court of science will certainly disallow all of your religion....
Now this was and is not a belief in global warming but in NET THERMAL RADIATION which has been accepted for over 200 years and is found in every textbook on thermodynamics I could find. I wanted to move quickly to fundamental and presumably neutral ground. So no it is not a belief in a global warming crisis. Actually, I do not presently believe there is a global warming crisis.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: [When I say: "Global Warming" or "Climate Change" my definition is that these identify Earth's annual mean temperature increasing at ground level (world wide and specifically 2 meters above the ground/water). ] But you recognize the definition is coherent? ...
...What is needed is an unambiguous definition ...
What do you mean by unambiguous? How is my definition "open to more than one interpretation" by me?

IBdaMann wrote: ...accepting as authoritative anyone you wish.
. This is mixing up trust with established authority. We are talking about a fallacy first of all so it's really a matter of clarifying the accusation. Keep in mind "proper authority" (as opposed to false) is a bedrock and functional part of our society. An investor wants a CPA doing the Audit. Researchers need to be mindful of peer review checking the qualifications for those who have done work. It is a useful guide to where further scrutiny is warranted because we always have limited resources.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: That is unheard of in science.

Incorrect. All of science is the rejection of everything prior (related to the matter). Science continually establishes new paradigms.
Scientific breakthroughs often involve rejecting something that has always been accepted. However most of what has been accepted is employed in that endeavor. Einstein's theory of relativity upended the long held belief that time was constant but he did not reject all of the work done by Newton or all of the work of anyone else. He used it of course.
Josef Stefan used John Tyndall's measurements (took them on faith no doubt, trusting Tyndall as an authoritative source.) Most research and development is not upending anything but developing it further.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Now you might not accept that one persons source...
... but it would absolutely be the case if I were to have knowledge...said person is being dishonest, stupid, inept,...IPCC is a purely political organization...NASA is ... religion.
Sure but you should say so and why. THAT is often the heart of the issue. Take NASA cooking the books, if that's true that's your whole story right there.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Since none of us can personally be an authority on everything this process is necessary if any progress in investigating an issue is to be made.
No, I will not accept the government as the authority on everything.
I didn't say the government. I said using David Muller as an authority of tire pressure as an example. In short using, trusting, sources other than yourself.

Please consider this: Flat Earthers vs Scientists: Can We Trust Science? 27:10 "I met a flat Earther who said I don't trust anything that science does... human beings can't replicate the whole body of science every generation... at a certain point you have to trust what's already been discovered and proven and move on to the next thing or else we're not going to make any progress at all"

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: ...I "trust", ... meteorologists in Denver.
...They are not claiming that a temperature is for anything other than a particular point. ...No one but you is claiming that there is a known temperature for the undefined volume of "Denver."
Ah but I don't claim that we are able to measure, directly, the entire volume of 2 meters above ground for the whole of Denver. A temperature probe can only measure the molecules adjacent to it. It is necessary to choose the points to be measured wisely and then to calculate the range of temperatures we believe a subject has. My whole argument was and is that this is the only thing "knowing the temperature" has ever meant. It's true of a block of steel sitting on a hot plate in the lab, Denver and any part of Earth, including 2 meters above the ground water level world wide. It's useful and use-able information though certainly not a godlike omniscience.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: ...some real work you admire. ...
...transistors and microprocessors.
To follow up on later.
Edited on 01-02-2020 14:43
01-02-2020 14:10
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2265)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Was/is Democritus' 2400 year old theory science?
Is/was it faith based religion?
Religion.
ALL theories begin as circular arguments.
So not only is it a good start it's the only start right?

It's the first step would it be fair to say?

IBdaMann wrote:If the theorem or conclusion requires logical reasoning, i.e. a logical proof/argument of some sort, then it is a "valid" argument. If it is merely something that is already assumed then it is refered to as "trivial".
So which was Democritus' theory of the atom at the time?

"requires logical reasoning" isn't too clear to me.
Edited on 01-02-2020 14:18
01-02-2020 20:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...In most cases the word "fact" is not used for anything empirical but rather is misapplied to a dear and precious conclusion,...same applies to the word "scientific."...."The Holy Bible"...
I recognize the prevalence of all of that and well said. It is important to clarify that it's a misuse of the term in the sense that the speaker is wrong and not a redefinition.

It is a redefinition. RRF. (fact<->Universal Truth, fact<->proof)
tmiddles wrote:
For example "literally" is abused in a redefinition as in "there were literally a million people at the mall".

Correct.
tmiddles wrote:
The speaker does not actually think there were a million people and is using literally to mean extremely.

Irrelevant. The use of the phrase itself the fallacy (redefinition fallacy (literal<->proof).
tmiddles wrote:
...deleted off topic material...
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: it's some schrodinger's cat thing
Since you mentioned it, what concept do you believe is represented by the term "Schroedinger's cat"?
I understand it as a way to point out the absurdity of the idea that something is not decided until you look at it. The cat, which is either alive or dead in the box is of course one or the other before you open it and not hovering between the two states awaiting your gaze. An example of something that would dispute that a fact is independent of our assessment of that fact.
You are trying to establish a fact that does not exist. This is Schroedinger's whole point. False dichotomy fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:you had to show that Into the Night and I were just wrong ... about something ... anything ...
The moment you and ITN were very wrong about something fundamental was right here:
...deleted Holy Link to RDCF...
You've had no answer to that to this day as far as I'm aware.

You continue to attempt this distortion. Your question has already been answered. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...the complete lack of science that you have supporting your beliefs,...The court of science will certainly disallow all of your religion....
Now this was and is not a belief in global warming but in NET THERMAL RADIATION which has been accepted for over 200 years and is found in every textbook on thermodynamics I could find.

There is no such thing as 'net thermal radiation'. Thermal energy only flows from hot to cold. Heat is only from hot to cold (2nd law of thermodynamics).
tmiddles wrote:
I wanted to move quickly to fundamental and presumably neutral ground.

By distorting and denying physics???
tmiddles wrote:
So no it is not a belief in a global warming crisis. Actually, I do not presently believe there is a global warming crisis.

Lie. Yes you do. You are always talking about how it's a crisis we need to deal with.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]tmiddles wrote: [When I say: "Global Warming" or "Climate Change" my definition is that these identify Earth's annual mean temperature increasing at ground level (world wide and specifically 2 meters above the ground/water). ] But you recognize the definition is coherent? ...
...What is needed is an unambiguous definition ...
What do you mean by unambiguous? How is my definition "open to more than one interpretation" by me?

This was an attempt to define 'global warming'.

From when to when? What makes these two points in time significant? What makes any other two points in time not significant?

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. How are you getting any reading over any two points in time?

You cannot define 'global warming' as 'global warming'. The phrase remains undefined. You cannot define any word or phrase with itself.

[b]tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: ...accepting as authoritative anyone you wish.
. This is mixing up trust with established authority.

Define 'established authority'. Describe how this definition does not require trust.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Now you might not accept that one persons source...
... but it would absolutely be the case if I were to have knowledge...said person is being dishonest, stupid, inept,...IPCC is a purely political organization...NASA is ... religion.
Sure but you should say so and why. THAT is often the heart of the issue. Take NASA cooking the books, if that's true that's your whole story right there.

What 'books'? What data? There is no data! It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Anyone that tells you they can is lying to you and denying statistical mathematics. We don't have enough thermometers. By believing NASA, you too are denying statistical mathematics and making an appeal to authority fallacy.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Since none of us can personally be an authority on everything this process is necessary if any progress in investigating an issue is to be made.
No, I will not accept the government as the authority on everything.
I didn't say the government. I said using David Muller as an authority of tire pressure as an example. In short using, trusting, sources other than yourself.

He is not an authority of my tire pressure. I am. I measure it myself. He is not an authority on correct tire pressure. The vehicle manufacturer is, by using the weight and speed of the vehicle they are designing, and the ratings of the tire they are using on that vehicle.
tmiddles wrote:
Please consider this: Flat Earthers vs Scientists: Can We Trust Science? 27:10 "I met a flat Earther who said I don't trust anything that science does... human beings can't replicate the whole body of science every generation... [i]at a certain point you have to trust what's already been discovered and proven and move on to the next thing or else we're not going to make any progress at all
"

Science is not facts. It is not proven principles. It is not a Holy Scripture. It is not 'discovery'. It has no proofs. It does not use consensus. It does not use supporting evidence. It is not data. It is not the observations producing that data. It is not a 'research' or a 'study'. It is not 'progress'. It is just the theories themselves. Theories of science must be falsifiable. No theory is ever proven True. No Holy Blessing of the Priests is necessary for any theory.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: ...I "trust", ... meteorologists in Denver.
...They are not claiming that a temperature is for anything other than a particular point. ...No one but you is claiming that there is a known temperature for the undefined volume of "Denver."
Ah but I don't claim that we are able to measure, directly, the entire volume of 2 meters above ground for the whole of Denver.

YOU are. The temperature of Denver is unknown.
tmiddles wrote:
A temperature probe can only measure the molecules adjacent to it. It is necessary to choose the points to be measured wisely and then to calculate the range of temperatures we believe a subject has.

You deny the calculation. You deny statistical mathematics.
tmiddles wrote:
My whole argument was and is that this is the only thing "knowing the temperature" has ever meant.

A temperature is not a range. It is a single value.
tmiddles wrote:
It's true of a block of steel sitting on a hot plate in the lab, Denver and any part of Earth, including 2 meters above the ground water level world wide. It's useful and use-able information though certainly not a godlike omniscience.

Void argument fallacy. Define 'useful'.


The Parrot Killer
01-02-2020 20:48
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5955)
tmiddles wrote: So which was Democritus' theory of the atom at the time? "requires logical reasoning" isn't too clear to me.

Logic and reasoning derive hypotheses from the model.

Simply stating the model, i.e. the null hypothesis, is trivial and requires nothing cognitive.

Stating Democritus' theory of the atom is trivial.

Determining implications (hypotheses) of Democritus's model requires some thought. Devising experiments to test the hypotheses requires some thought.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
01-02-2020 20:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Was/is Democritus' 2400 year old theory science?
Is/was it faith based religion?
Religion.
ALL theories begin as circular arguments.
So not only is it a good start it's the only start right?

It's the first step would it be fair to say?

RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:If the theorem or conclusion requires logical reasoning, i.e. a logical proof/argument of some sort, then it is a "valid" argument. If it is merely something that is already assumed then it is refered to as "trivial".
So which was Democritus' theory of the atom at the time?

RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
"requires logical reasoning" isn't too clear to me.

Because you deny logic, mathematics, science, and philosophy.


The Parrot Killer
01-02-2020 20:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: So which was Democritus' theory of the atom at the time? "requires logical reasoning" isn't too clear to me.

Logic and reasoning derive hypotheses from the model.

Simply stating the model, i.e. the null hypothesis, is trivial and requires nothing cognitive.

Stating Democritus' theory of the atom is trivial.

Determining implications (hypotheses) of Democritus's model requires some thought. Devising experiments to test the hypotheses requires some thought.


.


And how would one test if there is some kind of particle that is indivisible, the way Democritus described it?

After all, what we call the 'atom' now can be split using any battery or generator. We can split the nucleus too. We now have these models of particles called 'quarks' and such, but are they indivisible? Are they the smallest possible particle? Are they the 'atoms' as described by Democritus?


The Parrot Killer
01-02-2020 21:21
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5955)
Into the Night wrote: And how would one test if there is some kind of particle that is indivisible, the way Democritus described it?

It would require some thought.


Clearly, dividing one of Democritus' atmoms renders his theory FALSE and would require modifications be made. However, the existing model would serve as a good deal of cognitive support upon which said revisions would be made. Genetics is one of those examples in which the model(s) continue to be improved regardless of whether the theory that originally pointed people in the right direction is accepted or rejected. Frankly, I remember being taught Democritus' model as a young child, with the purpose of getting me to think about the subject, to get me to think about walls, for example, not as walls but as a composition of countless things that I could not see. I remember my "light bulb moment" when the teacher (a Catholic nun) told us kids to blow in each others faces and asked us why we could feel something.

Getting back to your question ... you have a great example for building science. There is no "how we know." We simply postulate what appears to be the case, e.g. gluons cannot be subdivided. That theory will stand until ... someone demonstrates a subdivided gluon. Basically there's no way for us to "know" until we do. So we operate under assumptions until such a point that our assumptions are shown to be FALSE.



.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
01-02-2020 22:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: And how would one test if there is some kind of particle that is indivisible, the way Democritus described it?

It would require some thought.


Clearly, dividing one of Democritus' atmoms renders his theory FALSE and would require modifications be made. However, the existing model would serve as a good deal of cognitive support upon which said revisions would be made. Genetics is one of those examples in which the model(s) continue to be improved regardless of whether the theory that originally pointed people in the right direction is accepted or rejected. Frankly, I remember being taught Democritus' model as a young child, with the purpose of getting me to think about the subject, to get me to think about walls, for example, not as walls but as a composition of countless things that I could not see. I remember my "light bulb moment" when the teacher (a Catholic nun) told us kids to blow in each others faces and asked us why we could feel something.

Getting back to your question ... you have a great example for building science. There is no "how we know." We simply postulate what appears to be the case, e.g. gluons cannot be subdivided. That theory will stand until ... someone demonstrates a subdivided gluon. Basically there's no way for us to "know" until we do. So we operate under assumptions until such a point that our assumptions are shown to be FALSE.



.


And this gets back to what science is. We can have a theory that a gluon isn't divisible, but is that science? Is it possible to build a test to try to destroy that theory?

I submit that the theory that a gluon isn't divisible is a religion. Arguments extend from this initial circular argument. A circular argument it must remain, until one can devise a way to test it. Saying the test is that we haven't done it yet is an argument of ignorance fallacy.

It is much more sensible to take the position that we simply do not know...that there is NO theory of science about the question.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 01-02-2020 22:26
01-02-2020 22:27
keepit
★★★★☆
(1070)
ITN,
I'm surprised you think a gluon isn't divisible since it is composed of 2 quarks. Even a quark will prove to be divisible i think. After all, is has components, mass, electric charge, color charge, plus some of them decay. I don't think one component can do all three of these actions (or forces, or interactions). Don't start semantics here. It won't be constructive.
01-02-2020 22:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
I'm surprised you think a gluon isn't divisible
...deleted remaining duplication...


I never said any such thing. Pay attention.


The Parrot Killer
01-02-2020 22:32
keepit
★★★★☆
(1070)
You're right, i misread. I'm just used to thinking you're wrong. Easy mistake to make, don't you think?
Page 2 of 3<123>





Join the debate All Governments & Organizations Are Making A Critical Basic Mistake About Climate Change Global Warmi:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The Fastest & Only Way To Find Out The Real Life Truth About Global Warming & CO2 Emission2124-01-2020 19:21
The Easiest Way To Remove Bad Politicians Is By Gambling Knowledge About Global Warming & CO2 Emissio623-01-2020 03:34
Forget New Green Deal, Let's make BIS(Basic Infrastructure And Service) Free.1215-01-2020 20:30
Challenges with making carbon emitting sustainable?927-12-2019 06:58
Relatable Warming Impact Articles & Studies2022-11-2019 16:38
▲ 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 © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact