Remember me
▼ Content

Almost all glaciers are in sharp decline



Page 2 of 3<123>
07-05-2019 20:01
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8166)
IBdaMann wrote:
dehammer wrote: Please tell me how you take direct climate data from 500 years go, considering that there were not instruments then.

There's only one way. You get into a time machine a travel back 500 years into the past.

i.e. it's not possible to take measurements of the past. We don't get to claim to know what those values are.

That's worth repeating: We don't get to claim to know what those values are.

dehammer wrote: Proxies are used when ever there is no direct method of measuring things. Without proxies we have no history.

Proxies are used for only one purpose: to delude oneself into believing he knows those values that he cannot know.

If you see the word "proxy" then you have extreme faith, ... you have religion.

If you see the word "proxy" then you have no science.

dehammer wrote:Climate change is a religion, but real science do use proxies.

Nope. Enough said.

dehammer wrote: Global averages is where you take readings from 100's of places and average them out.

You aren't any good at statistics. Ask me how I know.

Hold on, I'll help you out. If you take a "global average" by averaging hundreds of temperature readings, ... or even thousands, ... or even tens of thousands, your result will still have a margin of error far too high to make it usable in any application.

Listen up: If you are going to talk about an "average global temperature" then you absolutely need to define, up front, what you consider to be an acceptable margin of error. AFTERWARDS you must ensure that your dataset supports that level of margin of error.

So let's start there. What do you consider to be an acceptable margin of error for measuring/computing the earth's average global temperature? +/-1-degree celsius? Half a degree? Two degrees? What?


dehammer wrote: Because they can not compare the actual temperature of, say for instance, the sahara desert with the north pole, they take anomalies.

First of all, a scientist absolutely can compare a temperature reading in the Sahara with a temperature reading in northern Greenland. I believe the operation used is called "subtraction."

Secondly, in science, "anomalies" are only considered AFTER analyzing a valid dataset that supports a predetermined margin of error. Nothing is ever measured in "anomalies" (what an absurd concept!).

Temperature is measured. Anomalies are determined ... afterward.

dehammer wrote: They decide the "proper" range for a location on a specific day is a certain temperature and then compare that to what it is and decide that this anomaly means.

Nope. They determine the required maximum margin of error and take measurements until they can support that margin of error.


This might require a new entry in The Manual or the Wordsmith for 'anomaly'.


The Parrot Killer
07-05-2019 20:02
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8166)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Guess what? You can't!

Makes no difference. Strawman fallacy.

Tree rings don't indicate temperature.

Sure you do. You wrote a post here. That's history. Science has no theories about unobserved past events. They are not falsifiable.

True Scotsman fallacy. Science is not measurements or observations. It does not use proxies. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

Math error. Failure to select by randN. Failure to calculate margin of error. Prediction based on foreign Domain.

Thermometers are not uniformly spaced. They are not read at the same time or read or calibrated by the same authority. There are not enough of them. We can't manufacture enough of them. Go learn statistical math. Statistical math does not have the power of prediction normally inherent in mathematics due to its use of random numbers.

Math error. Failure to normalize against paired randR. Use of out of band data because it's out of band.

Math error. Failure use of summary as input to the same summary. Failure to select by randN.

No, you don't. You cannot use a summary result to produce that summary!

Satellites are incapable of measuring temperature. They can only measure light. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.

Just guess. Just blind freakin' guess.

Use of random numbers as 'data' is a real problem today. People like you believe it actually works.

Looking back at your post, you were pretty thorough. I probably could have just copy-pasted what you wrote. You covered a lot of ground actually.

... but sometimes I just gotta hear the sound of my own fingers typing.


*humble bow*


The Parrot Killer
07-05-2019 20:53
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
IBdaMann wrote:
There's only one way. You get into a time machine a travel back 500 years into the past.
YET we do have that information. They use proxies.

For instance, there is a type of microbe in the ocean that change shape dependent on the temperature. Since these microbes have a very short life you can get an almost monthly data base on the temperature of the portion of the sea they were in. Ice cores can give data using similar methods.

it's not possible to take measurements of the past
.
Of course we cant take MEASUREMENTS of the past.

We don't get to claim to know what those values are.
YET the scientist all say we do.

Proxies are used for only one purpose: to delude oneself into believing he knows those values that he cannot know.

When one is an expert in a given science, it does not require delusion, but denying science does.

If you see the word "proxy" then you have extreme faith, ... you have religion.
So every scientist in the world is a religious zealot? I think you will find the zealots a lot closer to home.

You aren't any good at statistics.
The answer I gave you was a very low science level answer. YET is was true.

your result will still have a margin of error far too high to make it usable in any application.
So you know ever use of the science? One application that does use it is history. There is no need to know the temperature of any given area for millions of year. It would be impossible since you go back that far and your data set is 100's of years wide. Yet they can takes these data sets and get an average of what the entire planet was like for those periods.

Even going back 1000 years, you find the data set is 30 years. It will not tell you that this part of America was having a heat wave over the summer of 945 ad, but it will tell you that the average temperature of a 30 year period of a certain region was x°C.

Now you want to compare that 30 year period to instruments that take daily records? doesn't work.

So let's start there. What do you consider to be an acceptable margin of error for measuring/computing the earth's average global temperature? +/-1-degree celsius? Half a degree? Two degrees? What?
Depending on the proxies you can have a error or measurements of +/-1° or you might have one of +/-.5 or +/-2. According to NASA, the average of the earths temperature is +/-.15 using instruments.

So when they talk about 2016 being hotter than 1998, when the difference between them was only .14°, its within the error range.


I believe the operation used is called "subtraction."
And it would be a totally worthless measurement.

Secondly, in science, "anomalies" are only considered AFTER analyzing a valid dataset that supports a predetermined margin of error.

precisely what I just said.

They determine the required maximum margin of error and take measurements until they can support that margin of error.
How do they know the accurate range of the sahara desert when it was not even measured until the last 50 years.

There is no proxies in the desert that can tell you the proper temperature there before they too readings. So how hot did it get there in the Holocene maximum? How cold did it get during the little ice age. There is no way to know what the proper temperature. All the can tell of the desert is the climate.

Yet when you look at maps, they show the desert as having an increase in temperature from its "base".

There are many parts of the world that all you can find is the climate of the time, not the temperature, so how do you create a baseline for its "proper" temperature?
07-05-2019 22:15
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3877)
dehammer wrote:YET we do have that information. They use proxies.

Nope. We only have deluded morons who are convinced they have accurate information when all they have is fabricated nonsense.

dehammer wrote: For instance, there is a type of microbe in the ocean that change shape dependent on the temperature. Since these microbes have a very short life you can get an almost monthly data base on the temperature of the portion of the sea they were in.

Incorrect. This scenario requires a religious faith in shape changing nature of the microbes. An actual scientist would presume that there are an unknown number of other factors that affect the microbes' size and that all of your data is a worthless collection of erroneous conflations of all of those other factors.

If you want temperature data then you have to measure the temperature. If you are measuring microbes then you aren't measuring temperature and you certainly aren't discussing science.

If you see proxies then you have religious faith being exercised.

dehammer wrote: Ice cores can give data using similar methods.

Morons can also use ice cores to delude themselves as well.

Do you know what it means to "read tea leaves"? This is what you believe renders valid data. This is the very idea of "proxies." They are worthless. All data gathered by "proxies" is summarily dismissed.

dehammer wrote:YET the scientist all say we do.

Nope. Only scientifically illiterate morons insist that they do.



dehammer wrote:So every scientist in the world is a religious zealot?

Stupid question. Only the scientists who are religious zealots are religious zealots.

Are you pretending to take the position that you, of all people, somehow speak for all scientists? I can't think of a single scientist that would agree to let someone as scientifically illiterate as you speak for him.

Do you pretend to speak for countless unnamed others because you know that no one cares about your opinion? I hate to break it to you but you only get to speak for yourself and no, scientists are not out there fawning over invalid data generated by "proxies."

dehammer wrote:So you know ever use of the science?

What's your first language?

dehammer wrote: One application that does use it is history. There is no need to know the temperature of any given area for millions of year. It would be impossible since you go back that far and your data set is 100's of years wide. Yet they can takes these data sets and get an average of what the entire planet was like for those periods.

Question: What is the average coin flip?

Once you take averages you are killing your answer. The truth is practically never the average. How many families have 3.8 children? ... but I digress ...

Even if you insist on offering a meaningless average value, if the dataset from which you derive the average comes from reading tea leaves then even your average value must be summarily dismissed.


dehammer wrote:
So let's start there. What do you consider to be an acceptable margin of error for measuring/computing the earth's average global temperature? +/-1-degree celsius? Half a degree? Two degrees? What?
Depending on the proxies you can have a error or measurements of +/-1° or you might have one of +/-.5 or +/-2. According to NASA, the average of the earths temperature is +/-.15 using instruments.

NASA does not know the earth's average global temperature to any usable accuracy. There is no instrumentation that can provide a dataset that supports that margin of error.

This explains why you have never seen such a dataset. None exist.


dehammer wrote:
I believe the operation used is called "subtraction."
And it would be a totally worthless measurement.

Are you telling me that you don't put much stock in math?

dehammer wrote: There is no proxies in the desert that can tell you the proper temperature there before they too readings.

There is no such thing as a proxy that can give you a proper measurement of something else.

dehammer wrote: So how hot did it get there in the Holocene maximum?

No one will ever know. Many will speculate. Many will read tea leaves to help delude themselves that their speculations are absolutely true.

dehammer wrote: There are many parts of the world that all you can find is the climate of the time, not the temperature,

Correction: ... where all you can find is speculation about the climate of the time and place. We don't have time machines that will allow us to verify anyone's particular speculation.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
07-05-2019 22:18
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
What ever you say Michael
07-05-2019 22:30
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8166)
dehammer wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
There's only one way. You get into a time machine a travel back 500 years into the past.
YET we do have that information. They use proxies.

Proxies are not data. They do not have that information. Argument from randU fallacy.
dehammer wrote:
For instance, there is a type of microbe in the ocean that change shape dependent on the temperature. Since these microbes have a very short life you can get an almost monthly data base on the temperature of the portion of the sea they were in.

No, you don't. You don't have any idea where the microbe has been or how long it has lived.
dehammer wrote:
Ice cores can give data using similar methods.

No, they don't. Ice cores do not indicate temperature or CO2 content.
dehammer wrote:
it's not possible to take measurements of the past
.
Of course we cant take MEASUREMENTS of the past.

Yet you are claiming we can through proxies. You are now locked in paradox. You are being irrational.
dehammer wrote:
We don't get to claim to know what those values are.
YET the scientist all say we do.

Science isn't scientists. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Void authority fallacy.
dehammer wrote:
Proxies are used for only one purpose: to delude oneself into believing he knows those values that he cannot know.

When one is an expert in a given science, it does not require delusion, but denying science does.

Void authority fallacy. Inversion fallacy.
dehammer wrote:
If you see the word "proxy" then you have extreme faith, ... you have religion.
So every scientist in the world is a religious zealot? I think you will find the zealots a lot closer to home.

Inversion fallacy.
dehammer wrote:
You aren't any good at statistics.
The answer I gave you was a very low science level answer. YET is was true.

False equivalence fallacy. Science is not math. Math is not science. Statistical math is a math problem, not a science problem. You deny mathematics.
dehammer wrote:
your result will still have a margin of error far too high to make it usable in any application.
So you know ever use of the science?

Not a science problem. A math problem. You deny mathematics.
dehammer wrote:
One application that does use it is history.

Statistical math is used in a lot of places. It is capable of producing a summary for past or present data. It does not have the power of prediction. Your problem is you have no data. Argument from randU fallacy. Math error. Void input producing an empty set. Failure to select by randN.
dehammer wrote:
There is no need to know the temperature of any given area for millions of year.

It's not possible anyway.
dehammer wrote:
It would be impossible since you go back that far and your data set is 100's of years wide.

Argument from randU. There is no data set.
dehammer wrote:
Yet they can takes these data sets and get an average of what the entire planet was like for those periods.

Math error. Void input. Failure to select by randN. Failure to calculate margin of error. Logic error. Compositional error fallacy. Void argument fallacy.
dehammer wrote:
Even going back 1000 years, you find the data set is 30 years.

Argument from randU fallacy. There is no data set.
dehammer wrote:
It will not tell you that this part of America was having a heat wave over the summer of 945 ad,

Correct.
dehammer wrote:
but it will tell you that the average temperature of a 30 year period of a certain region was x°C.

Math error. Void input. Failure to select by randN. Failure to calculate margin of error. Logic error. Compositional error fallacy. Void argument fallacy.
dehammer wrote:
Now you want to compare that 30 year period to instruments that take daily records? doesn't work.

False dichotomy fallacy. Strawman fallacy. He never made any such comparison.
dehammer wrote:
So let's start there. What do you consider to be an acceptable margin of error for measuring/computing the earth's average global temperature? +/-1-degree celsius? Half a degree? Two degrees? What?
Depending on the proxies you can have a error or measurements of +/-1° or you might have one of +/-.5 or +/-2. According to NASA, the average of the earths temperature is +/-.15 using instruments.

Math error. Failure to specify raw data source. Failure to select by randN. Failure to calculate margin of error. Use of simple average as statistical summary. Logic error. False authority fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy. Buzzword fallacy. Redefinition fallacy (proxy <-> data, simple average <-> statistical summary). Locked in paradox. Irrational argument.
dehammer wrote:
So when they talk about 2016 being hotter than 1998, when the difference between them was only .14°, its within the error range.

Argument from randU fallacy. False authority fallacy.
dehammer wrote:
I believe the operation used is called "subtraction."
And it would be a totally worthless measurement.

Paradox over strawman. Irrational argument.
dehammer wrote:
Secondly, in science, "anomalies" are only considered AFTER analyzing a valid dataset that supports a predetermined margin of error.

precisely what I just said.

Lie. Paradox. You have said just the opposite, even in this very post. Which is it, dude?
dehammer wrote:
They determine the required maximum margin of error and take measurements until they can support that margin of error.
How do they know the accurate range of the sahara desert when it was not even measured until the last 50 years.

They don't. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Sahara desert. Not enough instrumentation.
dehammer wrote:
There is no proxies in the desert that can tell you the proper temperature there before they too readings.

Buzzword fallacy. There is no such thing as a 'proper' temperature in weather or climate. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Sahara. Argument from randU fallacy.
dehammer wrote:
So how hot did it get there in the Holocene maximum?

Unknown.
dehammer wrote:
How cold did it get during the little ice age.

Unknown.
dehammer wrote:
There is no way to know what the proper temperature. All the can tell of the desert is the climate.

Buzzword fallacy. There is no 'proper' temperature in weather or climate. Circular argument fallacy. You have no idea what the past climate of the Sahara was or whether it was even a desert at all.
dehammer wrote:
Yet when you look at maps, they show the desert as having an increase in temperature from its "base".

Baserate fallacy. There is no 'base' temperature. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Sahara desert.
dehammer wrote:
There are many parts of the world that all you can find is the climate of the time, not the temperature, so how do you create a baseline for its "proper" temperature?

Baserate fallacy. There is no 'base' temperature for anywhere. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth or any region on the Earth. Temperatures can vary as much as 20 deg F per mile.

You need to study up on statistical mathematics. A simple average is not statistical mathematics and is almost useless. You cannot use such an average as a summary.

You also need to stop believing NASA or anyone else that claims to have sufficient raw data to determine the temperature of the Earth.

* There are not enough thermometers. Nowhere near enough.
* The thermometers we do have are not calibrated or read by the same authority.
* The thermometers we do have are not uniformly spaced.
* Satellites are incapable of measuring temperature. They cannot act as thermometers.
* All statistical summaries MUST include the margin of error calculation.
* Any instrumentation used MUST be described, have their tolerances published, and have their calibration source published.
* Raw data MUST be used in statistical mathematics. Further, that raw data MUST be made available. All biasing influences MUST be eliminated. For temperature, that means the effects of time and location grouping MUST be eliminated. Thermometers MUST be read at the same time. They MUST be uniformly spaced.
* Statistical mathematics is incapable of the power of prediction. Assuming that you actually DID have sufficient raw data, and all the other rules of statistical math were followed, you will get a summary for a global temperature for that instant in time only. It cannot predict the future or analyze any other moment in time.

This is not a science issue. It's a math issue. You have already denied quite a few theories of science, now you are denying statistical mathematics as well. A related branch of mathematics you probably also deny (for the same reasons) is probability mathematics.

Stay outta 'Vegas.


The Parrot Killer
07-05-2019 22:31
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8166)
dehammer wrote:
What ever you say Michael


Did you know that ostriches do not bury their head in sand?


The Parrot Killer
07-05-2019 22:44
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3877)
Into the Night wrote:This might require a new entry in The Manual or the Wordsmith for 'anomaly'.

Done!

From the MANUAL:


Anomaly: noun
In Climate Science, a meaningless term that warmizombies and Climate-lemmings use to keep deniers off their backs. Climate Scientists have long since been beleaguered by, on the one hand, having to adhere to their religious edicts to proclaim the good news of rising average global temperatures while on the other hand, knowing full well that no one actually knows the earth's average global temperature to any usable accuracy. They have been plagued for four decades by having to weasel-word their way through explanations of how they know the average global temperature is increasing if they never know the earth's average global temperature in the first place. So they hijacked the word "anomaly" and began mass-producing charts with sharply rising graphs showing increasing anomalies! Problem solved! If ever questioned about what exactly is being measured in an "anomaly" then the warmizombie can always fall back on the standard reply: "You're so stoopid!."




Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
07-05-2019 23:34
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8166)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:This might require a new entry in The Manual or the Wordsmith for 'anomaly'.

Done!

From the MANUAL:


Anomaly: noun
In Climate Science, a meaningless term that warmizombies and Climate-lemmings use to keep deniers off their backs. Climate Scientists have long since been beleaguered by, on the one hand, having to adhere to their religious edicts to proclaim the good news of rising average global temperatures while on the other hand, knowing full well that no one actually knows the earth's average global temperature to any usable accuracy. They have been plagued for four decades by having to weasel-word their way through explanations of how they know the average global temperature is increasing if they never know the earth's average global temperature in the first place. So they hijacked the word "anomaly" and began mass-producing charts with sharply rising graphs showing increasing anomalies! Problem solved! If ever questioned about what exactly is being measured in an "anomaly" then the warmizombie can always fall back on the standard reply: "You're so stoopid!."



Thank you. The forum owner still hasn't gotten around to approving any accounts yet. He doesn't seem to want to maintain the forum much.


The Parrot Killer
08-05-2019 00:47
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Into the Night wrote:
dehammer wrote:
What ever you say Michael


Did you know that ostriches do not bury their head in sand?
Its a good picture for people that deny science, the way you do.
08-05-2019 01:51
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8166)
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
dehammer wrote:
What ever you say Michael


Did you know that ostriches do not bury their head in sand?
Its a good picture for people that deny science, the way you do.


Inversion fallacy. Void argument fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
08-05-2019 01:56
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Translation: "retreat retreat retreat.... he knows I (itn) knows nothing."
08-05-2019 02:08
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8166)
dehammer wrote:
Translation: "retreat retreat retreat.... he knows I (itn) knows nothing."

Void argument fallacy. Bulverism fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
08-05-2019 02:51
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Bulverism fallacy
Talk about the perfect example of tu quoque fallacy.
08-05-2019 11:26
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8166)
dehammer wrote:
Bulverism fallacy
Talk about the perfect example of tu quoque fallacy.

Fallacy fallacy. You are trolling again.


The Parrot Killer
08-05-2019 15:17
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(810)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:This might require a new entry in The Manual or the Wordsmith for 'anomaly'.

Done!

From the MANUAL:


Anomaly: noun
In Climate Science, a meaningless term that warmizombies and Climate-lemmings use to keep deniers off their backs. Climate Scientists have long since been beleaguered by, on the one hand, having to adhere to their religious edicts to proclaim the good news of rising average global temperatures while on the other hand, knowing full well that no one actually knows the earth's average global temperature to any usable accuracy. They have been plagued for four decades by having to weasel-word their way through explanations of how they know the average global temperature is increasing if they never know the earth's average global temperature in the first place. So they hijacked the word "anomaly" and began mass-producing charts with sharply rising graphs showing increasing anomalies! Problem solved! If ever questioned about what exactly is being measured in an "anomaly" then the warmizombie can always fall back on the standard reply: "You're so stoopid!."



What happened to the standard hockey-stick curve? This one does look quite as fear mongering. Really don't see the significance of glaciers melting, it's been going on for a long time. People built towns near some of them, because the melting ice provides a good source of water. I'm sure it must of accrued to some of those folks, that their ice cube would eventually be completely melted. I find it amazing that so many of them have lasted this long, and still have likely centuries to go.

Not sure why ice melting is even a concern, happens all the time. Folks up north of here saw plenty of melting ice, some way too much, like the floods in Nebraska, last month or so. I stopped using ice decades ago, just use a smaller glass and refresh it more often. Too much condensation, watered down drinks, just wasn't worth it most of the time.

Other than providing fresh water as they melt, what are the benefits of having glaciers anyway?
08-05-2019 17:21
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
The entire reason they are pushing the 12 year time frame now is they know they can not maintain the fraud much longer. They want to get rid of democracy and capitalism and its going to have to be soon or they lose it.
08-05-2019 19:07
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8166)
dehammer wrote:
The entire reason they are pushing the 12 year time frame now is they know they can not maintain the fraud much longer. They want to get rid of democracy and capitalism and its going to have to be soon or they lose it.


Hey...it's worked for the Church of Global Warming for 48 years! What's 12 more?

I will fight democracy just as much as I will fight socialism. It only brings misery. The United States is not a democracy. It is a federated republic. It has constitutions. Democracy is not compatible with capitalism.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 08-05-2019 19:08
08-05-2019 19:23
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Democracy is where the people have a voice in their government. The US is a democratic republic. That is we vote for those that make the laws, rather than for the laws themselves as a true democratic would. It a republic people are appointed to make the laws. IF the US was a true republic, the upper class would appoint them, most likely the state governors.

A republic (Latin: res publica) is a form of government in which the country is considered a "public matter", not the private concern or property of the rulers. The primary positions of power within a republic are not inherited, but are attained through democracy, oligarchy or autocracy.
What this means is that the governance of the US is not the "concern" of the US citizens, so we do not need debate every issue. Instead we elect those that handled the governance so that we can get on with our lives.

Democracy vs. Republic. ... In a republic, a constitution or charter of rights protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government, even if it has been elected by a majority of voters. In a "pure democracy," the majority is not restrained in this way and can impose its will on the minority.

We are not a pure democratic because we understand that minorities have rights. Those are protected by our constitution.

Democracy is defined as
a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives
While some people might believe this defines the US, it doesn't because it doesn't account for the constitution and its protections.

socialism is defined as
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

It has no protections or controls. In theory, the leader is always who the people choose, but we have seen time and time again, once they get in power, they remain in power. It always ends up as a dictatorship.

This is what the liberals want for the US and that is why they are pushing the global warming scam. They know the only two ways to get people to give up their rights and freedoms is either with force and that takes alot of people devoted to you, or it takes people to choose to do so. The later can be done with fear of the future. That is why they push their threats to grandchildren so hard.

With out the fear, they will have to resort to violence and the best way to do that is to get a large group afraid of the future to the point they are willing to kill. That is the reason for the 12 year deadline.
Edited on 08-05-2019 19:28
08-05-2019 22:24
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8166)
dehammer wrote:
Democracy is where the people have a voice in their government.

WRONG. A democracy is government by majority rule. There is no constitution.
dehammer wrote:
The US is a democratic republic.

WRONG. This is a senseless term. Use English, it works better.
dehammer wrote:
That is we vote for those that make the laws,

Only in accordance with the constitution that sets up the election system.
dehammer wrote:
rather than for the laws themselves as a true democratic would.

There is no such thing as a 'true' democracy. True Scotsman fallacy. A democratic is not a democracy. Use English. It works better.
dehammer wrote:
It a republic people are appointed to make the laws.

WRONG. Republics have election systems that are designated in their constitutions.
dehammer wrote:
IF the US was a true republic, the upper class would appoint them, most likely the state governors.

The United States is a federated republic. It is nothing but a federated republic. There is no such thing as a 'true' republic.
dehammer wrote:
...deleted Wikipedia article on sight...

You can't use this reference with me. Discarded.
dehammer wrote:
What this means is that the governance of the US is not the "concern" of the US citizens, so we do not need debate every issue. Instead we elect those that handled the governance so that we can get on with our lives.

It is the concern of every US citizen.
dehammer wrote:
...deleted Holy Link...
In a republic, a constitution or charter of rights protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government,

WRONG. That is not the purpose of a constitution. The purpose of a constitution is to define and declare the structure of the government that it creates. The constitution gives that new government certain powers. It has NO OTHER POWERS.
dehammer wrote:
even if it has been elected by a majority of voters.

Irrelevant. The election process is defined by the constitution itself.
dehammer wrote:
In a "pure democracy," the majority is not restrained in this way and can impose its will on the minority.

There is no such thing as a 'pure' democracy. There is only a democracy, which is government by majority rule. It has no constitution.
dehammer wrote:
We are not a pure democratic because we understand that minorities have rights. Those are protected by our constitution.

The United States is not a democracy in any way shape or form. It is a federated republic.
dehammer wrote:
Democracy is defined as
a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives
While some people might believe this defines the US, it doesn't because it doesn't account for the constitution and its protections.

Senseless. There is no such thing as a democratic republic. That's like saying there is a red green.
dehammer wrote:
socialism is defined as
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

WRONG. Socialism is any economic system where wealth is taken from those that have it and redistributed to those that don't, using an authoritarian government. The government itself is the 'community' you speak of.
dehammer wrote:
It has no protections or controls.

It has a LOT of protections and controls! It can only be implemented by dictatorships or oligarchies!
dehammer wrote:
In theory, the leader is always who the people choose, but we have seen time and time again, once they get in power, they remain in power. It always ends up as a dictatorship.

The people don't get to choose their leaders in dictatorships or oligarchies.
dehammer wrote:
This is what the liberals want for the US and that is why they are pushing the global warming scam.

It is what the liberals want. We at least agree on that.
dehammer wrote:
They know the only two ways to get people to give up their rights and freedoms is either with force

People don't give up their rights or freedoms by force. They will fight for them. You can never kill all the dissidents.
dehammer wrote:
and that takes a lot of people devoted to you, or it takes people to choose to do so.

Frankly, mass murder to implement socialism is a common characteristic of such governments. It still doesn't work.
dehammer wrote:
The later can be done with fear of the future.

Nah. The Church of Global Warming is no different than any other gloom and doom religion, other than they try to claim their religion is science.
dehammer wrote:
That is why they push their threats to grandchildren so hard.

Pushing threats is no way to be successful.
dehammer wrote:
With out the fear, they will have to resort to violence and the best way to do that is to get a large group afraid of the future to the point they are willing to kill.

Already happening, dude. Where have you been?
dehammer wrote:
That is the reason for the 12 year deadline.

There is no deadline. All religions are based on some initial circular argument. The Church of Global Warming is a fundamentalist style religion. They try to prove that circular argument. Science is irrelevant to them. Math is irrelevant to them. Logic is irrelevant to them. Anyone that disagrees is considered to be the Great Satan and must be silenced.

There is no arguing with a religion like that. There are those that believe it, and those that don't. Like many religions, they must center upon Doom and Gloom to justify getting others to believe.

Right now, the number of those that believe in the Church of Global Warming is decreasing. More and more people are waking up to the fact that this is nothing more than a religion.

The Church of Global Warming, the Church of Green, the Church of the Ozone Hole, all stem from the Church of Karl Marx. You are correct in seeing that.


The Parrot Killer
08-05-2019 22:26
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Thanks for agreeing with me.
08-05-2019 22:40
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8166)
dehammer wrote:
Thanks for agreeing with me.

When you are right, I will agree with you.

The trouble is, you are in paradox. You argue that the Church of Global Warming is a scam, but then you have declared your belief in the Church of Global Warming.

You are just in a different branch of it. That branch is called 'warmazombies' by IBdaMann. That branch also argues a two paradoxes concerning the effects of CO2.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 08-05-2019 22:41
08-05-2019 23:10
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
The trouble is, you are in paradox. You argue that the Church of Global Warming is a scam, but then you have declared your belief in the Church of Global Warming.
Once again, you prove you have a definite lack of the ability to understand plain English. I have never supported mann made global warming.
09-05-2019 01:57
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3877)
Into the Night wrote:...deleted Wikipedia article on sight...

You took way too long. I delete Wikipedia articles the moment my well-honed senses smell the bits oozing out of the internet.

Into the Night wrote:. There is no such thing as a 'pure' democracy. There is only a democracy, which is government by majority rule. It has no constitution.

Exactly. This is the end-all point. There can be no guarantee of individual liberties in mob rule. In a republic, the constitution is followed as the supreme law of the land. That law enshrines individual rights and protections against any mob of a majority. It's too bad that it can't seem to quite protect individuals from Special Counsel on a witch hunt.

Into the Night wrote:.Senseless. There is no such thing as a democratic republic.

There most certainly is ... when you realize that the word "Democracy" has been hijacked to mean "Marxism" for the warm-fuzzy all-inclusive feeling it denotes. Nobody wants Marxism ... until you call it "democracy."

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the Democratic People's Republic of Korea! ... a fine example of ... Democracy!

Into the Night wrote: Socialism is any economic system where wealth is taken from those that have it and redistributed to those that don't, using an authoritarian government.

I must object to your wording. Marxism cannot be described as an economic system. It is an anti-economic system. If you run through every topic in every chapter in an economics textbook, for both microeconomics and macroeconomics, Marxism preaches that it is an evil exploitation, persecution and enslavement of the proletariat.

Marxism gets a big fat zero on the economics exam. Not even any extra credit.


Into the Night wrote: The people don't get to choose their leaders in dictatorships or oligarchies.

... which is why the US no longer recognizes Maduro as the Head of State of Venezuela, and why the US and over fifty other countries now officially recognize Juán Guaidó as the President of Venezuela.

Into the Night wrote: Right now, the number of those that believe in the Church of Global Warming is decreasing.

It would be more accurate to say that the Church has explored its coffin options. The nails are already on order.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-05-2019 02:23
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
I guess the discussion on if glaciers are retreating or not is a mute point now. I sure in the coming world war a lot of glaciers will be damaged by the heat of the weapons used.
09-05-2019 02:30
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8166)
dehammer wrote:
I guess the discussion on if glaciers are retreating or not is a mute point now. I sure in the coming world war a lot of glaciers will be damaged by the heat of the weapons used.


Our wimpy weapons are nothing compared to an average volcano.

The difference is that we deliver them to populated areas.

But they don't get used in a civil war. The weapon of choice for such a war is small arms.


The Parrot Killer
09-05-2019 02:35
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
One nuke can melt a lot of ice.
The war that's coming will start as a civil war, just as the first part of ww1 was a civil war and What happened in Germany before ww2 was technically a civil war. Russia revolution was a civil war where the previous government was over thrown. When you consider that America was part of the British Empire before the war, it could have been called a civil war if we had lost.
09-05-2019 02:52
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8166)
dehammer wrote:
One nuke can melt a lot of ice.
[quote]dehammer wrote:
The war that's coming will start as a civil war, just as the first part of ww1 was a civil war and What happened in Germany before ww2 was technically a civil war. Russia revolution was a civil war where the previous government was over thrown. When you consider that America was part of the British Empire before the war, it could have been called a civil war if we had lost.

Apparently you don't know what a 'civil war' is. Let's try this: Was the War Between the States in the early 1860's a civil war?


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 09-05-2019 02:53
09-05-2019 03:03
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
civil war
noun
noun: civil war; plural noun: civil wars
a war between citizens of the same country

Before the war of independence, America colonies were part of the British Empire, which meant that our ancestors were citizens of the British empire. Thus if we had lost the war, it would have been a war between citizens of the same country/empire. Because we won, we because a new nation.

In the war between the states, the southern states has declared their independence, but because they lost, it was a civil war, i.e. a war between citizens of the same country. Had they won, it would have been a war of independence.

Some say what the Nazi party did was a war on their own citizens. There were German Jews and the Nazis turned on them. They were not the only ones.

The Russians was definitely a war between citizens of their own citizens.
Edited on 09-05-2019 03:04
09-05-2019 03:23
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8166)
dehammer wrote:
civil war
noun
noun: civil war; plural noun: civil wars
a war between citizens of the same country


I knew you had no idea. You had to run to Google. Google has it wrong too. A civil war is when two or more factions of the same nation try to take over the nation.
dehammer wrote:
Before the war of independence, America colonies were part of the British Empire, which meant that our ancestors were citizens of the British empire. Thus if we had lost the war, it would have been a war between citizens of the same country/empire. Because we won, we because a new nation.

Nope. We were not trying to take over the British empire. We were trying to leave it.
dehammer wrote:
In the war between the states, the southern states has declared their independence, but because they lost, it was a civil war, i.e. a war between citizens of the same country. Had they won, it would have been a war of independence.

Nope. The Southern States had seceded from the United States. They were not trying to take over the United States, nor were they part of the United States at the time. When the United States invaded the Confederation, that set off the war. It is better called the War of Secession.

The southern States seceded because the federal government was egregiously violating the 4th amendment.
dehammer wrote:
Some say what the Nazi party did was a war on their own citizens.

A government killing it's own citizens like that is not a war. It is genocide.
dehammer wrote:
There were German Jews and the Nazis turned on them.

Hitler didn't. Himler did.
dehammer wrote:
They were not the only ones.

See 'National Brother Week' by Tom Leher. You can find it on Youtube.
dehammer wrote:
The Russians was definitely a war between citizens of their own citizens.

Again, genocide, this time for political reasons. Not a war.

Apparently, you have trouble even with the word 'war'.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 09-05-2019 03:25
09-05-2019 03:34
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
You do love to try to semantic things to your view.
09-05-2019 03:40
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8166)
dehammer wrote:
You do love to try to semantic things to your view.


It's not semantics. It is the definitions of these words. You really should try English sometime.


The Parrot Killer
09-05-2019 04:05
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Sorry, I left out the word "evolution" on that. That is what you try to do. You are constantly trying to change the word meaning.
09-05-2019 08:24
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8166)
dehammer wrote:
Sorry, I left out the word "evolution" on that. That is what you try to do. You are constantly trying to change the word meaning.


Nope. You try to deny any meaning of a word.


The Parrot Killer
09-05-2019 10:04
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Since you refuse to discuss science, and your flat earth belief is interfering, ill just give you last word.
09-05-2019 18:29
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3877)
Into the Night wrote:When the United States invaded the Confederation, that set off the war. It is better called the War of Secession.

Are you referring to the War of Northern Aggression?

Into the Night wrote: The southern States seceded because the federal government was egregiously violating the 4th amendment.

I'd be willing to debate that with you.

The Federal government was egregiously violating State sovereignty. Technically there can be no violation of the 4th Amendment if Congress outlaws certain "property" by enacting a law pertaining to "interstate commerce." Congress is not allowed, however, to declare State sovereignty a matter of interstate commerce in order to violate it.

I'm glad that slavery was abolished, but that does not change the fact that it was done in violation of State sovereignty. "Morality" is not a matter of interstate commerce and falls under the States to determine for themselves. Each State should have abolished slavery individually, just like every colony individually ratified the Constitution. Any State that did not abolish slavery would have had to answer for that on the world stage and eventually the people of the State would elect candidates running on an Abolition platform and eventually it would be abolished. But again, that would have been the Constitutional process. What happened was simply not Constitutional, albeit truly moral and righteous.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-05-2019 19:04
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8166)
dehammer wrote:
Since you refuse to discuss science, and your flat earth belief is interfering, ill just give you last word.


Non-sequitur fallacy. I never discussed the shape of the Earth, nor claimed that it was flat. I have been discussing theories of science, and even the definition of science itself and where it comes from. It is YOU that simply chooses to ignore it.

Argument of the stone fallacy. Bulverism fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
09-05-2019 19:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8166)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:When the United States invaded the Confederation, that set off the war. It is better called the War of Secession.

Are you referring to the War of Northern Aggression?

Into the Night wrote: The southern States seceded because the federal government was egregiously violating the 4th amendment.

I'd be willing to debate that with you.

The Federal government was egregiously violating State sovereignty. Technically there can be no violation of the 4th Amendment if Congress outlaws certain "property" by enacting a law pertaining to "interstate commerce." Congress is not allowed, however, to declare State sovereignty a matter of interstate commerce in order to violate it.

I'm glad that slavery was abolished, but that does not change the fact that it was done in violation of State sovereignty. "Morality" is not a matter of interstate commerce and falls under the States to determine for themselves. Each State should have abolished slavery individually, just like every colony individually ratified the Constitution. Any State that did not abolish slavery would have had to answer for that on the world stage and eventually the people of the State would elect candidates running on an Abolition platform and eventually it would be abolished. But again, that would have been the Constitutional process. What happened was simply not Constitutional, albeit truly moral and righteous.


You have a good bead on it. Slavery was the property in question, but the war was not fought over slavery so much as the federal government violating State sovereignty. Soldiers and leaders on both sides say as much in their diaries. Even Lincoln was trying to force the Union 'back together'. It was not about slaves directly.

Slavery was already on its way out. In nation after nation in the Americas, slavery was dying on its own. It would have happened peacefully in the U.S. too, if radical Republicans in Congress and Lincoln hadn't rushed the issue.

Even worse, the 14th amendment was 'ratified' under duress by States that had no representation in Congress before they could gain representation in Congress. Is it ratified?

The abuses justified under the 14th amendment are well known, especially in California and Texas.


The Parrot Killer
09-05-2019 20:01
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3877)
Into the Night wrote: You have a good bead on it. Slavery was the property in question, but the war was not fought over slavery so much as the federal government violating State sovereignty. Soldiers and leaders on both sides say as much in their diaries. Even Lincoln was trying to force the Union 'back together'. It was not about slaves directly.

Exactly. The Union attacked the Confederacy over the secession. That was the direct cause of the War of Northern Aggression. The South seceded because the Federal government egregiously violated the States' sovereignty (the indirect reason).

To claim that slavery was the direct cause is just as invalid as saying that the war was actually fought over bread pudding (also a Southern specialty).

Into the Night wrote: It would have happened peacefully in the U.S. too, if radical Republicans in Congress and Lincoln hadn't rushed the issue.

Redundant. The Republican party was formed for the purpose of ending slavery, i.e. to accelerate the issue. They were elected on that platform.

There's something to be said about electing representatives to Congress, not the State legislature, to "end slavery." Right there you have the roots of a violation of the States' sovereignty. Electing Congressmen to office on a platform of imposing laws on all States is very bad in my opinion.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-05-2019 22:23
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
I really do not see what slavery has to do with glaciers.
Page 2 of 3<123>





Join the debate Almost all glaciers are in sharp decline:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Snow: predicted decline globally, increase locally16718-05-2019 21:23
Research examines new links between retreating glaciers and global warming130-04-2019 16:04
Cause of global warming: melting glaciers.626-04-2019 05:16
Mount Everest glaciers are melting. And it's exposing the bodies of dead climbers824-03-2019 02:07
Sharp rise in Arctic temperatures now inevitable – UN214-03-2019 20:27
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


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