Remember me
▼ Content

Basic arithmetic



Page 4 of 4<<<234
23-09-2016 16:24
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4578)
jwoodward48 wrote:Stop evading. Also, I'm using words the way other people do - that's what makes your ridiculous nonsense different from my posts.

No, no, no...you are the one EVADING.

Does "climate" science exist or not? I've seen a lot of talk come out of you but you come up short on the results.

Can we just jump to agreement that there is no science for the "climate" family of WACKY religions and that we are free to move on to other, more productive topics?

...or are you going to start producing?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-09-2016 18:28
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
If you want to take on an entire branch of science, the burden of proof is on you to SHOW how climate science is unscientific.
23-09-2016 19:24
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4578)
jwoodward48 wrote: If you want to take on an entire branch of science, the burden of proof is on you to SHOW how climate science is unscientific.

There is no branch of science called "climate" science. "Climate science" is a religion. If you want to claim that your religion has any "climate" science then you need to provide the "climate" science that you insist you have.

Thus far you have not provided any.

Don't worry, though, Surface Detail hasn't been able to find any for over a year, nor has any of his uber-educated British buddies apparently.

There isn't any "climate" science. It's a WACKY religion.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-09-2016 19:26
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
But it is an accepted branch of science! YOU have the burden of proof.
23-09-2016 19:29
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4578)
jwoodward48 wrote: But it is an accepted branch of science! YOU have the burden of proof.

No it is not a branch of science, much less an "accepted" one.

Are you claiming there is "climate" science? If so, please post that science here.


Why do you suppose that no one has ever presented any "climate" science?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-09-2016 19:37
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Deny Everything
23-09-2016 19:44
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4578)
jwoodward48 wrote: Deny Everything

I deny that you have ever provided any "climate" science, based on your recommendation of course.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-09-2016 19:49
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
I do not need to provide it. Look for it yourself.
23-09-2016 21:02
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9164)
jwoodward48 wrote:
I do not need to provide it. Look for it yourself.


A 'climate science' degree is just a fad degree issued by schools that do so to make money.

They don't call it the education biz for nothing, you know.

I know of some schools that offer degrees in underwater basket weaving too. It's kind of a rare degree, because there is little demand for it.

There is no such thing as climate 'science'. People who study the weather already exist. They're called meteorologists. They know that what they are doing is the equivalent of watching waves on the sea.


The Parrot Killer
24-09-2016 00:09
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
And in that analogy, the climatologists are watching the sea slowly go up.

I agree that there are problems with the education system, and that degrees are worth less than they once were.
24-09-2016 04:33
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9164)
jwoodward48 wrote:
And in that analogy, the climatologists are watching the sea slowly go up.

You are leaping to a conclusion. We have no way to measure sea level. We don't know if it's going up, down, or staying the same. We have no reference to measure sea level by.

jwoodward48 wrote:
I agree that there are problems with the education system, and that degrees are worth less than they once were.


There are a few schools putting out good degrees that actually mean something. They aren't the ones that first come to mind, though.


The Parrot Killer
24-09-2016 04:51
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
And in that analogy, the climatologists are watching the sea slowly go up.

You are leaping to a conclusion. We have no way to measure sea level. We don't know if it's going up, down, or staying the same. We have no reference to measure sea level by.


and in that analogy


And of course, they're actually watching the tide come in, screaming about how we have angered Poseidon by burning too much seawood, and how we could become the second Atlantis, only to scream about how the fishing industry will fall to pieces and dire incoming desertification as they watch the tide go back out.

jwoodward48 wrote:
I agree that there are problems with the education system, and that degrees are worth less than they once were.


There are a few schools putting out good degrees that actually mean something. They aren't the ones that first come to mind, though.


Which would those be? I'm guessing not Harvard and MIT, based on the last sentence. (Maybe that'll help me decide which to [try to] go to.)


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

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

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
24-09-2016 06:53
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9164)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
And in that analogy, the climatologists are watching the sea slowly go up.

You are leaping to a conclusion. We have no way to measure sea level. We don't know if it's going up, down, or staying the same. We have no reference to measure sea level by.


and in that analogy


And of course, they're actually watching the tide come in, screaming about how we have angered Poseidon by burning too much seawood, and how we could become the second Atlantis, only to scream about how the fishing industry will fall to pieces and dire incoming desertification as they watch the tide go back out.

There's a lot of truth to that!


Sea level is measured primarily by tidal stations.These are innocuous concrete wells scattered along the coast (most people don't even know they're there. They look like some kind foundation for an old piling). Inside is a water level indicator. The well has holes in it to allow seawater in or out. The purpose of the well is to remove wave action. The sea level is measured over time to get some kind of average over the year.

That measurement requires a reference. A zero. That reference is the land the thing is sitting on.

The trouble is, that solid land is actually a floating raft, rising, lowering, tilting, moving around.

Most altitude is referenced to 'mean sea level' or MSL. We can't do that trick with the tidal stations because the sea level is what we are trying to measure. It's a circular argument in data form, otherwise known as circular data.

jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
I agree that there are problems with the education system, and that degrees are worth less than they once were.


There are a few schools putting out good degrees that actually mean something. They aren't the ones that first come to mind, though.


Which would those be? I'm guessing not Harvard and MIT, based on the last sentence. (Maybe that'll help me decide which to [try to] go to.)


It rather depends on what you want to go into as a career. Different schools have different strengths for different careers.

MIT can be a good school for engineering or computer science. Outside of that it rather sucks.
Harvard has a decent law school, but they are poor at governmental structure and theory. A good school for that is Hillsdale College in Michigan.

Perhaps computer science is your bag. If so, you might consider MIT, Berkeley, or even Digipen (a trade school in computer science, electronics, and gaming). Computer science is very specialized these days into various disciplines. I recommend those schools free of proprietary software, such as Windows (or even Macs). I would recommend those schools well versed in Unix/Linux.

Perhaps chemistry would interest you. Austin, TX has a good school in both inorganic and organic chemistry.

For medicine and biology our own University of Washington does very well. They also are a great school for studying aerodynamics and aeronautical engineering.

There is no one school that does it all. Universities might seem like department stores where you can buy anything, but they often have a couple of great programs and mostly lousy ones.

The first thing you need to do is decide what you want to do with your life. What do you want to be?

https://xkcd.com/1052/


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 24-09-2016 06:56
24-09-2016 07:08
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
That is one of my favorite xkcds!
24-09-2016 11:43
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9164)
jwoodward48 wrote:
That is one of my favorite xkcds!


Thought you'd find that appropriate for your question!



The Parrot Killer
Page 4 of 4<<<234





Join the debate Basic arithmetic:

Remember me

▲ 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