Remember me
▼ Content

BREAKING NEWS! April 2020 - 2nd Warmest April on record.



Page 2 of 3<123>
19-05-2020 22:04
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(654)
tmiddles wrote:
To use a "Reference" is to provide (a book or article) with citations of sources of information.

Only books and articles? Are books preferable to articles? How many citations are required? What would be a "source of information", exactly? How many "sources of information" are required?


A reference is not limited to a book or an article, dude.
20-05-2020 02:28
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6651)
gfm7175 wrote:How many citations are required?

You are forgetting the primary Law of Climate, i.e. sufficient references achieve "critical mass" and transform into science. This is how consensus is able to determine science. Of course the mechanism involves there being an organization willing to do the "heavy lifting" and to getting sufficient quantities of "references" onto the internet, and of course let's not forget getting them into Wikipedia, ... all of which requires man-hours of typing. If you think that's easy, you've never had to thoroughly debunk the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Ergo, science is earned ... through hard work and dedication ... to the cause. Of course you can "outsource" efforts to a contractor with the right credentials to speed up the process.



.


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 20-05-2020 02:30
20-05-2020 18:09
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(654)
Silly me... SILLY SILLY me...
21-05-2020 03:21
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2922)
Into the Night wrote:
I am the authoritative reference of all I write. I can reference myself.
And if you say "but see this reference" and it's simply you, you are a liar.

gfm7175 wrote:It takes me seconds to open up his website. Your point?
My point is that it's the "THE Manual" it's "HIS Manual" no more and no less.

In looking for examples I couldn't find anything deceptive. I formally withdraw my objection as I couldn't find anything that wasn't so dripping in sarcasm that anyone would be confused.

So I was wrong. IBD does not try to fool anyone with "The Manual" at least as it's pretty much just comedy.
Edited on 21-05-2020 03:30
21-05-2020 03:23
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2922)
gfm7175 wrote:A reference is not limited to a book or an article, dude.


A "reference" is not yourself.

Now the context I see here is 5 years of you guys NEVER acknowledging ANY reference as being legit. So that's the real story.

There is a complete commitment to never allowing ANY reference to be accepted on the part of you all.
Edited on 21-05-2020 03:28
21-05-2020 09:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12381)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
I am the authoritative reference of all I write. I can reference myself.
And if you say "but see this reference" and it's simply you, you are a liar.

Nope. I am the authoritative reference of all I write. I can reference myself. No one else is the authoritative reference of what I write, dumbass.
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:It takes me seconds to open up his website. Your point?
My point is that it's the "THE Manual" it's "HIS Manual" no more and no less.

IBdaMann is the authoritative reference on The Manual.
tmiddles wrote:
In looking for examples I couldn't find anything deceptive. I formally withdraw my objection as I couldn't find anything that wasn't so dripping in sarcasm that anyone would be confused.

Mantra 5.
tmiddles wrote:
So I was wrong. IBD does not try to fool anyone with "The Manual" at least as it's pretty much just comedy.

It is more than just comedy. It is the only example of a definition of 'global warming' and 'climate change' that actually is not a circular definition. It has not been successfully challenged by any member of the Church of Global Warming either, since they have no other definition.

Define 'global warming'. Define 'climate change'.


The Parrot Killer
21-05-2020 09:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12381)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:A reference is not limited to a book or an article, dude.


A "reference" is not yourself.

Yes it is. I am the only authoritative reference on what I write.
tmiddles wrote:
Now the context I see here is 5 years of you guys NEVER acknowledging ANY reference as being legit. So that's the real story.

Lie. I also reference the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics (which you deny), and the Stefan-Boltzmann law (which you deny).
tmiddles wrote:
There is a complete commitment to never allowing ANY reference to be accepted on the part of you all.

Lie. Mantra 29...5...


The Parrot Killer
21-05-2020 10:06
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6651)
tmiddles wrote: Now the context I see here is 5 years of you guys NEVER acknowledging ANY reference as being legit.

Well, aren't we a bit snippy at having our disinformation discounted.

You're not omniscient either. Deal with it. Stop trying to blame others.


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
21-05-2020 19:33
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(654)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
I am the authoritative reference of all I write. I can reference myself.
And if you say "but see this reference" and it's simply you, you are a liar.

Citing oneself as a reference is not lying, ipiddle.

If you wish to learn more about the numbered mantra list, then it would be best to go directly to the authoritative reference, which is the creator of the list, which is ITN.

If you wish to learn more about particular theories of science, then it would be best to go directly to the authoritative reference, which is the theories of science themselves.

If you wish to learn more about the meaning/reasoning behind the COVID-19 nickname "rice-a-rona", then it would be best to go directly to the authoritative reference, which is the creator of the nickname, which is myself.

tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:It takes me seconds to open up his website. Your point?
My point is that it's the "THE Manual" it's "HIS Manual" no more and no less.

In looking for examples I couldn't find anything deceptive. I formally withdraw my objection as I couldn't find anything that wasn't so dripping in sarcasm that anyone would be confused.

So I was wrong. IBD does not try to fool anyone with "The Manual" at least as it's pretty much just comedy.

I'm still unsure as to what your point is.
Edited on 21-05-2020 19:46
21-05-2020 19:37
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(654)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:A reference is not limited to a book or an article, dude.


A "reference" is not yourself.

Actually, it very well CAN be.

tmiddles wrote:
Now the context I see here is 5 years of you guys NEVER acknowledging ANY reference as being legit. So that's the real story.

No, that's just you lying once again. In fact, even my prior response to you specified a couple of "legit references".

tmiddles wrote:
There is a complete commitment to never allowing ANY reference to be accepted on the part of you all.

No, that's just you lying once again. See above.
21-05-2020 21:02
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2922)
Into the Night wrote:
Define 'global warming'. Define 'climate change'.
define Climate Debate

gfm7175 wrote:
....my prior response to you specified a couple of "legit references"..
you might have and I won't bother to look if you're not bothering to quote. ITN and IBD never have
Edited on 21-05-2020 21:05
22-05-2020 00:10
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(654)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Define 'global warming'. Define 'climate change'.
define Climate Debate

gfm7175 wrote:
....my prior response to you specified a couple of "legit references"..
you might have and I won't bother to look if you're not bothering to quote. ITN and IBD never have

There's no reason for me to quote. You can read my comment and see for yourself. I specified numerous legitimate sources.
Edited on 22-05-2020 00:11
22-05-2020 01:09
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2922)
gfm7175 wrote:I specified numerous legitimate sources.

Well let's take a look GFM. This is EVERYTHING you posted in this topic and I don't see any sources at all other than your stating the title of "The Communist Manifesto" which is an identifiable source, and not one relevant to this board. Note that alluding to information is not providing a source. Stating "the laws of physics" is not a source particularly as ITN/IDB dispute the sources for those laws that have been presented. ITN/IBD allege regularly that a source is corrupted by "warmazombies". There are entire threads on Wikipedia being a bad source according to them.

gfm7175 wrote:...He posts stuff on here all the time. He also has a separate website where he posts stuff. It takes me seconds to open up his website. Your point?...
It IS a reference....
It IS a manual....
It is not just his own private writing....
You sure love to misrepresent/confuse damn near everything, don't you? ITN claimed that he is the authoritative reference of his numbered mantra list, which happens to be publicly presented on IBD's website. ITN is correct. He came up with the mantra list, basing it on logical fallacies. He is the authoritative reference regarding that list....
You can look at the Laws of Thermodynamics for yourself, you can look at Planck's Law for yourself, you can look at the Communist Manifesto for yourself, etc. etc... IBD's website happens to be one location where you can find such things....
Lie.
gfm7175 wrote:...
Only books and articles? Are books preferable to articles? How many citations are required? What would be a "source of information", exactly? How many "sources of information" are required?
A reference is not limited to a book or an article, dude.
gfm7175 wrote:
Silly me... SILLY SILLY me...
gfm7175 wrote:...
Citing oneself as a reference is not lying, ipiddle.
If you wish to learn more about the numbered mantra list, then it would be best to go directly to the authoritative reference, which is the creator of the list, which is ITN.
If you wish to learn more about particular theories of science, then it would be best to go directly to the authoritative reference, which is the theories of science themselves.
If you wish to learn more about the meaning/reasoning behind the COVID-19 nickname "rice-a-rona", then it would be best to go directly to the authoritative reference, which is the creator of the nickname, which is myself....
I'm still unsure as to what your point is.
gfm7175 wrote:...
Actually, it very well CAN be....
No, that's just you lying once again. In fact, even my prior response to you specified a couple of "legit references"....
No, that's just you lying once again. See above.


Yes there are no references there. You couldn't possibly consider:
gfm7175 wrote:... look at the Laws of Thermodynamics for yourself, you can look at Planck's Law for yourself, you can look at the Communist Manifesto for yourself, etc. etc...
to be a list of references could you? the Communist Manifesto by Carl Marx is a specific text but not one relevant to this board. Planck's Law is what according to you? From where? ITN/IBD have presented fraudulent representations of it. You cannot simply say "Planck's Law" and be providing a reference. I have certainly provided references from Max Planck, his own writings clearly identified. "The Laws of Thermodynamics" I have presented in part here:TWELVE REFERENCES

The major topic of debate on this board with ITN/IBD and you is what the laws of thermodynamics are not! No "references" have been provided on your side of that debate. IBD has recently decided that "Radiant Heat" is not part of thermodynamics so that calls every publication on the "Laws of thermodynamics" into question by him.

ref·er·ence
/ˈref(ə)rəns/
verb
3rd person present: references
1.
provide (a book or article) with citations of sources of information.
"each chapter is referenced, citing literature up to 1990"

So you are full of it GFM.
22-05-2020 01:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12381)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Define 'global warming'. Define 'climate change'.
define Climate Debate

gfm7175 wrote:
....my prior response to you specified a couple of "legit references"..
you might have and I won't bother to look if you're not bothering to quote. ITN and IBD never have


Attempted force of negative proof fallacy...Mantra 38b.


The Parrot Killer
22-05-2020 01:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12381)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 4b...4a...4b...4e...5...4d...4e...29...1...39f...


No argument presented. RQAA. False authority fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
22-05-2020 18:03
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(654)
tmiddles wrote:... deleted typical ipiddle mantras...

So you are full of it GFM.

RQAA.
Edited on 22-05-2020 18:06
23-05-2020 02:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12381)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:I specified numerous legitimate sources.

Well let's take a look GFM. This is EVERYTHING you posted in this topic and I don't see any sources at all other than your stating the title of "The Communist Manifesto" which is an identifiable source, and not one relevant to this board. Note that alluding to information is not providing a source. Stating "the laws of physics" is not a source particularly as ITN/IDB dispute the sources for those laws that have been presented. ITN/IBD allege regularly that a source is corrupted by "warmazombies". There are entire threads on Wikipedia being a bad source according to them.

gfm7175 wrote:...He posts stuff on here all the time. He also has a separate website where he posts stuff. It takes me seconds to open up his website. Your point?...
It IS a reference....
It IS a manual....
It is not just his own private writing....
You sure love to misrepresent/confuse damn near everything, don't you? ITN claimed that he is the authoritative reference of his numbered mantra list, which happens to be publicly presented on IBD's website. ITN is correct. He came up with the mantra list, basing it on logical fallacies. He is the authoritative reference regarding that list....
You can look at the Laws of Thermodynamics for yourself, you can look at Planck's Law for yourself, you can look at the Communist Manifesto for yourself, etc. etc... IBD's website happens to be one location where you can find such things....
Lie.
gfm7175 wrote:...
Only books and articles? Are books preferable to articles? How many citations are required? What would be a "source of information", exactly? How many "sources of information" are required?
A reference is not limited to a book or an article, dude.
gfm7175 wrote:
Silly me... SILLY SILLY me...
gfm7175 wrote:...
Citing oneself as a reference is not lying, ipiddle.
If you wish to learn more about the numbered mantra list, then it would be best to go directly to the authoritative reference, which is the creator of the list, which is ITN.
If you wish to learn more about particular theories of science, then it would be best to go directly to the authoritative reference, which is the theories of science themselves.
If you wish to learn more about the meaning/reasoning behind the COVID-19 nickname "rice-a-rona", then it would be best to go directly to the authoritative reference, which is the creator of the nickname, which is myself....
I'm still unsure as to what your point is.
gfm7175 wrote:...
Actually, it very well CAN be....
No, that's just you lying once again. In fact, even my prior response to you specified a couple of "legit references"....
No, that's just you lying once again. See above.


Yes there are no references there. You couldn't possibly consider:
gfm7175 wrote:... look at the Laws of Thermodynamics for yourself, you can look at Planck's Law for yourself, you can look at the Communist Manifesto for yourself, etc. etc...
to be a list of references could you? the Communist Manifesto by Carl Marx is a specific text but not one relevant to this board. Planck's Law is what according to you? From where? ITN/IBD have presented fraudulent representations of it. You cannot simply say "Planck's Law" and be providing a reference. I have certainly provided references from Max Planck, his own writings clearly identified. "The Laws of Thermodynamics" I have presented in part here:TWELVE REFERENCES

The major topic of debate on this board with ITN/IBD and you is what the laws of thermodynamics are not! No "references" have been provided on your side of that debate. IBD has recently decided that "Radiant Heat" is not part of thermodynamics so that calls every publication on the "Laws of thermodynamics" into question by him.

ref·er·ence
/ˈref(ə)rəns/
verb
3rd person present: references
1.
provide (a book or article) with citations of sources of information.
"each chapter is referenced, citing literature up to 1990"

So you are full of it GFM.

The discussion of Karl Marx is relevant to this board. You don't get to quote every publication at once. You don't get to speak for anyone but you.
You don't get to declare anyone as the authoritative reference of my writings and sayings except me.


The Parrot Killer
24-05-2020 06:15
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2922)
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:... deleted typical ipiddle mantras...

So you are full of it GFM.

RQAA.


Uh no dude, you did not answer.

Am I correct that your identified "sources" consisted only of a Karl Marx book?
24-05-2020 21:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12381)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantra 29...15...36c...16b...35c...39p...


Lie. No argument presented. RQAA. Wandering off topic. Irrelevant factor used as 'proof'.


The Parrot Killer
25-05-2020 01:04
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2922)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:... Yes there are no references there. You couldn't possibly consider:
gfm7175 wrote:... look at the Laws of Thermodynamics for yourself, you can look at Planck's Law for yourself, you can look at the Communist Manifesto for yourself, etc. etc...
to be a list of references could you? ...
So you are full of it GFM.

RQAA.

Uh no dude, you did not answer.
Am I correct that your identified "sources" consisted only of a Karl Marx book?
Lie. No argument presented. RQAA. Wandering off topic. Irrelevant factor used as 'proof'.


What was a lie? You run away GFM? Not going to answer?

GFM, you claimed you presented multiple "sources". Other than a book by Karl Marx I don't see any. Did I miss something?
25-05-2020 04:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12381)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantra 36e...7...29...36e...29...


No argument presented. Attempted negative proof fallacy. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
25-05-2020 11:11
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2922)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantra 36e...7...29...36e...29...


No argument presented. Attempted negative proof fallacy. RQAA.


You said "lie" ITN. What was a lie according to you?
25-05-2020 23:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12381)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantra 36e...7...29...36e...29...


No argument presented. Attempted negative proof fallacy. RQAA.


You said "lie" ITN. What was a lie according to you?

RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
26-05-2020 02:17
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2922)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantra 36e...7...29...36e...29...


No argument presented. Attempted negative proof fallacy. RQAA.


You said "lie" ITN. What was a lie according to you?

RQAA.

No ITN it is the first time you said there was a "lie" in that post and you failed to indicate what in the post you consider a lie. You have not answered that simple question.
26-05-2020 17:08
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(654)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:... deleted typical ipiddle mantras...

So you are full of it GFM.

RQAA.


Uh no dude, you did not answer.

Am I correct that your identified "sources" consisted only of a Karl Marx book?

No. You, once again, are pulling a tmiddles.

RQAA.
27-05-2020 03:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12381)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantra 36e...7...29...36e...29...


No argument presented. Attempted negative proof fallacy. RQAA.


You said "lie" ITN. What was a lie according to you?

RQAA.

No ITN it is the first time you said there was a "lie" in that post and you failed to indicate what in the post you consider a lie. You have not answered that simple question.

Lie. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
27-05-2020 22:38
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2922)
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Am I correct that your identified "sources" consisted only of a Karl Marx book?

No. You, once again, are pulling a tmiddles. RQAA.
NO you did not answer the question gfm you can clearly see me asking it for the first time above and I posted everything you wrote in this topic. You are deliberately hiding whatever it is you consider an answer.
27-05-2020 23:57
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(654)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Am I correct that your identified "sources" consisted only of a Karl Marx book?

No. You, once again, are pulling a tmiddles. RQAA.
NO you did not answer the question gfm

Yes I did. Numerous times.

tmiddles wrote:
you can clearly see me asking it for the first time above and I posted everything you wrote in this topic.

You've asked it numerous times. I've answered it numerous times.

tmiddles wrote:
You are deliberately hiding whatever it is you consider an answer.

Nope, it is right in this thread for all to see. Learn English. You've been speaking Liberal for far too long...
28-05-2020 00:04
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2922)
gfm7175 wrote:
You've asked it numerous times. I've answered it numerous times.
This is a short thread and I posted everything you wrote and asked you about it.

I'll ask again:

Do you consider saying "the laws of physics" to be citing a source?
28-05-2020 00:17
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(654)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
You've asked it numerous times. I've answered it numerous times.
This is a short thread and I posted everything you wrote and asked you about it.

I'll ask again:

Do you consider saying "the laws of physics" to be citing a source?

Potentially.
Edited on 28-05-2020 00:18
28-05-2020 00:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12381)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantra 29...35a...


No argument presented. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
28-05-2020 00:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12381)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantra 29...4d...


No argument presented. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
28-05-2020 04:58
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6651)
tmiddles wrote: Do you consider saying "the laws of physics" to be citing a source?

Sure, science is a great source. Of course, without specifying any particular model the usefulness of that reference will be limited.

Just the other day, my coffee got cold. I tried your bold theory of tossing in a bunch of ice while allowing thermal energy flow from the ice to the coffee and bring it to a slow boil. Well, gfm7175 asked me what I was doing and my answer almost gave him a coronary.

It turns out that "the laws of physics: say that my plan would never work in a million years and he explained to me the reasons.

Yes, this science thing is a rather good reference. Ask it your questions first.
28-05-2020 12:49
duncan61
★★☆☆☆
(251)
Good idea IBDM .You are on to something,We will call it iced coffee.Even I can market that.Wheres your mate Dr strong at these days.
28-05-2020 14:54
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2922)
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Do you consider saying "the laws of physics" to be citing a source?

Potentially.
You just used it in your own post. Did you consider yourself to be "citing a source" when you said:
gfm7175 wrote:... you can look at Planck's Law for yourself,... ?
So this is your source?:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law
Or was a book published by Planck, an English translation?

IBdaMann wrote:"the laws of physics: say
Where would one find these laws written down? Are these good places to find them?:
TWELVE REFERENCES

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
28-05-2020 17:53
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(654)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Do you consider saying "the laws of physics" to be citing a source?

Potentially.
You just used it in your own post. Did you consider yourself to be "citing a source" when you said:
gfm7175 wrote:... you can look at Planck's Law for yourself,... ?

Yes.

tmiddles wrote:
So this is your source?:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law
Or was a book published by Planck, an English translation?

I don't care what book/website/magazine/etc you pull Planck's Law out of. The source is not the book/website/magazine/etc... The source is Planck's Law itself.
Edited on 28-05-2020 17:55
28-05-2020 21:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12381)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Do you consider saying "the laws of physics" to be citing a source?

Potentially.
You just used it in your own post. Did you consider yourself to be "citing a source" when you said:
gfm7175 wrote:... you can look at Planck's Law for yourself,... ?
So this is your source?:

He already answered the question: Planck's law. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law
Or was a book published by Planck, an English translation?

No, it was Planck's law. The law stands on it's own. It doesn't need a particular book, website, or anything else. Mantra 4b.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:"the laws of physics: say
Where would one find these laws written down? Are these good places to find them?:
TWELVE REFERENCES

You can find a copy of it here, along with a good explanation of how it relates to blackbody radiance as well.


The Parrot Killer
29-05-2020 06:56
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2922)
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:id you consider yourself to be "citing a source" when you said:
gfm7175 wrote:... you can look at Planck's Law for yourself,... ?

Yes.
I don't care what book/website/magazine/etc you pull Planck's Law out of.


Thank you! I was genuinely unsure of what you meant until now. Now it's crystal clear.

As Planck was a writer and it's his law there's actually plenty of published reference material for that one.

Into the Night wrote:
You can find a copy of it here,
No that is not the work of Max Planck but a post on his personal page by IBdaMann, the writer of that text. Max Planck wrote extensively and that link lacks citation to his writing. Don't call it Planck's Law if it didn't come from Max Planck. If it did prove it.
Edited on 29-05-2020 07:04
29-05-2020 08:00
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6651)
tmiddles wrote: No that is not the work of Max Planck ...

Now you are treating science as though it were a religion.

The moment Max Planck's theory became science, the model itself became the authoritative source, not Planck. Therefore it doesn't matter where you get it. If someone gets it from my site or anywhere, and you deny it, you are denying science.

Nobody cares where you get it. It's the same no matter the source. Deny whenever you want to throw in the towel.

.
Attached image:

29-05-2020 17:21
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(654)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: No that is not the work of Max Planck ...

Now you are treating science as though it were a religion.

The moment Max Planck's theory became science, the model itself became the authoritative source, not Planck. Therefore it doesn't matter where you get it. If someone gets it from my site or anywhere, and you deny it, you are denying science.

Nobody cares where you get it. It's the same no matter the source. Deny whenever you want to throw in the towel.

.

FINALLY you have me perched upon something that isn't burning my poor little footsies off.
Page 2 of 3<123>





Join the debate BREAKING NEWS! April 2020 - 2nd Warmest April on record.:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Bad news...021-04-2020 20:42
Interesting news2030-03-2020 21:26
news1720-03-2020 10:50
Setting the record straight on the climate debate4018-03-2020 05:32
A bit of good news.3314-03-2020 07:28
▲ 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