Remember me
▼ Content

Clouds are warming Earth, not (so much) GHGs



Page 4 of 5<<<2345>
02-12-2019 19:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
...you consider encyclopedia's and dictionaries to be physics textbooks? .... transfer of energy due to a temperature difference .
Dictionaries simply collect consensus on meaning.

Nope. Dictionaries are not a voting system. They do not define any word.
tmiddles wrote:
The definition of Heat they have IS from textbooks.

WRONG. The definition of heat comes from the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which you deny.
tmiddles wrote:
What you wrote is in line with the definition. Why don't you skip ahead to a coherent example of whatever distinction you think you see and why it matters.

YOU made the paradox. YOU must clear your paradox. Only YOU can clear your paradox.

Which is it, dude?


The Parrot Killer
02-12-2019 19:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:they more or less arbitrarily decide what they are going to write,
Not at all.

The ITN/IBD pretense or real confusion about what a word is:

Okay. You have undefined 'word'. Define 'word'.
tmiddles wrote:
A word has a real, permanent meaning ordained by their GOD and known only to the guy IBD knows from the streets who passes it on to ITN/IBD in the oral tradition of bookless learning they adhere to. We can only hope they share the true meaning with us.

IBDaMann does not have a religion. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
The truth about words: Words are exchanged between human beings and their meaning is and always will be a matter of consensus.

WRONG. Words are created by individuals all the time.
tmiddles wrote:
Dictionaries are tasked with collecting and tracking the meaning people ascribe to words.

Dictionaries are not tasked with anything. They don't do work.
tmiddles wrote:
Often changing and often irritating others, the meaning of words can be and are added to and changed by common people, as a group, regularly.

Dictionaries are not a voting bloc. No dictionary defines any word. That is not the purpose of a dictionary.
tmiddles wrote:
https://languages.oup.com/our-story/creating-dictionaries

False authority fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
02-12-2019 19:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:they more or less arbitrarily decide what they are going to write,
Not at all.

The ITN/IBD pretense or real confusion about what a word is:
A word has a real, permanent meaning ordained by their GOD and known only to the guy IBD knows from the streets who passes it on to ITN/IBD in the oral tradition of bookless learning they adhere to. We can only hope they share the true meaning with us.

One thing I have noticed that never changes is the manner in which you tip your king and acknowledge defeat. You abruptly change the topic to Into the Night and me in a desperate attempt to get others to ignore how you just embarrased yourself and instead to pay attention to the new bogus position you are assigning to us both.

.



Neither of you can define climate change. There are 3 basic types. Arctic, temperate and tropical.
An example of this is the boreal forest in Canada and the northern US. It cannot exist in an arctic or tropical environment.
Yet no one in this forum knows this. On a regional level, Washington state has a rain forest. In the north of South America and in Hawai'i, it's similar but the flora and fauna is different.
People in here don't seem to know the difference.

p.s., Hawai'i and not Hawaii has a rain forest. The Amazon is a jungle that receives massive amounts of rainfall or is quite humid.
And if you don't know the difference between Hawai'i and Hawaii, really?
Basic info, there is no Hawaii.
With Hawai'i, sometimes getting the details right matters.

There is no Hawai'i. A type of climate is not a climate 'change'.


The Parrot Killer
02-12-2019 19:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:Neither of you can define climate change.
None of us can create a private definition for any word or phrase.

Sure they can. You are doing so right now. You might try English, it works better.
tmiddles wrote:
Language is communal.

So no one talks to themselves, eh?
tmiddles wrote:
If someone wants to argue the Earth has no weather they can do that. Weather is still a well defined term. As are climate, temperature, humidity and so on.

Climate has no temperature. It has no humidity. It has no quantifiable elements at all.


The Parrot Killer
02-12-2019 19:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
James___ wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:Neither of you can define climate change.
None of us can create a private definition for any word or phrase. Language is communal.

If someone wants to argue the Earth has no weather they can do that. Weather is still a well defined term. As are climate, temperature, humidity and so on.



Your post is a joke, right? Prove you were born. Can't happen
Proof by identity.
James___ wrote:
We can't prove your mother and father. As a result, you can't exist.
Proof by identity.
James___ wrote:
A computer program isn't proof of conception.
Proof by identity.
James___ wrote:
You have to prove that. Until you do, you aren't a person.
Proof identity.
James___ wrote:
Proof of life is required.

You just failed the Turing test.


The Parrot Killer
02-12-2019 19:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
James___ wrote:
tmiddles, proof of concept is required
Proof by identity.
[/quote]
Sadly Christians offer this.[/quote]No. Logic offers this.
[/quote]
There is no proof of faith[/quote]Proof by identity.
[/quote]
Faith is the belief in absence of evidence.[/quote]WRONG. Faith is another word for the circular argument.
[/quote]
When proof of faith is offered, then faith never happened.[/quote]WRONG. The circular argument still happened, therefore faith still happened. Proof by identity and equivalence. Attempting to prove a circular argument is a fallacy.
[/quote]
Faith has no proof. Either someone believes or they don't.
[/quote]
Faith exists. Proof by identity.


The Parrot Killer
02-12-2019 19:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
... no two people can have "inside jokes." .
you see? You had to move to the minimum for communication to mean anything, two people.

Can the first person have a "definition" different from the second person and employ the word at all?

Do inside jokes belong in the dictionary?

No.

But the real game ITN/IBD play here is to distract with vocabulary debates when nothing prevents a real discussion of the issues.

No, this is what YOU are doing. Inversion fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
Debate killers as always.
Inversion fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
02-12-2019 19:36
keepit
★★★☆☆
(783)
Way too much energy going into semantics here.
People that are in contact can understand the ideas of what is being said without rambling on about semantics, which in this case is just slowing down communication of climate change ideas.
02-12-2019 21:23
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
keepit wrote: Way too much energy going into semantics here.
People that are in contact can understand the ideas of what is being said without rambling on about semantics, which in this case is just slowing down communication of climate change ideas.

Hey keepit, speak up. Dollars-to-donuts says that you personally don't have a clue as to what is being said. Let's clarify this right now.

What is the definition of the global climate that isn't a logical contradiction that you understand from all this?



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
02-12-2019 22:50
keepit
★★★☆☆
(783)
IBDM,
You've gotten your self confused with all these slogans that you've gotten from who knows where,
02-12-2019 23:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
keepit wrote:
Way too much energy going into semantics here.
People that are in contact can understand the ideas of what is being said without rambling on about semantics, which in this case is just slowing down communication of climate change ideas.


Define 'climate change'. You can't communicate about 'climate change' until you can define it!


The Parrot Killer
02-12-2019 23:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
keepit wrote:
IBDM,
You've gotten your self confused with all these slogans that you've gotten from who knows where,


Can't define 'climate change', eh? Guess I'll just have to assume you have no clue and just want to chant meaningless phrases and words.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 02-12-2019 23:05
02-12-2019 23:12
keepit
★★★☆☆
(783)
Assume what you want ITN.
But i'm sure you know better than to assume too much.
03-12-2019 00:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
keepit wrote:
Assume what you want ITN.
But i'm sure you know better than to assume too much.


You have not yet defined 'climate change' or 'global warming'. You seem unwilling to do so. All that's left is your meaningless chants.


The Parrot Killer
03-12-2019 00:44
keepit
★★★☆☆
(783)
ITN,
I'm just guessing but i wouldn't be surprised if half your posts ask the question, "What is climate change?".
03-12-2019 04:27
James___
★★★★☆
(1849)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:

Basic info, there is no Hawaii.
With Hawai'i, sometimes getting the details right matters.

There is no Hawai'i. A type of climate is not a climate 'change'.



Spoken like a 2nd or 3rd grader. keepit doesn't understand that in the 5 years that you and ibdm have been posting, you're saying the same thing today as you did then.
This is like a drug to you and you need your fix.
BTW, identity is not proof of life. For all I know you're unhappy because the world is constantly changing and you got left behind. Kind of why I spend some of my time actually learning something.
That will allow me to create my own opportunities and yet you are still unable to consider what a climate is. For it to have any meaning, you need to learn for yourself or move on to something else in life that you can understand or accept.
03-12-2019 17:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
I'm just guessing but i wouldn't be surprised if half your posts ask the question, "What is climate change?".


Neither would I. So far no one has been able to answer that question. Define 'climate change'.


The Parrot Killer
03-12-2019 20:23
James___
★★★★☆
(1849)
Into the Night wrote:
keepit wrote:
ITN,
I'm just guessing but i wouldn't be surprised if half your posts ask the question, "What is climate change?".


Neither would I. So far no one has been able to answer that question. Define 'climate change'.



What does it mean to you? If it means nothing to you then how can someone define for you that which you don't value? You say identity is proof of life when it is not. Proof of life allows for identity and not vice versa.
If there is nothing you value then your logic is flawed because you wish to define that WHICH YOU FIND WORTHLESS. It's a fool's game that you play.
03-12-2019 23:24
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
The definition of Heat they have IS from textbooks.

WRONG. The definition of heat comes from the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which you deny.
And where would one look that up?

Into the Night wrote:
Climate has no temperature.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/climate?s=t
"The composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years."

Climate change means a change in long therm weather conditions. It's also the topic of this board and clearly understood buy all of us here. The topic is AGW temperature increase on Earth. You are hit over the head with the theory everyday on the news. You're just trying to sabotage the board ITN. All you and IBD have done for 5 years.

Keepit & James: Let's not let them prevent us from talking about other things.
04-12-2019 00:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
The definition of Heat they have IS from textbooks.

WRONG. The definition of heat comes from the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which you deny.
And where would one look that up?
RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Climate has no temperature.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/climate?s=t
"The composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years."
From when to when? Why are those two points in time significant? Why are any other two points in time significant?

There is no average of a composite value.

What is a desert climate, then? It is not describing any temperature, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness or wind speed at all. Yet it's a climate. What is wrong with this dictionary?
tmiddles wrote:
Climate change means a change in long therm weather conditions. It's also the topic of this board and clearly understood buy all of us here.

Define 'long term weather conditions'.
tmiddles wrote:
The topic is AGW temperature increase on Earth.
From when to when? How do you know it's increasing at all? It's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
tmiddles wrote:
You are hit over the head with the theory everyday on the news.
No theory is possible. You cannot have a theory based on an undefined word or phrase. (Internal consistency error)
tmiddles wrote:
You're just trying to sabotage the board ITN. All you and IBD have done for 5 years.

I assure you. I have no access to the code.


The Parrot Killer
04-12-2019 02:08
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
Into the Night wrote:
Define 'long term weather conditions'.

One year or more on Earth.

Define temperature ITN
04-12-2019 02:28
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
Into the Night wrote: What is a desert climate, then?

It's a desert.

Into the Night wrote:It is not describing any temperature, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness or wind speed at all. Yet it's a climate.

Hazelnut, two scoops.

Into the Night wrote:What is wrong with this dictionary?

It's a paperback, dammit! Any respectable dictionary is of a proper hard-cover breed.

tmiddles wrote: Climate change means a change in long therm weather conditions.

What a fugging idiot. What do you say to someone like tmiddles that takes pride in being a moron. He considers it "virtue-signalling" to broadcast how he refuses to learn anything. All I can say is ...

keepit, you are an even bigger fugging moron for trying to outdo tmiddles. You can't know less than zero.

tmiddles wrote: It's also the topic of this board and clearly understood buy all of us here.

This HAS to be a mental condition. You CANNOT stop believing that you speak for the rest of the fugging planet. You don't realize that you have no arguments that aren't based on you fiercely deluding yourself into believing that you control how others think. You believe that the violations of physics that you desperately need to be real can, in fact, become real by you declaring that everyone esle believes thusly.

This is so sad that I'm laughing so hard that I can't breathe. Maybe the Raiders will ask you to play your delusions in their next game against the Jets.

Into the Night wrote:Define 'long term weather conditions'.

Obviously, it's every time the weather doesn't change over a thirty-year period. It occurs frequently underwater, normally off the coast of Belize.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
04-12-2019 04:11
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
IBdaMann wrote:...You don't realize that you have no arguments that aren't based on you fiercely deluding yourself...
Actually I don't have many arguments of my own it's true. Almost none on this topic. I agree with the experts like Max Planck, Pierre Provost, Tyndall and Fourier. You of course know I'm not privy to your and ITN's connect on the street to learn Physics in a oral tradition without book. I believe the 12 references I found proving your corruption on the 2nd LTD is a lie.

So yeah I accept what I've been handed by the scientists respected in their field after looking it over and considering a few counter arguments including your own.

Even my net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference example that stumps you and ITN completely wasn't my work. Lifted it from an introductory college physics textbook.

"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 ever valid for them
04-12-2019 16:44
James___
★★★★☆
(1849)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...You don't realize that you have no arguments that aren't based on you fiercely deluding yourself...
Actually I don't have many arguments of my own it's true. Almost none on this topic. I agree with the experts like Max Planck, Pierre Provost, Tyndall and Fourier. You of course know I'm not privy to your and ITN's connect on the street to learn Physics in a oral tradition without book. I believe the 12 references I found proving your corruption on the 2nd LTD is a lie.

So yeah I accept what I've been handed by the scientists respected in their field after looking it over and considering a few counter arguments including your own.

Even my net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference example that stumps you and ITN completely wasn't my work. Lifted it from an introductory college physics textbook.

"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 ever valid for them



In the example you give, it's incomplete or is wrong. I saw no mention of capillaries reducing blood flow in the skin. Also fat or fatty tissue acts as insulation.
There's also skin itself. Does the skin emissivity change between Asians, Caucasians and Africans?
04-12-2019 16:48
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
tmiddles wrote: Actually I don't have many arguments of my own it's true. Almost none on this topic.

Not true. You have plenty of arguments. You just won't support them, mostly because you don't really believe them.

You came here for the purpose of preaching your religion and of disrupting any discussions that lead to conclusions that run counter to your religious dogma.

Success! You deserve an award.





.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
04-12-2019 17:17
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
IBdaMann wrote:
Success! You deserve an award.
Please up your image game IBD. To call this crap trite would be generous.

And your post has no content at all.

My point, which is important on any subject, is that I am subscribing to the status quo position. I have questioned it but find that it's solid. More importantly this area, science and engineering, is one that bears fruit and is tested on a regular basis.

The argument that experts who are able to successfully do things WITH science and engineering, like get a probe to land on Venus and send back data, are somehow also clueless about it, as you argue, is not any easy case to make. Probably why you make no attempt to do so.
04-12-2019 18:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Define 'long term weather conditions'.

One year or more on Earth.

Define temperature ITN

RQAA. Evasion. Answer the question.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 04-12-2019 18:11
04-12-2019 18:12
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Define 'long term weather conditions'.

One year or more on Earth.

Define temperature ITN

RQAA. Evasion. Answer the question.


I did
One year or more
04-12-2019 18:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...You don't realize that you have no arguments that aren't based on you fiercely deluding yourself...
Actually I don't have many arguments of my own it's true. Almost none on this topic. I agree with the experts like Max Planck, Pierre Provost, Tyndall and Fourier.

Dropping names of people that you deny is not going to work.
tmiddles wrote:
You of course know I'm not privy to your and ITN's connect on the street to learn Physics in a oral tradition without book. I believe the 12 references I found proving your corruption on the 2nd LTD is a lie.

Quoting books out of context is not going to work.
tmiddles wrote:
So yeah I accept what I've been handed by the scientists respected in their field after looking it over and considering a few counter arguments including your own.

No scientist handed you anything. You deny physics. You deny mathematics. You deny logic. You deny philosophy. It is your fundamentalist belief in your religion that has brought you here.


The Parrot Killer
04-12-2019 18:20
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
Into the Night wrote:
Quoting books out of context is not going to work.
when something is misrepresented by excluding the context there's a really easy way to expose that: provide the context

You got nothing
04-12-2019 18:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Success! You deserve an award.
Please up your image game IBD. To call this crap trite would be generous.

And your post has no content at all.

But it does. He gave you an award for your strong faith in your fundamentalist religion.
tmiddles wrote:
My point, which is important on any subject, is that I am subscribing to the status quo position.

No, you are not. You want to:
* destroy the existing energy market and implement an oligarchy replacing it that you control.
* destroy the Constitution of the United States by implementing fascism by oligarchy.
* cause the religion of the Church of Global Warming to become the State religion.
* throw any unbelievers into prison.
* invent and implement some type of terraforming device.
* ban a naturally occurring gas in the atmosphere in the name of your religion.
* sacrifice the economy and industry in the name of your religion.

Hardly the status quo.

tmiddles wrote:
I have questioned it but find that it's solid.

Denying theories of science isn't solid. Denying mathematics isn't solid. Denying logic isn't solid. Denying philosophy isn't solid.

You have built your religion on a sandbar and the sea around you is rising.
tmiddles wrote:
More importantly this area, science and engineering, is one that bears fruit and is tested on a regular basis.

Then why do you deny them?
tmiddles wrote:
The argument that experts

Define 'experts'.
tmiddles wrote:
who are able to successfully do things WITH science and engineering, like get a probe to land on Venus and send back data,

A single thermometer is not the temperature of Venus.
tmiddles wrote:
are somehow also clueless about it, as you argue, is not any easy case to make.

Inversion fallacy. You are reading more into data than is there.


The Parrot Killer
04-12-2019 18:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Quoting books out of context is not going to work.
when something is misrepresented by excluding the context there's a really easy way to expose that: provide the context

You got nothing

RQAA


The Parrot Killer
04-12-2019 18:44
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
The argument that experts

Define 'experts'.
tmiddles wrote:
who are able to successfully do things WITH science and engineering, like get a probe to land on Venus and send back data,


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Korolev

You also argue the temperature of Denver is unknowable. Good luck with that.
04-12-2019 18:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
The argument that experts

Define 'experts'.
tmiddles wrote:
who are able to successfully do things WITH science and engineering, like get a probe to land on Venus and send back data,


...deleted useless Wikipedia reference...

You also argue the temperature of Denver is unknowable.

That is correct.
tmiddles wrote:
Good luck with that.

Don't need luck. Just need the math. Math that YOU deny.


The Parrot Killer
04-12-2019 20:09
keepit
★★★☆☆
(783)
You deny common sense ITN. There is no "Church of Global Warming". It's only in your mind as are many of the things you post on this website.
04-12-2019 21:38
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
tmiddles wrote: My point, which is important on any subject, is that I am subscribing to the status quo position.

Nope. You don't get to define your WACKY religion as the "status quo" any more than you get to speak for everyone else on the planet.

tmiddles wrote: I have questioned it but find that it's solid.

Nope. You don't question a thing about the religion you preach. If you were to question then the physics violations would fundamentally shake your faith. Instead, you find that not questioning anything allows you to maintain your delusion that it is solid.


tmiddles wrote: More importantly this area, science and engineering, is one that bears fruit and is tested on a regular basis.

The fruit is born with the engineering and that fruit is technology. Science comprises the tools used by the engineers.

tmiddles wrote: The argument that experts who are able to successfully do things WITH science and engineering, like get a probe to land on Venus and send back data, are somehow also clueless about it, as you argue, is not any easy case to make.

So this is today's bogus position that you are assigning me.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
04-12-2019 21:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
keepit wrote:
You deny common sense ITN.

Define 'common sense'.
keepit wrote:
There is no "Church of Global Warming".

There certainly is. It is a religion. I named it. It exists.
keepit wrote:
It's only in your mind as are many of the things you post on this website.

Of course they are. No one else posts for me.

A religion is nothing more than some initial circular argument with arguments extending from it. The other name for the circular argument is 'faith'.

The Church of Global Warming is no exception. The initial circular argument of the Church of Global Warming is that the Earth is warming. All other arguments made by the Church of Global Warming stem from that initial circular argument.

The Church of Global Warming is a fundamentalist style religion. Its members try to prove a circular argument, resulting in a circular argument fallacy. That's what any fundamentalist does.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 04-12-2019 21:47
04-12-2019 22:00
keepit
★★★☆☆
(783)
The thing is, a legitimate Church has the backing of God as a Church.
Your comment about posts being in your mind ignored the fact that some are ONLY in your mind. We all know that your posts are in your mind. The problem is that some of them are only in your mind.
Edited on 04-12-2019 22:01
04-12-2019 22:14
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: More importantly this area, science and engineering, is one that bears fruit and is tested on a regular basis.

The fruit is born with the engineering and that fruit is technology. Science comprises the tools used by the engineers.
tmiddles wrote: The argument that experts who are able to successfully do things WITH science and engineering, like get a probe to land on Venus and send back data, are somehow also clueless about it, as you argue, is not any easy case to make.

So this is today's bogus position that you are assigning me.
Among your many dismissals of the scientific achievements of others you have claimed that the scientists behind the russian Venera probe were dishonest and incompetent:
tmiddles wrote:
We got a total of 580 min (24 earth days) on the surface of Venus, spanning 7 missions over a 13 year period.

117 days to reach Venus
1970
Venera 7 lasted 23 minutes on th surface
1972
Venera 8 50 minutes, 11 seconds
1975
Venera 9 53 minutes
1975
Venera 10 65 minutes
1978
Venera 11 95 minutes
1978
Venera 12 110 minutes
1982
Venera 13 127 minutes
1983
Venera 14 The lander functioned for at least 57 minutes (the planned design life was 32 minutes) in an environment with a temperature of 465 °C (869 °F) and a pressure of 94 Earth atmospheres (9.5 MPa).
1985
Venera 15, 16 1985 not landing

The descent through the cloud layer took about 20 minutes, during which time the lander took measurements of the atmosphere and radioed the information to the orbiter[7]

... It makes Hoffman's argument very compelling.
IBD response:
IBdaMann wrote:
You would need a valid dataset for that.

Oooops, neither you nor Hoffman have any.

As well as:
IBdaMann wrote:
We can assume that both the temperature and pressure on Venus where the probe landed was pretty high. We don't know how high and we don't know how the specific temperature and pressure at that moment threw off the temperature reading, i.e.

Unknown Temperature +/ Unknow Error. Hmmm. Wait! This measurement is a random value. We don't what we're getting.
.
You baselessly slander great work because it suits you to pretend we learned nothing about Venus.

Guilty as charged.
Edited on 04-12-2019 23:00
04-12-2019 22:15
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
keepit wrote: You deny common sense ITN.

You deny common sense keepit.

keepit wrote: There is no "Church of Global Warming".

You think that by telling yourself this until you actually believe it will make it true. Unfortunately your faith in the Global Warming religion is preventing you from being a Christian. You are a heretic. I wish you luck with that.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
Page 4 of 5<<<2345>





Join the debate Clouds are warming Earth, not (so much) GHGs:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Experts reveal that clouds have moderated warming triggered by climate change1006-11-2019 23:54
High CO2 levels can destabilize marine layer clouds106-03-2019 22:01
High carbon dioxide could suppress cooling clouds, climate change model warns127-02-2019 20:54
Clouds and temperature3601-02-2018 20:48
Clouds and nocturnal cooling2801-05-2017 01:23
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


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