Remember me
▼ Content

CO2 increase



Page 2 of 3<123>
11-08-2019 08:31
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:If it can't be measured to within a useful margin of error


See that's something that can be addressed.

Not without sufficient instrumentation, and data gathered in a manner that does not introduce bias.
tmiddles wrote:
You are saying that no useful action can be taken because we don't have enough or reliable enough information/knowledge about the subject correct?

About the temperature of the Earth, correct.
tmiddles wrote:
So OK I'll pick something:

Now you will attempt to shift the goalposts to something unrelated.
tmiddles wrote:
Vaccinations to prevent disease. A long saga to this point of scientific and technological achievements that includes government mandates and considerable cost with lives at stake.

Try again. Science is not technology. Data is not science. Science is not data. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's all it is.

Vaccinations are based on a known system of your body reacting to a weakened sample of a virus. It is a method of teaching your immune system to handle the real thing if you are exposed to it. This was developed as a theory of science. So far, it has not been falsified.
tmiddles wrote:
Would you agree that represents some really valuable work? Do you take issue with it? Doubtless the steps along the way were fraught with doubt and that even today there are those who allege conspiracy and prevent their children from being vaccinated.

Introducing morals does not change a single thing. Attempting to introduce morals in this way is a fallacy. It is a special type of strawman fallacy known as a moralistic fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 11-08-2019 08:33
11-08-2019 10:24
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
Into the Night wrote:
I already did. See the Data Mine thread.


I did look at this some yes. I sort of expected someone to present information from it at some point like "This is a valid data set". I don't personally agree there is a need to verify everything I find on google.

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
So OK I'll pick something:

Now you will attempt to shift the goalposts to something unrelated.


No I'm genuinely trying to understand your perspective. Vaccinations have a lot in common with environmental government policy and public understanding.

If you don't want to address it I can't make you.

Into the Night wrote:
Try again. Science is not technology. Data is not science. Science is not data. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's all it is.


I'm calling it vaccinations and the work that made this new age of low disease rates possible. You can call whatever you want science but please address how that work was done well or not so I can contrast it with your critique of environmental work.

Into the Night wrote:
Vaccinations ... developed as a theory of science. So far, it has not been falsified.


So if vaccinations are a theory of science does that make that work different than the work on global warming? Is global warming a theory of science?

Into the Night wrote:
Introducing morals does not change a single thing.


No I wasn't introducing morals but productivity. It "Worked" it was "Valuable". There is no "It worked and it's valuable" fallacy because that's the point of doing work in the first place.

That would be like saying someones indie 500 strategy suffered from a "they won the race" fallacy.

It's why we do this stuff! To get some results.
11-08-2019 16:12
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
tmiddles wrote: I don't personally agree there is a need to verify everything I find on google.

Of course not. If it supports an opinion that was handed to you, why would you want to risk learning that you are being manipulated?

tmiddles wrote:I'm calling it vaccinations and the work that made this new age of low disease rates possible. You can call whatever you want science but please address how that work was done well or not so I can contrast it with your critique of environmental work.

Vaccinations appear to work as intended, but in rare cases there are detrimental, even fatal, unintended side effects. If "vaccinations" are a falsifiable theory then it did not survive the scientific method.

Vaccinations are not science and a rational person is justified in preferring to avoid them.

The anticipated value in vaccinations is the payoff from the relatively low-risk gamble of receiving the vaccination.


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
11-08-2019 18:35
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
I already did. See the Data Mine thread.


I did look at this some yes. I sort of expected someone to present information from it at some point like "This is a valid data set".

I already did that. See the 1st two articles in The Data Mine thread. There I describe what I consider a valid data set. YOU cannot force me to accept any other data set. These are my standards. I have listed them here.
tmiddles wrote:
I don't personally agree there is a need to verify everything I find on google.

Then you have openly declared you will believe any crap you find on the internet.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
So OK I'll pick something:

Now you will attempt to shift the goalposts to something unrelated.


No I'm genuinely trying to understand your perspective. Vaccinations have a lot in common with environmental government policy and public understanding.

None.
tmiddles wrote:
If you don't want to address it I can't make you.

I already have addressed it. See the Data Mine thread.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Try again. Science is not technology. Data is not science. Science is not data. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's all it is.


I'm calling it vaccinations and the work that made this new age of low disease rates possible. You can call whatever you want science but please address how that work was done well or not so I can contrast it with your critique of environmental work.

I already did. Pay attention.

tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Vaccinations ... developed as a theory of science. So far, it has not been falsified.


So if vaccinations are a theory of science does that make that work different than the work on global warming? Is global warming a theory of science?

Define 'global warming'. You can't have any argument or theory based on a void argument fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Introducing morals does not change a single thing.


No I wasn't introducing morals but productivity.

Lie. You were introducing morals. Moralistic fallacy.

tmiddles wrote:
It "Worked" it was "Valuable".

What worked? Vaccinations? Some of them don't work, or if they do work, it's only for a limited time. 'valuable' has no meaning here. You are AGAIN trying to impose morals.
tmiddles wrote:
There is no "It worked and it's valuable" fallacy because that's the point of doing work in the first place.

No, it isn't. A theory of science isn't 'work'. It isn't technology. It's only purpose is to explain something. That's what a theory is. It's an explanatory argument. In science, the theory must be falsifiable.

tmiddles wrote:
That would be like saying someones indie 500 strategy suffered from a "they won the race" fallacy.

No science here. False equivalence fallacy.

tmiddles wrote:
It's why we do this stuff! To get some results.

No. Science explains. It doesn't 'do' anything.
You are AGAIN conflating science with engineering.


The Parrot Killer
11-08-2019 18:37
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1012)
Vaccines are a pretty good analogy. They don't eliminate the virus, it'll still be around. We are lead to believe that once everyone gets the vaccine, the virus will be gone forever. While getting everybody vaccinated, does reduce the potential for the disease to spread, and it'll survive in a much smaller area, it's still there. Just because your immune system can prevent your getting sick from the virus, doesn't mean you aren't infected, or spreading it. Just means the virus can't get established in your body. Vaccines aren't always effective, getting one, gives a false sense of security. Some people get a little sloppy, thinking they are safe and protected. Vaccines are created by people, people make mistakes. It's not generally the virus itself that cause death, or the unpleasant symptoms, but your own bodies immune response that does much of the damage. Vaccines provoke an immune response, hopefully on a small enough scale to be safe, and not to unpleasant. Not everyone's body reacts the exact same way. I don't think the CDC tells the entirely accurate truth, they want to encourage everyone to get vaccinated, since it will greatly control the spread of many diseases, which are almost always deadly for the very young, and the elderly.

Climate change on the other hand, isn't proven to even be a disease that can be controlled. There is obviously a whole lot of other things going on, besides man-made CO2. The IPCC assessment reports go into great lengths about how all the other 'greenhouse' gas and vapors do the same and similar, just that man-made CO2 enhances the effect, somehow. Basically, removing one greenhouse gas, isn't going to prevent the others from continuing to do the same thing they try to scare us with. They imply that removing CO2, will make us safe, and we will never have to worry about warming ever again. We, and all life, depend on CO2, that carbon is essential to all life, and gets into our bodies no other way. Reducing, eliminating CO2 on a grand scale, quickly, is quite likely to have a greater impact on life, than one or two degree increase, over a century or more. It's really not something to just 'try', and see how it works. Well, we won't actually be around to see anything, it'll be other people's problems. Guess they can just burn a whole lot of stuff, pollute the air, like we did, to get the planet back on track...
12-08-2019 01:59
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
Into the Night wrote:
Then you have openly declared you will believe any crap you find on the internet.


You have to be pragmatic about what you dig into to verify unless your goal is to sabotage any progress at all. As I suspect yours is.

tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]tmiddles wrote:
No I'm genuinely trying to understand your perspective.

None.


Your perspective is "none". That literally says nothing.

Into the Night wrote:
Define 'global warming'.


An increase in the average global temperature due to greenhouse gases produced by human activity.

Into the Night wrote:
What worked? Vaccinations? Some of them don't work, or if they do work, it's only for a limited time. 'valuable' has no meaning here. You are AGAIN trying to impose morals.


No I'm imposing pragmatism. The "why should I care" standard of pretty much all human effort of any kind. You can opt out of being relevant to pragmatic decision making but that's what this issue is all about right now.

And you can go wrap yourself in thinking my goal in life is to only talk about what you define as "Science". I don't care at all. I want prosperity, good health, a long future for me and all of humanity. So vaccinations are good example of something I'm all for.

Into the Night wrote:
No. Science explains. It doesn't 'do' anything.
You are AGAIN conflating science with engineering.


I'm not talking about the ITN definition of Science! I'm talking about "GOOD" "USEFUL" human endeavors.

I could sit here all day and critique every one of your posts and say it's not a chocolate chip cookie, because those have chocolate bits and your posts don't.

I was trying to ask you what you considered to be worthwhile planning and effort on the part of humanity.
12-08-2019 02:00
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
IBdaMann wrote:
Vaccinations are not science and a rational person is justified in preferring to avoid them.


OK that's a consistent perspective. The world has been improved dramatically with the use of vaccines and the health of people everywhere has been elevated a great deal. I think it's fair most people consider this type of program to be a no brainer. It imposes itself on personal liberties with the authority of the government, the "Science" is not unquestionable, and it doesn't always work. All that said it paid of big and there are a lot of people alive today thanks to it.

Same rational is being applied to the global warming movement.
12-08-2019 02:09
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
HarveyH55 wrote: They imply that removing CO2, will make us safe, and we will never have to worry about warming ever again. ...It's really not something to just 'try', and see how it works.


Yes I think this type of analysis is more useful.

How can you solve a problem and evaluate the effectiveness if you don't actually have the problem yet?

A vaccine for cooties would be an easy way to make some money.

People were dying in large numbers from Measles , Polio, Small pox. Then we vaccinated and now people don't die from that stuff. That's a win!

Problem is that the "damage" from global warming is a theoretical future event.

Anyway I think it has to be evaluated in the same way as vaccinations. You can't dismiss the topic because you don't know everything.

Also keep in mind that with vaccinations you take someone who's not sick, then they don't get sick, and you say you did a great thing. But most people didn't get sick, only some did. So vaccinations had to be first trusted based on the arguments made for them and then implemented, at considerable risk, to have the effectiveness and value proven.

Had this been the Disease-Debate.com board I'm sure the pro vaccine debaters would be told that it's not science and they should give up now.
12-08-2019 02:29
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
tmiddles wrote:OK that's a consistent perspective. The world has been improved dramatically with the use of vaccines and the health of people everywhere has been elevated a great deal.

... and some have died. Some have been made very ill.

Vaccines are a consumer product. Consumer products generally exist to make our lives better. Of course, consumer products are used by choice. Each person selects what products he or she wants and ignores the ones that are not wanted.

I, for one, get every vaccination I can get. Without going into specifics, one day I got juiced with typhoid, yellow fever, hepatitis B and anthrax vaccines at the same time. I get the flu shot every year. I made sure my children got every pediatrician-recommended vaccination. I cannot for the life of me, however, convince my wife to get any vaccines whatsoever. She missed a couple days of work last year because she got the flu after refusing to get her vaccination.

Oh well.

Of course I also know some people who got terribly sick, and missed days of work, from vaccinations they had received. Oh well. I tell myself that those numbers are heavily outweighed by those who shirk sickness by getting vaccinated. Ultimately it comes down to choice and willingness to take a gamble.

tmiddles wrote: I think it's fair most people consider this type of program to be a no brainer.

So you acknowledge that some people consider it an unacceptable gamble ... or in some cases, a religious violation.

tmiddles wrote: It imposes itself on personal liberties with the authority of the government,

Whoa, hold your horses there. Who said anything about government mandated vaccines? No way, José! Should your housekeeper be able to mandate that you get vaccines? Should your accountant? ... your waiter? Should anyone that is supposed to serve you be able to mandate that you receive vaccines?

I don't think you and I on the same page of reality here.

tmiddles wrote: the "Science" is not unquestionable, and it doesn't always work. All that said it paid of big and there are a lot of people alive today thanks to it.

Involuntary vaccines are a violation of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.


tmiddles wrote: Same rational is being applied to the global warming movement.

Global Warming is a religion. Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of any 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
12-08-2019 02:52
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1012)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote: They imply that removing CO2, will make us safe, and we will never have to worry about warming ever again. ...It's really not something to just 'try', and see how it works.


Yes I think this type of analysis is more useful.

How can you solve a problem and evaluate the effectiveness if you don't actually have the problem yet?

A vaccine for cooties would be an easy way to make some money.

People were dying in large numbers from Measles , Polio, Small pox. Then we vaccinated and now people don't die from that stuff. That's a win!

Problem is that the "damage" from global warming is a theoretical future event.

Anyway I think it has to be evaluated in the same way as vaccinations. You can't dismiss the topic because you don't know everything.

Also keep in mind that with vaccinations you take someone who's not sick, then they don't get sick, and you say you did a great thing. But most people didn't get sick, only some did. So vaccinations had to be first trusted based on the arguments made for them and then implemented, at considerable risk, to have the effectiveness and value proven.

Had this been the Disease-Debate.com board I'm sure the pro vaccine debaters would be told that it's not science and they should give up now.


Measles is still floating around quite a bit, polio still seeing a few cases. Not sure about small pox though. The thing with these diseases, is that it wasn't just the vaccine. We also gain faster ways to diagnose an treat them, better hygiene and sanitation. We figured how they are transmitted, and fix a lot of that too. I don't think they are quite as critical in stopping the spread as they once were. Still a good idea for small children, since they are still developing, and may not be strong enough, if they do catch something. Shouldn't be mandatory anymore, just a good idea to get it done.

Climate change only works on paper, a computer simulation, but none of the warning signs have actually happened. Ice melts in the summer, some year more than others. It's been happening since we've been watching. Winter comes, ice returns, sometimes more, sometimes less. Nothing unusual about it. Should have been pretty much all gone by now, from the early predictions. Temperature and see levels can't actually be measured on a global scale, averages are pretty much meaningless, if you can accurately, and consistently measure something. Pretty sure it's going to fizzle eventually, not a lot of interest in actually doing anything. People need something tangible, before they are willing to act. It's just not living up to all the hype.
12-08-2019 03:12
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
tmiddles wrote:How can you solve a problem and evaluate the effectiveness if you don't actually have the problem yet?

... and how can you ever have a problem when nothing is ever defined?

tmiddles wrote: Problem is that the "damage" from global warming is a theoretical future event.

... and it's by no means the first time we've heard WACKY incoherent religious babblings of the end of the world and of general doom and gloom.

tmiddles wrote:Anyway I think it has to be evaluated in the same way as vaccinations.

The typical way to deal with WACKY religious babblings of the end of the world is to just let the end of the world not occur. Of course those of that religious cult, and that would be the warmizombies in this case, will scurry about in complete panic mode until they get their rude awakening, but that doesn't mean we have to.

tmiddles wrote: So vaccinations had to be first trusted based on the arguments made for them and then implemented, at considerable risk, to have the effectiveness and value proven.

Right, so we need to let "doomsday" come and go without incident to build up confidence that Global Warming is nothing but a Marxist religion used as an opiate of the masses.


.


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
12-08-2019 03:47
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
IBdaMann wrote:
Vaccines are a consumer product... Each person selects


Vaccines were and are legally mandated when it's considered crtical.

Mandatory immunization policies on BCG, diphtheria, tetanus, and poliomyelitis began in the 1950s and policies on Hepatitis B began in 1991.

That's why I think this is a good topic to compare/contrast with global warming policies laws and taxes.

IBdaMann wrote:
So you acknowledge that some people consider it an unacceptable gamble


Yes! Again that's why it's a good example. And many of them were and are forced to have them.

IBdaMann wrote:Who said anything about government mandated vaccines?


See above. I remember when I went to teach school I had to get vaccinated again. Just recently they've introduced requirements for school childen in the wake of the "anti-vaxer" movement (vaccine deniers).

IBdaMann wrote:
Involuntary vaccines are a violation of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.


OK
Well : ) welcome to the imperfect world we share.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Same rational is being applied to the global warming movement.

Global Warming is a religion.


Comparing and contrasting the useful to the useless I think is more clear and productive than comparing to ideals, platitudes and concepts.

Being able to show successful, disastrous and other policies our governments have had in the past and present could clear up what's wrong with global warming policy most effectively.

IBdaMann wrote:
... and how can you ever have a problem when nothing is ever defined?


The Earth has an average temperature. True it's difficult to measure but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. "Global Warming" means that temperature goes up because, as the theory goes, an increase in CO2 due to human activity causes it.

I can define this for you every time if you'd like.

IBdaMann wrote:
The typical way to deal with WACKY religious babblings of the end of the world is to just let the end of the world not occur.....Right, so we need to let "doomsday" come and go without incident to build up confidence that Global Warming is nothing but a Marxist religion used as an opiate of the masses.


Ah but here's a problem. Deliberate or not the global warming hysteria surrounds events that will occur long after we're dead. It's much easier to debunk the end of the world in 2012 with pretty much any argument in 2013.
12-08-2019 03:52
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Climate change ...none of the warning signs have actually happened.


Yes the "SIGNS" so far are cherry picked. I only discovered last night that all of the major heat waves in the US were in the 1930s and we didn't get back to years that hot until 1998 going by same records that are being used to claim a temperature increase. (which I would agree are unreliable). The problem they have is that you see the same level of temperature increase by their own graphs in the period of time before "Global Warming" was supposed to occur with no explanation for it.

Compare that to vaccinations. Lots of polio to almost no polio : )
12-08-2019 18:16
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Then you have openly declared you will believe any crap you find on the internet.


You have to be pragmatic about what you dig into to verify unless your goal is to sabotage any progress at all. As I suspect yours is.

tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]tmiddles wrote:
No I'm genuinely trying to understand your perspective.

None.


Your perspective is "none". That literally says nothing.

No, it says there is no relation.


tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Define 'global warming'.


An increase in the average global temperature due to greenhouse gases produced by human activity.

Circular definition. Try again. You can't define 'global warming' with 'global warming'.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
What worked? Vaccinations? Some of them don't work, or if they do work, it's only for a limited time. 'valuable' has no meaning here. You are AGAIN trying to impose morals.


No I'm imposing pragmatism. The "why should I care" standard of pretty much all human effort of any kind. You can opt out of being relevant to pragmatic decision making but that's what this issue is all about right now.
Moralistic fallacy.

tmiddles wrote:
And you can go wrap yourself in thinking my goal in life is to only talk about what you define as "Science".

I'm certainly not going to go with how tmiddles defines 'science'!

I didn't define it. Philosophy defines science. It defines religion too. It also defines words like 'reality' and 'real'.

Science does not use supporting evidence of any kind. Only religions do that. Science only uses conflicting evidence. Science is nothing more than a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all. It is not some piece of data someone grabs off the Internet. It is not data at all. Data is the result of an observation, subject to the problems of phenomenology. You seem to have completely discarded the conversation we've already had, and to things you have already agreed to.

tmiddles wrote:
I don't care at all.

Obviously. Your religion prevents you. You deny philosophy. You deny science. You deny mathematics.

tmiddles wrote:
I want prosperity, good health, a long future for me and all of humanity.

Most people do. So?

tmiddles wrote:
So vaccinations are good example of something I'm all for.

The one that work are great. Not all of them work, and some of them are dangerous.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
No. Science explains. It doesn't 'do' anything.
You are AGAIN conflating science with engineering.


I'm not talking about the ITN definition of Science!

I didn't define it. I won't talk about the tmiddles definition of science either.
tmiddles wrote:
I'm talking about "GOOD" "USEFUL" human endeavors.

Not part of science, data, math, or anything else. Simply your emotions being declared here.
tmiddles wrote:
I could sit here all day and critique every one of your posts and say it's not a chocolate chip cookie, because those have chocolate bits and your posts don't.

To what point?
tmiddles wrote:
I was trying to ask you what you considered to be worthwhile planning and effort on the part of humanity.

None.

Central planning is totalitarian. I will not support it.
The best way for people to prosper is for each individual to contribute as they will in a capitalist system. Not all contribute equally. Not all need to. Those that contribute more will get richer. Those that don't will remain poor.


The Parrot Killer
12-08-2019 18:17
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Vaccinations are not science and a rational person is justified in preferring to avoid them.


OK that's a consistent perspective. The world has been improved dramatically with the use of vaccines and the health of people everywhere has been elevated a great deal. I think it's fair most people consider this type of program to be a no brainer. It imposes itself on personal liberties with the authority of the government, the "Science" is not unquestionable, and it doesn't always work. All that said it paid of big and there are a lot of people alive today thanks to it.

Same rational is being applied to the global warming movement.


Define 'global warming'.


The Parrot Killer
12-08-2019 18:18
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
HarveyH55 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote: They imply that removing CO2, will make us safe, and we will never have to worry about warming ever again. ...It's really not something to just 'try', and see how it works.


Yes I think this type of analysis is more useful.

How can you solve a problem and evaluate the effectiveness if you don't actually have the problem yet?

A vaccine for cooties would be an easy way to make some money.

People were dying in large numbers from Measles , Polio, Small pox. Then we vaccinated and now people don't die from that stuff. That's a win!

Problem is that the "damage" from global warming is a theoretical future event.

Anyway I think it has to be evaluated in the same way as vaccinations. You can't dismiss the topic because you don't know everything.

Also keep in mind that with vaccinations you take someone who's not sick, then they don't get sick, and you say you did a great thing. But most people didn't get sick, only some did. So vaccinations had to be first trusted based on the arguments made for them and then implemented, at considerable risk, to have the effectiveness and value proven.

Had this been the Disease-Debate.com board I'm sure the pro vaccine debaters would be told that it's not science and they should give up now.


Measles is still floating around quite a bit, polio still seeing a few cases. Not sure about small pox though. The thing with these diseases, is that it wasn't just the vaccine. We also gain faster ways to diagnose an treat them, better hygiene and sanitation. We figured how they are transmitted, and fix a lot of that too. I don't think they are quite as critical in stopping the spread as they once were. Still a good idea for small children, since they are still developing, and may not be strong enough, if they do catch something. Shouldn't be mandatory anymore, just a good idea to get it done.

Climate change only works on paper, a computer simulation, but none of the warning signs have actually happened. Ice melts in the summer, some year more than others. It's been happening since we've been watching. Winter comes, ice returns, sometimes more, sometimes less. Nothing unusual about it. Should have been pretty much all gone by now, from the early predictions. Temperature and see levels can't actually be measured on a global scale, averages are pretty much meaningless, if you can accurately, and consistently measure something. Pretty sure it's going to fizzle eventually, not a lot of interest in actually doing anything. People need something tangible, before they are willing to act. It's just not living up to all the hype.


Climate change doesn't even work on paper. You have to define it first.


The Parrot Killer
12-08-2019 18:20
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Climate change ...none of the warning signs have actually happened.


Yes the "SIGNS" so far are cherry picked. I only discovered last night that all of the major heat waves in the US were in the 1930s and we didn't get back to years that hot until 1998 going by same records that are being used to claim a temperature increase. (which I would agree are unreliable). The problem they have is that you see the same level of temperature increase by their own graphs in the period of time before "Global Warming" was supposed to occur with no explanation for it.

Compare that to vaccinations. Lots of polio to almost no polio : )

False equivalence fallacy. Vaccinations have nothing to do with the undefined phrase 'global warming'.


The Parrot Killer
13-08-2019 14:36
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:I'm genuinely trying to understand your perspective. ...
Your perspective is "none". That literally says nothing.

No, it says there is no relation.


You see no commonality between government acceptance of vaccines as useful and the forced vaccination of the populace and governments acceptance of global warming and forced policies on the populace?

The idea is to actually have some insight into what is going right or wrong with a historical reference.


Into the Night wrote:
Circular definition. Try again. You can't define 'global warming' with 'global warming'.


The average temperature of the Earth increasing due to greenhouse gas emissions caused by human activity.

Into the Night wrote:Moralistic fallacy.


Every question is not "Is this science"?
Public policy has to make due with what it's got to work with.

So supporting evidence matters. Not always but often. If you'd like to make an argument for supporting evidence never being of value anywhere ever I'd love to hear it.

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
So vaccinations are good example of something I'm all for.

The one that work are great. Not all of them work, and some of them are dangerous.


OK,what you just said there! Wasn't that based on your own empirical knowledge of the track record of vaccines in use?

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
I could sit here all day and critique every one of your posts and say it's not a chocolate chip cookie...

To what point?


Well I was being silly but my point is that there is more to ask than "is this science".

Into the Night wrote:
Central planning is totalitarian. I will not support it.


So you'd not support mandatory vaccines which is consistent with everything you've said? I wouldn't call that a bias but more accurately a world view/belief/philosophy. It would certainly enter in to your take on what a government's roll should be in dealing with an environmental issue if you legitimately thought there was one.
13-08-2019 14:38
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
Into the Night wrote:

Define 'global warming'.


The average temperature of the Earth increasing due to greenhouse gas emissions caused by human activity.
13-08-2019 15:04
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
tmiddles wrote:The average temperature of the Earth increasing due to greenhouse gas emissions caused by human activity.

So this "definition" is a word problem whose correct answer is "violation of physics."

You have temperature increasing without additional energy. Temperature cannot increase without additional energy.

8th grade level.


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
13-08-2019 18:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:I'm genuinely trying to understand your perspective. ...
Your perspective is "none". That literally says nothing.

No, it says there is no relation.


You see no commonality between government acceptance of vaccines as useful and the forced vaccination of the populace and governments acceptance of global warming and forced policies on the populace?

Contextomy fallacy. You have forgotten the context of what you were saying.

Since you have decided to shift the context to this question, I will answer it. Remember this answer has nothing to do with your previous conversation.

There is a one commonality. That is a dictatorship or oligarchy.

tmiddles wrote:
The idea is to actually have some insight into what is going right or wrong with a historical reference.

Dictatorships and oligarchies have been with us for as long as history records. I will not support them.
tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Circular definition. Try again. You can't define 'global warming' with 'global warming'.


The average temperature of the Earth increasing due to greenhouse gas emissions caused by human activity.

Circular definition. Try again. You can't define 'global warming' with 'global warming'.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Moralistic fallacy.


Every question is not "Is this science"?

Who said it was?
tmiddles wrote:
Public policy has to make due with what it's got to work with.

Public policy is just another word for government policy. You are trying to justify oligarchy. No way, dude. No how.
tmiddles wrote:
So supporting evidence matters.

Not in science. Not one whit.
tmiddles wrote:
Not always but often.

Never in science. The only place supporting evidence is used is in religions.
tmiddles wrote:
If you'd like to make an argument for supporting evidence never being of value anywhere ever I'd love to hear it.

I have already made it. You even agreed to it. Have you forgotten already?

Again, mountains of supporting evidence mean absolutely nothing in the face of a single piece of conflicting evidence in science.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
So vaccinations are good example of something I'm all for.

The one that work are great. Not all of them work, and some of them are dangerous.


OK,what you just said there! Wasn't that based on your own empirical knowledge of the track record of vaccines in use?

The theory of vaccination is still science and still has not been falsified. That theory states that such vaccines work by giving the immune system of the body a way to learn an unfamiliar virus. It doesn't work in all cases, but it does work when it does. Some viruses are too destructive, even in their weakened form, to be used as such. Such vaccinations are dangerous or even lethal. Nothing has disproved the theory itself though. It is still science.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
I could sit here all day and critique every one of your posts and say it's not a chocolate chip cookie...

To what point?


Well I was being silly but my point is that there is more to ask than "is this science".

Bringing up other subjects and substituting them as 'science' is not science either.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Central planning is totalitarian. I will not support it.


So you'd not support mandatory vaccines which is consistent with everything you've said?

No. I do not support oligarchies or dictatorships.
tmiddles wrote:
I wouldn't call that a bias but more accurately a world view/belief/philosophy.

Fine. That's what it is. I support republics as a form of government. No government should exceed the powers given to it by a constitution.
tmiddles wrote:
It would certainly enter in to your take on what a government's roll should be in dealing with an environmental issue if you legitimately thought there was one.

There is no power given to the federal government over 'environment'.


The Parrot Killer
13-08-2019 18:45
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Define 'global warming'.


The average temperature of the Earth increasing due to greenhouse gas emissions caused by human activity.


Circular definition. Try again. You cannot define a word with itself.


The Parrot Killer
13-08-2019 19:16
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
tmiddles wrote:If you'd like to make an argument for supporting evidence never being of value anywhere ever I'd love to hear it.


Corroborating/Supporting data is not used in science because ... we have the science.

Here's an example: Stefan-Boltzmann

Radiance = Absolute_Temperature^4 * Emissivity * Boltzmann

There's no data in there anywhere. No one is out there collecting data on every time nature adheres to Stefan-Boltzmann because it always seems to adhere to it.

If you measure the radiance of a black body of known temperature and known emissivity, and you find that it turns out to be what Stefan-Boltzmann predicted, your supporting data is not useful to anyone because we all already have Stefan-Boltzmann. Now contradicting evidence, well, that would be worth a gold mine.

Supporting evidence is needed by religions to continually reaffirm the faith to the Congregation and to revalidate worshipers' personal investment, e.g. claiming a prophesy has come true, claiming some place on earth just had the hottest temperature of "the instrument record," etc...


.


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
13-08-2019 20:04
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1012)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Climate change ...none of the warning signs have actually happened.


Yes the "SIGNS" so far are cherry picked. I only discovered last night that all of the major heat waves in the US were in the 1930s and we didn't get back to years that hot until 1998 going by same records that are being used to claim a temperature increase. (which I would agree are unreliable). The problem they have is that you see the same level of temperature increase by their own graphs in the period of time before "Global Warming" was supposed to occur with no explanation for it.

Compare that to vaccinations. Lots of polio to almost no polio : )


We've been have heat waves more often than that, not always in the United Stated. Had one in the 70s where live, that my father eventfully broke down and bought an air conditioner, just a window unit. Th asphalt road surface melted in places. World didn't end, summer kind of sucked though.

Vaccines aren't a cure. Some viruses are fast, like the cold and the flu, some take years to cripple and kill, but if caught and treated early, full recovery is possible. Isolated cases don't generally get much attention, probably to avoid mass panic. Depends on how they are transmitted, threat of spreading. Vaccines are just part of not getting ill. Next time you get a vaccination, read the literature carefully. There are an 'acceptable' number of people who will have a violent reaction to the vaccine, maybe need medical care, and they tell you what to look for. There are also an acceptable number of fatalities, which is rare, but a risk. There are also possible side-effects, if you have existing conditions, or a recent illness. Your chances are about as good, to win the lottery, as to be one of the unfortunate few. They say you can't win, if you don't play. The vaccine lottery, well, most everyone is a winner, chances are very good. Still ought to be optional these days, since you can never know, until you take that chance, no refunds after they spin the wheel.
13-08-2019 23:40
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
Into the Night wrote:
You cannot define a word with itself.


Did you need a definition of "warming"?

I could tell you that "________ warming" means that the temperature of something increases.
14-08-2019 06:45
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You cannot define a word with itself.


Did you need a definition of "warming"?

I could tell you that "________ warming" means that the temperature of something increases.


... or that its state changes,

... or that it feels loved,

... or that it becomes amenable to an idea

.. or that it becomes more quaint and cozy,

... etc.


.


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
14-08-2019 06:52
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You cannot define a word with itself.


Did you need a definition of "warming"?

I could tell you that "________ warming" means that the temperature of something increases.


... or that its state changes,

... or that it feels loved,

... or that it becomes amenable to an idea

.. or that it becomes more quaint and cozy,

... etc.


.


Well that's why things get defined. In this case it's temperature.
14-08-2019 06:56
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
tmiddles wrote:
Well that's why things get defined. In this case it's temperature.


... or why things evade definition. In this case it's Global Warming, Climate Change, Greenhouse Effect, feedback, forcing, warming, heat, etc...


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
14-08-2019 07:01
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Well that's why things get defined. In this case it's temperature.


... or why things evade definition. In this case it's Global Warming, Climate Change, Greenhouse Effect, feedback, forcing, warming, heat, etc...


Warming in this case is temperature increasing.

Global means Earth.

It's the Earth's temperature increasing. It stands for the concern/theory that human activity is causing this by generating greenhouse gases.

You can say over an over again it cannot be defined but it's actually a very simple and straight forward definition. There is only confusion with you and ITN, the rest of the world discusses the terms with clarity, even those who don't agree or believe in the theory.

No one prevents anyone from clarifying the details, nuances and perspectives on the issue/topic that "global warming" or "climate change" raise.

You constantly say "define it", just ask someone what they want to say. If you're confused then you can discuss it.
Edited on 14-08-2019 07:04
14-08-2019 16:07
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
tmiddles wrote: Warming in this case is temperature increasing.

You still haven't specified which temperature. We both know that there are many temperatures. If you don't specify which temperature, Global Warming remains undefined.

tmiddles wrote: It's the Earth's temperature increasing.

The earth has many temperatures. Is there a reason you won't specify which one?

Is there someplace on this planet I can go to measure this particular temperature myself and personally verify Global Warming?

tmiddles wrote: It stands for

"stands for"? ... not in a definition!

tmiddles wrote: ... the concern/theory that human activity is causing this by generating greenhouse gases.

You never answered my question. Are we talking human thought here? Human thought is an activity.

You bring up a great point. Global Warming cannot be unambiguously defined until "human activity" is unambiguously defined.

Oh, by the way, I couldn't find the official unambiguous government definition of "human activity." Would you happen to have that handy?

tmiddles wrote:You can say over an over again it cannot be defined but it's actually a very simple and straight forward definition.

... which I notice that in all this time you have not provided.

Here's your opportunity to shine. Lay it on us. Give us the unambiguous definition of Global Warming that specifies which temperature value is in question and that leaves no doubt as to what activities are, and are not, in the "human activities" domain ... without introducing any other terms that need further unambiguous definition.

I'm excited at the prospect that you are going to clear all this up. I'd like to thank you in advance.

tmiddles wrote: There is only confusion with you and ITN,

I won't speak for Into the Night but yes, definitely, I have found this whole Global Warming thing to be very confusing, with all the physics violations that are thrown in, the Marxist agenda disguised as "settled science," the idiocy of completely scientifically illiterate morons who think they are geniuses, sheesh, it has been one perplexing ride ... but fortunately that is over. You are going to clear it all up for us and I, for one, certainly appreciate it.

Don't let me hold you up. Fire when ready.

tmiddles wrote: the rest of the world discusses the terms with clarity,

When you say "the rest of the world" ... you mean people who share your faith, don't you? This is the classic Marxist propaganda ploy used by the Bolsheviks, the NAZIs, Hugo Chavez, et. al. If they don't share your beliefs then they aren't part of the world.

In any event, it does not matter how many people are confused. You don't have any science supporting your WACKY religion. You don't have any valid datasets to support your conclusions. You are simply blaming your confusion on others who happen to have science in their back pockets.

tmiddles wrote: No one prevents anyone from clarifying the details, nuances and perspectives on the issue/topic that "global warming" or "climate change" raise.

... just like no one prevents anyone from clarifying the details, nuances and perspectives on the issue/topic that pink juniper elves or sninkle pixies raise .

No one at all.

tmiddles wrote: You constantly say "define it", just ask someone what they want to say. If you're confused then you can discuss it.

OK, what do you want to say?


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
15-08-2019 02:29
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
IBdaMann wrote:
OK, what do you want to say?


Give me everything you just asked for for the economy of North Dakota.

Now I need to know which dollars you're referring to, unambiguously.

Also if you plan to refer to economic activity what do you mean? Is it the desire to buy a product? The moment the money changes hands? What IS the economic activity EXACTLY!

You are just playing games and it's just boring and a waste of time.

You can and should raise real points of discussion.

If you don't believe that taking the average temperature of a body is possible or useful then talk about that.

There is a great solution to ambiguity! It's called follow up and inquiry.

I'm interested in actually exploring these topics. The ambiguity, impossibility, and falsely assumed clarity in the global warming theory are great topics let's get into them.

But saying effectively we can't talk about it is just a debate killer.

In practice only morons that don't debate say "global warming" and walk away. They don't need to be ignored as they aren't even talking (or understanding). Anyone discussing the issue will move on to the substance.

I already know that you have no problem with a body, even a giant one like earth, have a surface temperature which is an average of it's total.

So I don't see a point.

What is the point of constantly quibbling about "define it" rather than simply discussing it?

You call things socialist a lot and I know what you mean because we live in the same culture and era. I could constantly demand you define it and then point out that almost every country is socialist but why? I know what you mean.
15-08-2019 05:33
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
tmiddles wrote:
Give me everything you just asked for for the economy of North Dakota.

Now I need to know which dollars you're referring to, unambiguously.

... and if I don't provide this information, what then?

tmiddles wrote: Also if you plan to refer to economic activity what do you mean? Is it the desire to buy a product? The moment the money changes hands? What IS the economic activity EXACTLY!

Better question: what results if I don't define this for you?


tmiddles wrote: You are just playing games and it's just boring and a waste of time.

OK, we are officially not playing games anymore. Now what?

tmiddles wrote: You can and should raise real points of discussion.

Aaah, you're back to your favorite "No true Scotsman" fallacy. Awesome!

tmiddles wrote: If you don't believe that taking the average temperature of a body is possible or useful then talk about that.

It's a question of being able to get the average temperature of a body to within a useful margin of error.

I certainly believe that is doable ... with the right equipment. Absolutely. I hope you aren't trying to assign to me a position that I do not have.

tmiddles wrote: I'm interested in actually exploring these topics. The ambiguity, impossibility, and falsely assumed clarity in the global warming theory are great topics let's get into them.

Excellent! Let's roll up the sleeves and get to it.

tmiddles wrote: But saying effectively we can't talk about it is just a debate killer.

Is that what you are saying?


tmiddles wrote: I already know that you have no problem with a body, even a giant one like earth, have a surface temperature which is an average of it's total.

A body has surface temperatures (plural), not just one, and there's no way to really know which of those surface temperatures is actually the planet's average temperature.

tmiddles wrote:So I don't see a point.

I don't get your point.

tmiddles wrote: What is the point of constantly quibbling about "define it" rather than simply discussing it?

Because it cannot be discussed if it isn't defined.

Back at you. Why do you EVADE all the key definitions needed to discuss the topics? [Hint: Dishonesty]

tmiddles wrote: You call things socialist a lot ...

Only in that last post and for a particular reason. I almost exclusively use the word "Marxist."

tmiddles wrote: and I know what you mean because we live in the same culture and era. I could constantly demand you define it and then point out that almost every country is socialist but why? I know what you mean.

Just let me know when you want me to define Marxism.




... well, why wait? You can read my definition of Marxism on Politplex.


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
15-08-2019 07:42
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
IBdaMann wrote:
... and if I don't provide this information, what then?


You'd choose not to clarify the difference between "economy of North Dakota" and "Global Warming" in how the terms can/cannot be defined. I'm trying to understand you.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: You can and should raise real points of discussion.

Aaah, you're back to your favorite "No true Scotsman" fallacy. Awesome!


Again you misapply this fallacy. The No True Scotsman goes like this:
"No scottsman puts sugar on his oatmeal"
"My uncle is scottish and he does"
"But no TRUE scottsman does"
In the example both parties know what they are talking about. Putting sugar on oatmeal is clear to both of them. The fallacy is shifting the argument from what it was originally. The topic at hand is not elusive.

I don't know what you're talking about!!! We aren't even disagreeing as, at least on my end, we aren't even discussing something I could articulate.

This is our conversation:
"No scottsman puts sugar on his oatmeal"
"Define oatmeal"

I LITERALLY don't understand what you and ITN mean.

I know you know from your past statements that the Earth is defined: 3rd planet from the sun, that temperature is defined, that a planet having a surface temperature that's an average of the whole thing (Stefan-Boltzman).

But what??? It seems as though you are trying to be confusing.
Edited on 15-08-2019 07:59
15-08-2019 17:59
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
tmiddles wrote: I LITERALLY don't understand what you and ITN mean.

I will alleviate your confusion.

The person making a claim bears the full burden to support that claim, and that includes defining terms and satisfactorily addressing evidence to the contrary.

You are making claims but then complaining about your burden to support those claims.

Into the Night and I are not making claims but are providing evidence to the contrary of your claims. This adds to your burden which causes you to complain further.

Since Into the Night and I are not making claims, we have nothing to support and we have no terms to define. To you this does not seem fair.

When you claim that one of your opinions is something that "we know" then you can imagine how easy it is for someone to throw a wrench into your intake. When you claim science is something that it is not, science itself destroys your argument. When you don't unambiguously define your terms (which can be called out by anyone who simply doesn't understand what you mean) then you are preaching religion.

The source of your frustration is not others' unwillingness to discuss the topic you wish to discuss, but of others' unwillingness to accept your opinions when discussing the topic. You only wish to discuss Global Warming within the context of it being real and active in our lives, not as a WACKY religion that isn't real. It's exactly the same as Christians who only want to talk about God in terms of Him being real and active in our lives, not as an imaginary religious concoction that doesn't actually exist.

You don't want to admit this because that makes you sound petty, like you are intolerant of other opinions and viewpoints ... and you certainly don't want to acknowledge that your faith is religious in nature (after all, it was billed to you as "settled science"). I get it. The problem is that Global Warming runs counter to physics. It is not real. As such we don't need "solutions," much less additional taxes in its name.

This leads you to not be overjoyed at the prospect of talking to me about this topic, perhaps to even ignore me. I get it. The bottom line is that you have a strong desire to discuss your faith with other believers and I am not in that congregation.

If it helps, you can always use me as the "devils advocate." If you want to know what weaknesses there are in any aspect of your dogma I'll be happy to help you out. I have no religious faith to offend.


.


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
15-08-2019 23:46
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
IBdaMann wrote:You only wish to discuss Global Warming within the context of it being real and active in our lives, not as a WACKY religion that isn't real.


Ah now could we actually be getting somewhere!

A definition does not have to be something "Real" or "proven" in my book so perhaps that's the only disconnect?

For example:
"Big Foot" alt. "sasquatch"
a very large, hairy, humanoid creature reputed to inhabit wilderness areas of the U.S. and Canada, especially the Pacific Northwest.

No I don't believe in Big Foot and even if I did there is not much proof I could present.

If I was talking about Bigfoot would you stop me everytime to ask me to define Bigfoot and then reject and pick apart :"a very large, hairy, humanoid creature reputed to inhabit wilderness areas of the U.S. and Canada, especially the Pacific Northwest." ?
16-08-2019 03:20
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
tmiddles wrote:If I was talking about Bigfoot would you stop me everytime to ask me to define Bigfoot and then reject and pick apart :"a very large, hairy, humanoid creature reputed to inhabit wilderness areas of the U.S. and Canada, especially the Pacific Northwest." ?

No. I would stop you every time to ask you to define Bigfoot until you do.

Please unambiguously define Global Warming, global climate and Greenhouse Effect such that the definitions do not contradict science.

You still have not done this.


.


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
16-08-2019 03:40
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:If I was talking about Bigfoot

No. I would stop you every time to ask you to define Bigfoot until you do.


Ah HAH! OK

See the definition of definition is what's confused here.

So "You know what I'm referring to" you consider "what I'm referring to, to be indefinite"

in·def·i·nite
adjective
not clearly expressed or defined; vague.

Sound about right?

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth I find it useful to repeat back to people what I've understood in my own words to check if I got it right.
16-08-2019 11:04
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
... and if I don't provide this information, what then?


You'd choose not to clarify the difference between "economy of North Dakota" and "Global Warming" in how the terms can/cannot be defined. I'm trying to understand you.

The problem you are having is that the phrase 'global warming' doesn't mean anything. There is not valid definition for it. You keep attempting to define 'global warming' as 'global warming', but you can't. 'Global Warming' hasn't been defined yet, so you can't use it to define 'global warming'!

Such an attempt is known as a circular definition. You are literally defining an undefined phrase using an undefined phrase.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: You can and should raise real points of discussion.

Aaah, you're back to your favorite "No true Scotsman" fallacy. Awesome!


Again you misapply this fallacy. The No True Scotsman goes like this:
"No scottsman puts sugar on his oatmeal"
"My uncle is scottish and he does"
"But no TRUE scottsman does"


Redefinition fallacy (example<->definition). IBdaMann is correct. You are making a No True Scotsman fallacy. By using an example to define the fallacy, you are attempting to redefine the fallacy.

This fallacy can often result when you try to describe a 'real' version of something. In this case you attempted to request a 'real' discussion.

This fallacy appears as (A)=:A:&!(A). It is attempting to exclude an element of A as if it were not an element of A. The fallacy occurs when you attempt to place an element of A above another element of A.
tmiddles wrote:
In the example both parties know what they are talking about. Putting sugar on oatmeal is clear to both of them. The fallacy is shifting the argument from what it was originally. The topic at hand is not elusive.

Evasion. False authority fallacy. Fallacy fallacy. Redefinition fallacy. An example is not a definition.
tmiddles wrote:
I don't know what you're talking about!!! We aren't even disagreeing as, at least on my end, we aren't even discussing something I could articulate.

You can't articulate what you cannot define. This is the basic problem you are having.
tmiddles wrote:
This is our conversation:
"No scottsman puts sugar on his oatmeal"
"Define oatmeal"

I LITERALLY don't understand what you and ITN mean.

I am simply asking you to define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using these phrases in any way to define them.
tmiddles wrote:
I know you know from your past statements that the Earth is defined: 3rd planet from the sun, that temperature is defined, that a planet having a surface temperature that's an average of the whole thing (Stefan-Boltzman).

But what??? It seems as though you are trying to be confusing.

No, it is you that is confused. You are trying to make a case for 'global warming' when you can't even define what 'global warming' even means.

It is YOUR responsibility to define these phrases. Until you do, you are just making void arguments using a buzzword fallacy.

For example: If I wanted to talk about a fizzbat and it's real, I must first define what a 'fizzbat' is, wouldn't I? It is not something that I can expect anyone else to define. That responsibility falls to me and to me alone.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 16-08-2019 11:14
16-08-2019 11:29
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:You only wish to discuss Global Warming within the context of it being real and active in our lives, not as a WACKY religion that isn't real.


Ah now could we actually be getting somewhere!

A definition does not have to be something "Real" or "proven" in my book so perhaps that's the only disconnect?

For example:
"Big Foot" alt. "sasquatch"
a very large, hairy, humanoid creature reputed to inhabit wilderness areas of the U.S. and Canada, especially the Pacific Northwest.

Be aware that no dictionary defines any word. However, this definition happens to be a valid one. It does not use the word 'bigfoot' to define 'bigfoot'.
tmiddles wrote:
No I don't believe in Big Foot and even if I did there is not much proof I could present.

Oddly enough, belief in such an animal is not required.
Example: In the fiction work of Lord of the Rings, a definition of Hobbits is given. It does not define 'hobbits' as 'hobbits'. Hobbits are fiction, but they are also defined.
tmiddles wrote:
If I was talking about Bigfoot would you stop me everytime to ask me to define Bigfoot and then reject and pick apart :"a very large, hairy, humanoid creature reputed to inhabit wilderness areas of the U.S. and Canada, especially the Pacific Northwest." ?

No need to pick apart. It is a valid definition.

So far, you have been unable to define 'global warming' without using 'global warming' in your definition. You have not been able to define 'climate change' without using 'climate change' in your definition.

You simply continue to use these meaningless buzzwords as if they actually meant something, resulting in a void argument fallacy by way of a buzzword fallacy.

A theory, whether a scientific one or otherwise is an explanatory argument. No theory scientific or otherwise can exist based on a fallacy, for a fallacy is an invalid argument to begin with. It is an error in logic just as surely as an arithmetic error is an error in mathematics. This is known as the 'internal consistency check'. ALL theories of science MUST pass this check.

If you want to discuss a theory of 'global warming' or 'climate change', YOU must first define them.

Oddly enough, religions do NOT have to have a definition of what they worship. That thing is simply assigned a name, whether that thing is 'God' or 'Global Warming'.


The Parrot Killer
16-08-2019 11:31
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
Into the Night wrote:
For example: If I wanted to talk about a fizzbat and it's real, I must first define what a 'fizzbat' is, wouldn't I?


OK! I think I'm FINALLY getting the objection. Also add "Bigfoot" in with fizzbat from our other discussion.

What has been maddening is thinking you wanted the words defined:
Global/Earth
Warming/Temperature

But I get it, you mean a definition of what someone is actually referring too. Let me take a stab at it:

Uncertainty and being indefinite can be shown by giving multiple, mutually exclusive examples of something

Example 1: Due to some crazy science stuff the thermosphere cools 300C while the ground level surface of the Earth heats up by 5C. The net total change of the "surface" of the Earth is a drop in average temperature but where humans try to go jogging it's super hot. This is Global Warming.

Example 2: The thermosphere gets so thermy and increases by 200C due to sciencey things, this is only slightly offset by a 5C drop in temperature at ground level. The average temperature of the total "surface" of the Earth has gone up, but it's really cold at the park. This is Global Warming.

Am I grasping the objection a bit better?
Page 2 of 3<123>





Join the debate CO2 increase:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
How does radiation heat CO2615-08-2019 05:38
Greenhouse effect of CO22713-08-2019 17:11
CO2 saturated water409-08-2019 06:43
Do I have the CO2 calamity math right? (help from an expert please)2031-07-2019 23:12
So what if CO2 goes up to 1000 ppm and gives people head ache?009-07-2019 03:27
▲ 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