Do you really think its going to be too late to reverse the effects of climate change?

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:There, see? Laws don't have to apply to everything.

You are incorrect. You don't understand the word "applicability."

Apply: "to be applicable or relevant".
Applicable: "relevant or appropriate".
Newtonian gravity is relevant to many things, but not appropriate for all calculations involving gravity.

Newton's law of gravity is appropriate for all calculations involving gravity.

Rip van Wrinkle, it's the twenty-first century. Newtonian gravity has been disproven.

No, it has not.

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:Bulverism!

...and you don't understand the word "bulverism."

You are making a list of words you don't understand.

Bulverism is when you explain why I am wrong instead of how I am wrong. If you would like to dispute this, then explain how I am wrong.

I already did. Argument of the Stone.

That is not how I am wrong. I am not dismissing your argument out of hand - you have not explained how I am wrong! (Meta is fun.)

What is wrong with my statement? Where does it err?

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote: A similar thing applies - we agree with each other because we both agree with the science.

You deny science. Specifically, you deny any and all science that runs counter to your religion, e.g. Stefan-Boltzmann, Planck's, 1st LoT, et. al.

You keep saying that. You have not shown how any of those laws are violated by the GHE.

Argument of the Stone. He has. So have I.

I would call that "argument from assertion," but meh.

Why not? You call all kinds of things by the wrong thing. It's like you're speaking a different language, with the way you've redefined so many words.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Link to it. You claim that an explanation exists, I claim it doesn't, you can prove me wrong by linking.

Links have been provided, descriptions have been given, now you just discard them as if they never happened. Argument of the Stone.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:There, see? Laws don't have to apply to everything.

You are incorrect. You don't understand the word "applicability."

Apply: "to be applicable or relevant".
Applicable: "relevant or appropriate".
Newtonian gravity is relevant to many things, but not appropriate for all calculations involving gravity.

Newton's law of gravity is appropriate for all calculations involving gravity.

Rip van Wrinkle, it's the twenty-first century. Newtonian gravity has been disproven.

No, it has not.

Yes, it has. It is no longer considered to reflect reality, but rather is a decent approximation of reality in a few situations.

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:Bulverism!

...and you don't understand the word "bulverism."

You are making a list of words you don't understand.

Bulverism is when you explain why I am wrong instead of how I am wrong. If you would like to dispute this, then explain how I am wrong.

I already did. Argument of the Stone.

That is not how I am wrong. I am not dismissing your argument out of hand - you have not explained how I am wrong! (Meta is fun.)

What is wrong with my statement? Where does it err?

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote: A similar thing applies - we agree with each other because we both agree with the science.

You deny science. Specifically, you deny any and all science that runs counter to your religion, e.g. Stefan-Boltzmann, Planck's, 1st LoT, et. al.

You keep saying that. You have not shown how any of those laws are violated by the GHE.

Argument of the Stone. He has. So have I.

I would call that "argument from assertion," but meh.

Why not? You call all kinds of things by the wrong thing. It's like you're speaking a different language, with the way you've redefined so many words.

Argument by assertion, in that "I keep saying that you haven't done X, even though you have." (Which is presumably your opinion.)

"Argument by assertion is the logical fallacy where someone tries to argue a point by merely asserting that it is true, regardless of contradiction."

jwoodward48 wrote:

Link to it. You claim that an explanation exists, I claim it doesn't, you can prove me wrong by linking.

Links have been provided, descriptions have been given, now you just discard them as if they never happened. Argument of the Stone.

You never gave any link that I requested. You've never even given me a single link to anything. I'm discarding that as if it never happened, because it never happened.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Then show! Demonstrate!

jwoodward48 wrote:
You have not linked anything.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Oh, by the bloody beard of Armok.

I am asking for a link to one of your own posts in which you explain what you claim to have explained.

Tim the plumber wrote: I have yet to have an credible science shown to me that scares me at all about the prospect of a slight warming of the world.

Tim the plumber wrote: Even the slight warming of the world is highly unlikely to be more than tiny rather than slight.