Remember me
▼ Content

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



Page 2 of 2<12
13-10-2016 04:24
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
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.


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

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

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
13-10-2016 05:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10270)
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.


Entire post is arguments of the Stone.


The Parrot Killer
13-10-2016 05:13
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Then show! Demonstrate!
13-10-2016 09:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10270)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Then show! Demonstrate!


Already have. You ignored it. Argument of the Stone.


The Parrot Killer
13-10-2016 19:47
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
You have not linked anything.
13-10-2016 22:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10270)
jwoodward48 wrote:
You have not linked anything.


In case you haven't noticed, I don't use links much. I don't depend on the opinions of others to do my thinking for me.

Link Wars are generally a grand waste of time.

I've told you where to go research if for yourself. Enjoy.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 13-10-2016 22:18
14-10-2016 00:00
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
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.
14-10-2016 03:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10270)
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.


I usually don't bother. I have better things to do than search through an entire forum where I said something. If you want to do that search, have fun.


The Parrot Killer
17-10-2016 15:31
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5237)
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.

You have yet to be shown any science of a warming world.

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

Is it possible the earth could be cooling right now? Is the earth probably cooling right now?


.


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 2 of 2<12





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

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
What effects global temperature2825-03-2019 03:41
Report: Great Lakes feeling effects of rapid climate warming (Update)122-03-2019 17:37
Researchers explore the effects of climate change on hunger420-03-2019 23:07
Potential Effects of Broadcast Induced REP on Climate Change29906-03-2019 18:50
Climate change, too late to act.1120-11-2018 00:28
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


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