Remember me
▼ Content

dollars



Page 1 of 212>
dollars01-06-2019 23:12
keepit
★★★☆☆
(598)
Every dollar that you don't spend is one less dollar's worth of CO2 that goes into the atmosphere.
02-06-2019 00:03
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1355)
keepit wrote:
Every dollar that you don't spend is one less dollar's worth of CO2 that goes into the atmosphere.


Money seems to be the main theme to your posts? If you don't have money, you can't spend it. Are you having money problems? Rather than reducing everyone else down to you financial situation, why not work to improve your own?
02-06-2019 00:31
keepit
★★★☆☆
(598)
Harvey,
Always with the personal insults.
02-06-2019 00:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9582)
keepit wrote:
Every dollar that you don't spend is one less dollar's worth of CO2 that goes into the atmosphere.


Why are you worried about CO2? It has absolutely no capability to warm the Earth.


The Parrot Killer
02-06-2019 00:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9582)
keepit wrote:
Harvey,
Always with the personal insults.


What insults?? I read his entire post, there isn't a single insult in it. Fallacy fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
02-06-2019 00:34
keepit
★★★☆☆
(598)
Into,
Too argumentative for me.
02-06-2019 01:04
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1432)
Keepit,
Good to see you are back! I KNEW you couldn't stay away.


Hey, if your feelings are hurt by someone on the internet then maybe there are deeper underlying issues? Possibly if we delve into that we will uncover the real reason you are terrified of CO2. After all it is a harmless gas and proven so...that is unless you can find fault with any arguments made here. Show these guys how they are wrong. Can you do that?

When I tuned in here I was somewhat like you. I believed that CO2 was warming the planet slightly but natural causes were more likely for any warming. I don't have blind faith in what I read here so I diligently set out to find fault in something/anything they said. Nothing. I couldn't do it. I've had some differing OPINION on a couple things but when it comes to science ITN and IBdaMann know there stuff. It's quite incredible what you can learn here if you open your mind and want to learn.

However, you gotta grow some skin. Can't be offended all the time. Like when you say too argumentative....uh this is a DEBATE forum. Debate consists of arguments. Too insulting?
02-06-2019 01:08
keepit
★★★☆☆
(598)
I just think polite behavior is more productive. Don't you?
02-06-2019 01:16
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1432)
Well here's the deal. Many of us are quite conservative. Some of own businesses. We understand the struggle to earn the almighty dollar and then giving back 35-55% back to the gov, not to mention all the burdensome gov regs that restrict profit and growth.

Any action taken by the gov to limit CO2 WILL BE BURDENSOME AND SHUT DOWN GROWTH. So I guess when someone comes here requesting more of my money that feeds my family in the name of a harmless gas, I don't take kindly to that.

What percent of YOUR income would you be willing to give up today to eliminate carbon based fuels?
02-06-2019 01:22
James___
★★★★☆
(1591)
keepit wrote:
I just think polite behavior is more productive. Don't you?



These guys are here to mess with people. I mean what can they do about anything? Nothing, nothing at all. As far as climate change goes, it's not very well understood.
These guys need someone to go after. Atmospheric science can be interesting but it's too technical for this forum.
02-06-2019 01:27
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1355)
Was stating my observations, several posts of the same them, just curious about the motivation. CO2 doesn't seem like an issue, definitely not a pressing one. We only have a short time on earth. Our most active, productive years, spent working, to earn money. We don't generally start out with an excessive income, usually little more, than what we need to pay our living expenses, and a few useful purchases for our homes. We try to put some money aside for emergencies, and a little for retirement (if we survive). At some point in life, our income exceeds our bills, decent amount saved, so why not spend a little in pursuing our interests, enjoy living a little? Surviving and reproduction is good enough for animals, we are a little more capable. I like learning things, and using what I learn to build stuff. I can't do that without parts, tools, and materials. I've always done it on the cheap, which is a lot of work, finding what will work, close enough, and making a adjustments. Usually the results aren't great, but functional, sort of ugly too. Buying the right stuff, gives much better results, less hassles to complete a project.

The money I spend, provides an income for other people. Just like if people reduce spending, I'd likely lose my job, my income. It's just how the civilized world works. The less money people spend, the fewer people there are earning an income. Either the government has to cover the cost of living, or there are a lot of people robbing, stealing, and killing, to obtain the basic things they need to survive.
02-06-2019 01:33
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1432)
I had a couple setbacks to my business about a year ago, so here I'm working on the weekend to regrow and plug in to some different outlets....so I'm in a hurry but need to expand on the previous points.

Gov wants control of as much as they possibly can. Obama for example wanted control of health care. Imagine for just a second if gov controlled your health care and your fuel consumption. Fuel would include heating, cooling, gas, and anything that consumed carbon base energy.

If they have control of those 2 things they have your life in a vise grip. This is where the Marxist comments are coming from.

I get it if there's a need in your life to feel important. Dude, you're a Christian and this stuff is purely evil! I fear you have fallen for the lies and you've become an anointed member of the Church of Global Warming. Please, this is not meant to be insulting.

Seriously, if you don't understand what someone says here, ask. They are great about trying to teach. Keep spewing ignorance though and then the insults will fly.
02-06-2019 02:11
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1355)
James___ wrote:
keepit wrote:
I just think polite behavior is more productive. Don't you?



These guys are here to mess with people. I mean what can they do about anything? Nothing, nothing at all. As far as climate change goes, it's not very well understood.
These guys need someone to go after. Atmospheric science can be interesting but it's too technical for this forum.


There is a big difference between atmospheric science, and climate science...

Science isn't terribly hard to understand, when it's objective, comprehensive, and just the facts and findings. 'Climate Science' doesn't follow that form at all, it's very subjective, you have to dig for the full sources of what they base anything on. Some of those papers they cite, have little to nothing to do with their report. Some, only the first page is free, and you have to pay to see the rest, which may be of no value. If you are going to publish a report for public view, all the resources cited, should also be available to the public, without the paywall.
02-06-2019 02:26
keepit
★★★☆☆
(598)
I don't like govt control or intervention any more than the next guy. If there is an anthropogenic climate emergency (and i believe there is) then i don't see how it will get fixed without govt control other than grass roots reduction of spending. Grass roots reduction of spending would still require govt control because jobs would be lost and many people would need govt financial support. Other than a few volcanoes or a reduction in the sun's output, or, God forbid a plague, i'm not real sure how it will get fixed.
I'm in agreement with 97% of climate scientists in that it is significantly anthropogenic.
02-06-2019 02:34
keepit
★★★☆☆
(598)
Gas Guzzzler,
I'm not sure if i would be willing to give up much of my income but i'm willing to give up some of my spending.
02-06-2019 03:44
James___
★★★★☆
(1591)
keepit wrote:
I don't like govt control or intervention any more than the next guy. If there is an anthropogenic climate emergency (and i believe there is) then i don't see how it will get fixed without govt control other than grass roots reduction of spending. Grass roots reduction of spending would still require govt control because jobs would be lost and many people would need govt financial support. Other than a few volcanoes or a reduction in the sun's output, or, God forbid a plague, i'm not real sure how it will get fixed.
I'm in agreement with 97% of climate scientists in that it is significantly anthropogenic.



CO2 isn't the problem they say it is. It seems that no one in here understands what the debate is based on. I've shown where the arguments made by the IPCC went against scientific protocol. Then they defended the IPCC while saying they weren't defending it. If that was the case then they were coming after me just to be going after someone.
With Isn't (ITN) Damann, neither allows for Boltzmann's constant while citing the Stefan-Boltzmann constant while ignoring how solar radiation is refracted. They don't get it.
With me, I believe the immediate threat are CFC's and until their level of emissions are reduced we need to keep dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. They do not understand this. And with itn, he'll post ad nauseum that ozone can't be created or destroyed. Then he'll want you to feel sorry for him because no one has been willing to define climate for him. It's a way for him to play with people. It makes him feel grown up. He could be a teenager who's always getting stoned with damann for all I know.
02-06-2019 05:11
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1355)
James___ wrote:
keepit wrote:
I don't like govt control or intervention any more than the next guy. If there is an anthropogenic climate emergency (and i believe there is) then i don't see how it will get fixed without govt control other than grass roots reduction of spending. Grass roots reduction of spending would still require govt control because jobs would be lost and many people would need govt financial support. Other than a few volcanoes or a reduction in the sun's output, or, God forbid a plague, i'm not real sure how it will get fixed.
I'm in agreement with 97% of climate scientists in that it is significantly anthropogenic.



CO2 isn't the problem they say it is. It seems that no one in here understands what the debate is based on. I've shown where the arguments made by the IPCC went against scientific protocol. Then they defended the IPCC while saying they weren't defending it. If that was the case then they were coming after me just to be going after someone.
With Isn't (ITN) Damann, neither allows for Boltzmann's constant while citing the Stefan-Boltzmann constant while ignoring how solar radiation is refracted. They don't get it.
With me, I believe the immediate threat are CFC's and until their level of emissions are reduced we need to keep dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. They do not understand this. And with itn, he'll post ad nauseum that ozone can't be created or destroyed. Then he'll want you to feel sorry for him because no one has been willing to define climate for him. It's a way for him to play with people. It makes him feel grown up. He could be a teenager who's always getting stoned with damann for all I know.


97% of climate scientist agree... Still kind of high, but you'd figure if some one had enough interest in something, to go to college, earn a degree, they would pretty much be onboard with everything they were taught. Guess scientist outside of Climatology don't get an opinion, because it's not their field, and wouldn't know anything about it. Opinion isn't science anyway, need to stay objective, and keep an open mind. Still the methodology is a little off, doesn't follow the standards at all.

CFCs again? I was just a kid last time, back in the '70s, but remember clearly that hair spray, deodorant, and graffiti paint were destroying the ozone layer, at an alarming rate. There was already a huge hole ripped through it, letting in deadly UV rays. The main prophesy back then, was if we didn't stop painting graffiti, and using CFCs in general, we were heading for another ice age. It was surprising how quickly that catastrophe got turned around, unfortunately they over did it, and now it's global warming, the scorch earth.

So, if we stop the CO2 polluting, we are going to freeze to death? But, if we fix the ozone layer again, we are going to burn up? Why not just stop fooling with both, and let nature do it's thing? I'm not buying CO2 or CFC having any effect at all. The atmosphere is huge, 260 billion cubic miles worth, our contribution is very tiny. I'm sure it's a great ambition, to claim to have conquered the planet, but we just don't have the muscle for such a task.
02-06-2019 07:42
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4920)
James___ wrote: As far as climate change goes, it's not very well understood.


... because it is an unfalsifiable conjecture ... mostly because it is undefined where it is not defined by logical contradictions and violations of physics.


James___ wrote: Atmospheric science can be interesting but it's too technical for this forum.

Atmospheric science might be beyond your grasp but it is a completely appropriate topic for this forum.

It's easy and straightforward too.


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
02-06-2019 15:30
James___
★★★★☆
(1591)
HarveyH55 wrote:
James___ wrote:
keepit wrote:
I don't like govt control or intervention any more than the next guy. If there is an anthropogenic climate emergency (and i believe there is) then i don't see how it will get fixed without govt control other than grass roots reduction of spending. Grass roots reduction of spending would still require govt control because jobs would be lost and many people would need govt financial support. Other than a few volcanoes or a reduction in the sun's output, or, God forbid a plague, i'm not real sure how it will get fixed.
I'm in agreement with 97% of climate scientists in that it is significantly anthropogenic.



CO2 isn't the problem they say it is. It seems that no one in here understands what the debate is based on. I've shown where the arguments made by the IPCC went against scientific protocol. Then they defended the IPCC while saying they weren't defending it. If that was the case then they were coming after me just to be going after someone.
With Isn't (ITN) Damann, neither allows for Boltzmann's constant while citing the Stefan-Boltzmann constant while ignoring how solar radiation is refracted. They don't get it.
With me, I believe the immediate threat are CFC's and until their level of emissions are reduced we need to keep dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. They do not understand this. And with itn, he'll post ad nauseum that ozone can't be created or destroyed. Then he'll want you to feel sorry for him because no one has been willing to define climate for him. It's a way for him to play with people. It makes him feel grown up. He could be a teenager who's always getting stoned with damann for all I know.


97% of climate scientist agree... Still kind of high, but you'd figure if some one had enough interest in something, to go to college, earn a degree, they would pretty much be onboard with everything they were taught. Guess scientist outside of Climatology don't get an opinion, because it's not their field, and wouldn't know anything about it. Opinion isn't science anyway, need to stay objective, and keep an open mind. Still the methodology is a little off, doesn't follow the standards at all.

CFCs again? I was just a kid last time, back in the '70s, but remember clearly that hair spray, deodorant, and graffiti paint were destroying the ozone layer, at an alarming rate. There was already a huge hole ripped through it, letting in deadly UV rays. The main prophesy back then, was if we didn't stop painting graffiti, and using CFCs in general, we were heading for another ice age. It was surprising how quickly that catastrophe got turned around, unfortunately they over did it, and now it's global warming, the scorch earth.

So, if we stop the CO2 polluting, we are going to freeze to death? But, if we fix the ozone layer again, we are going to burn up? Why not just stop fooling with both, and let nature do it's thing? I'm not buying CO2 or CFC having any effect at all. The atmosphere is huge, 260 billion cubic miles worth, our contribution is very tiny. I'm sure it's a great ambition, to claim to have conquered the planet, but we just don't have the muscle for such a task.




Harvey, you're basically illiterate, right?
I'm not buying CO2 or CFC having any effect at all. The atmosphere is huge,

And some completely random, incoherent thoughts.
So, if we stop the CO2 polluting, we are going to freeze to death? But, if we fix the ozone layer again, we are going to burn up?
02-06-2019 15:35
James___
★★★★☆
(1591)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: As far as climate change goes, it's not very well understood.


... because it is an unfalsifiable conjecture ... mostly because it is undefined where it is not defined by logical contradictions and violations of physics.


James___ wrote: Atmospheric science can be interesting but it's too technical for this forum.

Atmospheric science might be beyond your grasp but it is a completely appropriate topic for this forum.

It's easy and straightforward too.


... because it is an unfalsifiable conjecture ... mostly because it is undefined where it is not defined by logical contradictions and violations of physics.


Why don't you just say that you can't understand basic cause and effect? Is that because if you "sound" smart people will think you are? In reality it is all about how you are perceived. But you sound like a politician or a philosopher, both are bullshit artists.
02-06-2019 15:59
James___
★★★★☆
(1591)
@keepit, what these guys in here ignore is something very basic, it was something that we were taught in 7th grade in Mountlaketerrace, Washington. It's also one reason why Einstein is very famous today. What I was taught in school, a literary example was used. Einstein used observing physical phenomena.
When information is repeated, the observer changes the information. If you lined 10 people up in a row and told something to the first person and asked them to tell the person next to them and so on. By the time it got to the 10th person it would be something different.
With Einstein, he said that when scientists observed the same thing, they had made different conclusions. This is why his work on Relativity was ground breaking. It gave scientists a common framework to consider. A lot of modern technology has come about because of how Einstein changed the way observations were made so they were more uniform.
In this forum, that is bad. Yet without a common framework we still might be living like we were in the 1930's. With damann, he'd say logic while Harvey would say that we as a people are insignificant.
The current debate in climate change might be the way physics was before relativity. But these guys don't find science interesting. As far as climate change goes, Natural Climate Variation isn't very well understood. If it were then we'd be having a different discussion.
I could show you observed data which I would say suggests links in information. These guys don't know enough about science to understand why those links in information matter.
And we know Natural Climate Variation happens but not why. With me, I'd say I know why and that's where I need to put myself in a position so I can pursue realizing just such a model.
With this https://binged.it/2MoARkd the current warming could be a rebound effect caused by the Little Ice Age.
What most people don't understand is that everything is primarily a northern hemisphere event. And if things today are caused mostly by Natural Climate Variability, then in 300 years something like this might be possible;

This is about Washington's plan for 3 units to cross the Delaware River on December 25th and 26th, 1776.
This was an ambitious plan, one that even well rested and experienced troops would have had difficulty in executing. Both Cadwalader and Ewing's forces were unable to cross the ice-choked river. And Washington's main force managed a crossing, but was more than three hours delayed.

It's listed under fact No.2.
https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/the-revolutionary-war/the-trenton-princeton-campaign/10-facts-about-washingtons-crossing-of-the-delaware-river/

edited to ad; I think this is funny but wonder if they meant climate debate?
https://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2019/06/02
Edited on 02-06-2019 16:52
02-06-2019 17:08
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1355)
Illiterate now? Should be obvious by now, there isn't anything wrong with my reading comprehension skills. Perhaps the sarcasm was a little too subtle for you. The climate 'scientist' predicted that depleting the ozone layer, would plunge us into another ice age, back in the '70s. Less than a decade later, CO2 emissions were going to push us into a scorched earth scenario. You claimed that the ozone layer is being depleted again. Somebody got it wrong, or somebody is just outright lying.

Personally, I believe it's all BS. Banning CFC back in the 70s, didn't mean they would magical just stop being used. People were still able to get cans of the banned refrigerant for there car's AC a decade later. Do you real believe all the aerosol cans already produced, were simply destroyed? And finally, just because America, and a few other countries make such a declaration, the entire planet follows? There was never a crisis to begin with. The tools to actually observe and measure the Ozone Hole were new toys, they observed the hole expanding, decided it was a deadly threat. Best I can figure, the hole in the ozone layer expands and contracts every year, some more than others. It's never been completely closed. I don't personally study it, entirely theory and observation, can't do a whole lot to test it, since nothing about it can be controlled or isolated. Scientist can only guess about it, and they guessed wrong once already, or used it for political/financial reasons.

Same goes for CO2 and global warming, it's a weak theory (at best, being generous), and no way to do any controlled testing, can't isolate anything to observe its effects. You can do simulations in a lab, but that doesn't fully account for all variables, just the ones the programmers feel are important, to get the results they want to see. They can grab a jar full of gasses, and do some experiments, but that only pertains to what's in the jar, and what they choose to apply. On a global scale, there were never enough CFCs or CO2, to cause the effects being attributing them. We just don't have the means to scale up lab experiments, to try them outside in the real world, not to mention decades to wait for the results of such tests. There is no safety net either, if it goes wrong, it will take many years to fix, if possible.

I'm not a big fan of genetic manipulation either, for similar reasons. Virus an bacteria mutate and adapt naturally, both are used a lot in genetic research. People being people, will make mistakes, be a little sloppy, take shortcuts. Research labs go to great length to prevent escapes, but it's now possible to do similar genetic work at home, in a garage or basement, spare bedroom. Of course, the amatuer experimenter, would likely only take minimal precautions, do to cost, and space limitations.

Climate science, is sloppy science. They draw conclusions from observations made off a computer screen, without any means to actually test their theories. They claim it's settled science, but it's entirely opinion, since they can't actually test the theory. The reports aren't easy reading, because it's all opinion, not objective observation. You have to blindly accept to much of someone else's interpretation, rather than form your own. Any other science paper you read, is all objective description of an observation, tests and experiments done, findings and results. Only in the final conclusion, is there any subjective interpretation, but it's left to the reader to agree, or form their own interpretation. Science isn't about changing opinion, that's the work of bullshit artist, like lawyers, politicians, debaters, philosophers, marketing, and scammers. Climate Science follows the same path, it only makes sense, if you buy what they are selling you, it's only words, meant to change your thoughts and opinion, to follow their direction. Leans way too far left for my way of thinking.
02-06-2019 18:08
James___
★★★★☆
(1591)
Harvey, Americans are inherently unhappy people. All they do is attack each other. They only work together because of money. Outside of that common greed they just don't care for each other. And Harvey, you are ignorant. Like you said, why waste your precious time learning when it's spent on recreational pursuits. I think that's funny as all Hell because you are a typical American.

And Harvey, like you said, if I have surgery to prevent having medical problems the rest of my life, I'll be driving up your health care costs. As you said, doctors are people, they make mistakes. People should be thankful for whatever doctors do for them unless you can do better.
You can't do better with climate change and yet your opinion should matter.
It is funny Harvey because American men are the ones who tell me that they are not happy with their American wives or their life in the US. That's all I've heard, everyone's unhappiness. And it's just that Americans can't have it good enough.

Isn't this ironic? The US has the highest standard of living the world has ever seen and it's people are unhappy because they don't have it good enough.
Edited on 02-06-2019 18:48
02-06-2019 19:40
James___
★★★★☆
(1591)
This is an example of how unhappy Americans are https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/02/us/virginia-beach-dewayne-craddock.html. I think it's the result of a decaying society. Which if things work out for me, it will be best for me to move to another country. As Harvey has pointed out, he doesn't want to see heath care improved. US health care is easily the most expensive in the world while it's results are less than any industrialized country. Americans find that acceptable. Then again Americans might also be the unhealthiest people in the world. I like being active and healthy so am in the wrong place.
The Bible says this;
"Honour your father and your mother: that your days may be long upon the land which the LORD your God giveth you." Exodus 20:12
My father told me to have fun in Australia. After all, have to be allowed to have a life before it can be found out if I know anything. I'd like to find that out. And sadly, in America it bothers people that I like pursuing innovation on my own. Even with my historical project, one American told me they'd ruin my life if they couldn't have it. He could've worked with me but instead everyone was willing to attack me for being willing to work with other people.
That's what people in a decaying society do. It's every man for themself. With me, I think I'll be able to leave the US and show posts of Americans who don't care about making America a better place for future generations. Just not their problem. Any more, it's not mine other. Fortunately I have nothing keeping me in the US once I can make my situation known.

Harvey, the data that scientists collect is accurate enough. It's the interpretation of the data that is important. That's why there's a debate because of it. People interpret the data differently. There is no model that accounts for it.
And with me, Christians tell me I need to live a scriptural life. The 5th Commandment is scriptural and if I show Australia that I understand science, then they might invite me to move there. And when I say that it's an opportunity the Lord created for me because of my German historical project, my moving there would be scriptural.
Does the 5th Commandment mean something different to you? That's not science. That's dependent on the individual because they'd have different parents than me except for my siblings. But our parents wanted different things for us.
Yet with climate science, no one has ever explained Natural Climate Variation. I think I can but I doubt I'll waste my time with it. It wouldn't really matter to Australians but atmospheric chemistry would. So I could help them to understand one problem that they have. If so, that's because they'd be willing to consider what I have to say.
Edited on 02-06-2019 19:53
02-06-2019 21:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9582)
keepit wrote:
Into,
Too argumentative for me.


Then grow up.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 02-06-2019 21:58
02-06-2019 22:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9582)
keepit wrote:
I just think polite behavior is more productive. Don't you?


So 'polite behavior' is agreeing with you indiscriminately? Don't think so. Grow up.


The Parrot Killer
02-06-2019 22:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9582)
James___ wrote:
keepit wrote:
I just think polite behavior is more productive. Don't you?



These guys are here to mess with people.

There goes your paranoia again.
James___ wrote:
I mean what can they do about anything? Nothing, nothing at all.

Vote to keep the Church of Global Warming believers out of office, sue them when they go too far.
James___ wrote:
As far as climate change goes, it's not very well understood.

Define 'climate change'. There is nothing to understand about a meaningless buzzword.
James___ wrote:
These guys need someone to go after.

There goes your paranoia again.
James___ wrote:
Atmospheric science can be interesting but it's too technical for this forum.

Homunculus fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
02-06-2019 22:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9582)
HarveyH55 wrote:
James___ wrote:
keepit wrote:
I just think polite behavior is more productive. Don't you?



These guys are here to mess with people. I mean what can they do about anything? Nothing, nothing at all. As far as climate change goes, it's not very well understood.
These guys need someone to go after. Atmospheric science can be interesting but it's too technical for this forum.


There is a big difference between atmospheric science, and climate science...

The way he is using 'atmospheric science', there is no difference at all. Neither have any meaning.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Science isn't terribly hard to understand, when it's objective, comprehensive, and just the facts and findings.

Science isn't facts or findings. It is a set of falsifiable theories. That's all.
HarveyH55 wrote:
'Climate Science' doesn't follow that form at all, it's very subjective,

It isn't even defined.
HarveyH55 wrote:
you have to dig for the full sources of what they base anything on.
Some of those papers they cite, have little to nothing to do with their report.

That's okay. Such papers are based on a circular argument fallacy. NONE of them define 'climate change' or 'global warming'.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Some, only the first page is free, and you have to pay to see the rest, which may be of no value.
If you are going to publish a report for public view, all the resources cited, should also be available to the public, without the paywall.

Often true! Be assured, though, you aren't missing much because the rest of the circular argument fallacy is behind a paywall.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 02-06-2019 22:20
02-06-2019 22:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9582)
keepit wrote:
I don't like govt control or intervention any more than the next guy.

I will call this argument 1).
keepit wrote:
If there is an anthropogenic climate emergency (and i believe there is) then i don't see how it will get fixed without govt control other than grass roots reduction of spending. Grass roots reduction of spending would still require govt control because jobs would be lost and many people would need govt financial support.

I will call this argument 2).

1) Govt control is not the solution.
2) Govt control is the solution.

Which is it, dude? You are now locked in paradox.

keepit wrote:
Other than a few volcanoes or a reduction in the sun's output, or, God forbid a plague, i'm not real sure how it will get fixed.

There is nothing to fix. You have to define the problem first in order to fix one.
keepit wrote:
I'm in agreement with 97% of climate scientists in that it is significantly anthropogenic.

Argument from randU fallacy. This number is manufactured using extremely bad math. Further, there is no such thing as a climate 'scientist'. There are theories in science about climate. Climate 'scientists' do not use or create any theory of science. They deny science. They are nothing more than high priests in the Church of Global Warming.


The Parrot Killer
02-06-2019 22:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9582)
keepit wrote:
Gas Guzzzler,
I'm not sure if i would be willing to give up much of my income but i'm willing to give up some of my spending.


Then do so. You are free to do so. You are NOT free to dictate how others spend their money.


The Parrot Killer
02-06-2019 22:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9582)
James___ wrote:
keepit wrote:
I don't like govt control or intervention any more than the next guy. If there is an anthropogenic climate emergency (and i believe there is) then i don't see how it will get fixed without govt control other than grass roots reduction of spending. Grass roots reduction of spending would still require govt control because jobs would be lost and many people would need govt financial support. Other than a few volcanoes or a reduction in the sun's output, or, God forbid a plague, i'm not real sure how it will get fixed.
I'm in agreement with 97% of climate scientists in that it is significantly anthropogenic.



CO2 isn't the problem they say it is.

It isn't a problem at all.
James___ wrote:
It seems that no one in here understands what the debate is based on.

Most people in here do. You seem to be rather clueless.
James___ wrote:
I've shown where the arguments made by the IPCC went against scientific protocol.

There is no such thing as a 'scientific' protocol. Science isn't a protocol. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
James___ wrote:
Then they defended the IPCC while saying they weren't defending it.

Void argument fallacy. Who are 'they'?
James___ wrote:
If that was the case then they were coming after me just to be going after someone.

There goes your paranoia again.
James___ wrote:
With Isn't (ITN) Damann, neither allows for Boltzmann's constant while citing the Stefan-Boltzmann constant

There is no such thing as a Stefan-Boltzmann constant. Boltzmann's constant is a natural constant used in the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
James___ wrote:
while ignoring how solar radiation is refracted.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law has nothing to do with refraction.
James___ wrote:
They don't get it.

Inversion fallacy.
James___ wrote:
With me, I believe the immediate threat are CFC's

Void argument fallacy. CFC's are extremely stable compounds. Why do you feel threatened by them?
James___ wrote:
and until their level of emissions are reduced we need to keep dumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

Non-sequitur fallacy.
James___ wrote:
They do not understand this.

Inversion fallacy.
James___ wrote:
And with itn, he'll post ad nauseum that ozone can't be created or destroyed.

Lie. Ozone is created and destroyed all the time.
James___ wrote:
Then he'll want you to feel sorry for him because no one has been willing to define climate for him.

Lie. Climate is usually defined as 'weather over a long time' or something similar. This is a subjective term that has no use in science, which requires quantifiable terms.
James___ wrote:
It's a way for him to play with people. It makes him feel grown up. He could be a teenager who's always getting stoned with damann for all I know.

Insult fallacies.


The Parrot Killer
02-06-2019 22:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9582)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: As far as climate change goes, it's not very well understood.


... because it is an unfalsifiable conjecture ... mostly because it is undefined where it is not defined by logical contradictions and violations of physics.


James___ wrote: Atmospheric science can be interesting but it's too technical for this forum.

Atmospheric science might be beyond your grasp but it is a completely appropriate topic for this forum.

It's easy and straightforward too.


... because it is an unfalsifiable conjecture ... mostly because it is undefined where it is not defined by logical contradictions and violations of physics.


Why don't you just say that you can't understand basic cause and effect?

Void argument fallacy.
James___ wrote:
Is that because if you "sound" smart people will think you are?

Argument of the stone fallacy.
James___ wrote:
In reality it is all about how you are perceived.

Redefinition fallacy (science->void). Science isn't about how a person is perceived. Science isn't people at all. It is a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more.
James___ wrote:
But you sound like a politician or a philosopher, both are bullshit artists.

Redefinition fallacy (philosophy->void). Philosophy isn't bullshit. It's a real method of reasoning. Not all politicians are bullshit artists either. Bigotry.


The Parrot Killer
02-06-2019 23:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9582)
James___ wrote:
@keepit, what these guys in here ignore is something very basic, it was something that we were taught in 7th grade in Mountlaketerrace, Washington. It's also one reason why Einstein is very famous today. What I was taught in school, a literary example was used. Einstein used observing physical phenomena.

No, he didn't.
James___ wrote:
When information is repeated, the observer changes the information. If you lined 10 people up in a row and told something to the first person and asked them to tell the person next to them and so on. By the time it got to the 10th person it would be something different.

These are not observations. These are failures of recall. Kids call this the game of 'telephone'.
James___ wrote:
With Einstein, he said that when scientists observed the same thing, they had made different conclusions.

Not Einstein, Ernst Mach. This is a philosophy discussion, not science.
James___ wrote:
This is why his work on Relativity was ground breaking.

Not what the Theory of Relativity is about, though it does have a certain relevance to Mach's philosophy.
James___ wrote:
It gave scientists a common framework to consider.

No, it removed a framework.
James___ wrote:
A lot of modern technology has come about because of how Einstein changed the way observations were made so they were more uniform.

Einstein did not change how observations are made. We all still have the same sensory organs before the Theory of Relativity as well as afterwards. Observation is not part of science. It is subject to the problems of phenomenology. Ernst Mach noted this in relation to studying how easily fooled our own sense organs are, though he did not create the branch of philosophy known as phenomenology.
James___ wrote:
In this forum, that is bad. Yet without a common framework we still might be living like we were in the 1930's. With damann, he'd say logic while Harvey would say that we as a people are insignificant.

Non-sequitur fallacy. Void argument fallacy.
James___ wrote:
The current debate in climate change might be the way physics was before relativity.

False equivalence fallacy. Define 'climate change'.
James___ wrote:
But these guys don't find science interesting.

Inversion fallacy.
James___ wrote:
As far as climate change goes, Natural Climate Variation isn't very well understood.

Define 'climate change'. Define 'natural climate variation'. There is no such thing as a global climate.
James___ wrote:
If it were then we'd be having a different discussion.

You have to define these terms before there is anything to discuss about them.
James___ wrote:
I could show you observed data which I would say suggests links in information.

WRONG. Observations are not a proof. Observation is subject to the problems of phenomenology.
James___ wrote:
These guys don't know enough about science to understand why those links in information matter.

Leaping to conclusion fallacy. Homunculus fallacy.
James___ wrote:
And we know Natural Climate Variation happens but not why.

Define 'natural climate variation'.
James___ wrote:
With me, I'd say I know why and that's where I need to put myself in a position so I can pursue realizing just such a model.

Void argument fallacy. You haven't defined a model.
James___ wrote:
With this ...deleted Holy Link... the current warming could be a rebound effect caused by the Little Ice Age.

Define 'current warming'. Homunculus fallacy.
James___ wrote:
What most people don't understand is that everything is primarily a northern hemisphere event.

What? The southern hemisphere doesn't get to vote??
James___ wrote:
And if things today are caused mostly by Natural Climate Variability, then in 300 years something like this might be possible;
...deleted irrelevant material...

Define 'natural climate variability'. Homunculus fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
02-06-2019 23:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9582)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Personally, I believe it's all BS. Banning CFC back in the 70s, didn't mean they would magical just stop being used.

Irrelevant. You can put CFC's into a tank of ozone and nothing will happen. The two chemicals simply don't react with each other.
HarveyH55 wrote:
The tools to actually observe and measure the Ozone Hole were new toys, they observed the hole expanding, decided it was a deadly threat. Best I can figure, the hole in the ozone layer expands and contracts every year, some more than others. It's never been completely closed.

This is quite true. The Ozone Hole was first discovered through the use of sounding rockets originally sent up to study the Auroras. There is a 'hole' at each pole during that pole's winter. These naturally occur, since there is no sunlight at that pole to create ozone. Natural ozone decay does the rest. Ozone is an unstable molecule. Eventually it becomes oxygen all by itself.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't personally study it, entirely theory and observation, can't do a whole lot to test it, since nothing about it can be controlled or isolated.

I have studied it. The Ozone scare was created by DuPont chemical in order to force the market to buy R134a refrigerant instead of the R12 refrigerant they were losing the patents on. The Hole had been a recently discovered phenomenon, and they seized on the opportunity to create the scare. Even many scientists were fooled by this.

Too many falsifications for the theory that CFC's destroy the ozone layer became apparent:

* CFC's and ozone do not react chemically.
* CFC's were produced and used in the industrial nations, yet the holes are at the poles, rather than over the industrialized nations.
* as CFC usage was reduced, the Hole is still there and roughly the same size as before. Currently, NASA is blaming CO2 for the presence of the Hole now.
* the Chapman cycle.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Scientist can only guess about it, and they guessed wrong once already, or used it for political/financial reasons.

Science isn't scientists. It isn't people at all. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Same goes for CO2 and global warming, it's a weak theory (at best, being generous),

It is not a theory at all. One must define 'global warming' before they can have a theory about it, even a non-scientific one.
HarveyH55 wrote:
and no way to do any controlled testing, can't isolate anything to observe its effects.

A void argument fallacy. How do you test what you can't define? How to observe the effects of what you can't define?
HarveyH55 wrote:
You can do simulations in a lab,

How do you simulate what you can't define?
HarveyH55 wrote:
but that doesn't fully account for all variables, just the ones the programmers feel are important, to get the results they want to see.

Computer models about 'global warming' are meaningless, since 'global warming' itself is meaningless. Programmers can write programs to spit out numbers in nice neat columns. They have no meaning beyond that.
HarveyH55 wrote:
They can grab a jar full of gasses, and do some experiments, but that only pertains to what's in the jar, and what they choose to apply.

You can show, using jars, that CO2 does indeed absorb certain frequencies of infrared light. Absorption does not warm the Earth, however. It helps to COOL it. It is just another way for the surface to cool itself by heating the atmosphere above it.
HarveyH55 wrote:
On a global scale, there were never enough CFCs or CO2, to cause the effects being attributing them.

CFC's do not react with ozone. There is NO effect.
CO2 does not have the capability to warm the Earth. There is NO effect.
HarveyH55 wrote:
We just don't have the means to scale up lab experiments, to try them outside in the real world, not to mention decades to wait for the results of such tests.

Not a matter of scale. 1000 * zero is still zero.
HarveyH55 wrote:
There is no safety net either, if it goes wrong, it will take many years to fix, if possible.

Don't need a safety net. Zero is zero.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I'm not a big fan of genetic manipulation either, for similar reasons.

Guess you're not a fan of dogs, cats, turkeys, chickens, bananas, blueberries, wheat, cattle, corn, potatoes, etc.
ALL of these are genetically modified. Most every breed of dog we keep as pets, most every breed of cat, and most of our food (the domesticated turkey is a genetically modified version of the wild turkey, for example). We can produce more, feed more, with genetically modified breeds.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Virus an bacteria mutate and adapt naturally, both are used a lot in genetic research.

True.
HarveyH55 wrote:
People being people, will make mistakes, be a little sloppy, take shortcuts. Research labs go to great length to prevent escapes, but it's now possible to do similar genetic work at home, in a garage or basement, spare bedroom.

...and they wind up creating their own problems too.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Of course, the amatuer experimenter, would likely only take minimal precautions, do to cost, and space limitations.

Of course.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Climate science, is sloppy science.

It isn't even science. 'Climate' is a subjective word. There is no theory of science about it.
HarveyH55 wrote:
They draw conclusions from observations made off a computer screen, without any means to actually test their theories.

These are not theories. These are forgone conclusions based on religion. You can easily use a computer to support any religion.
HarveyH55 wrote:
They claim it's settled science,

Obviously a lie. Science is never 'settled'. No theory of science is ever proven.
HarveyH55 wrote:
but it's entirely opinion,

No, it's entirely religion.
HarveyH55 wrote:
since they can't actually test the theory.

There is no theory possible. You have to define 'global warming' or 'climate change' before you can have a theory about them, otherwise all you have a is a void argument fallacy.
HarveyH55 wrote:
The reports aren't easy reading, because it's all opinion, not objective observation.

They are pure fantasy.
HarveyH55 wrote:
You have to blindly accept to much of someone else's interpretation, rather than form your own.

It's the Marxist way. This demand is a great indicator of the linkage between the Church of Global Warming and the Church of Karl Marx.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Any other science paper you read, is all objective description of an observation, tests and experiments done, findings and results.

Science isn't papers. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. If a paper presents such a theory and describes the tests used to try to destroy the theory, and that test is available, practical, specific, and produces a specific result, AND the theory still survives, THEN and only then does a paper contain a theory of science.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Only in the final conclusion, is there any subjective interpretation, but it's left to the reader to agree, or form their own interpretation.

Which is another way if saying that no theory is ever proven.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Science isn't about changing opinion,

But it is. A theory is an argument. An argument is a set of predicates and a conclusion. Arguments are used to change opinions.
HarveyH55 wrote:
that's the work of bullshit artist,

It is the work of everyone presenting an argument of any kind.
HarveyH55 wrote:
like lawyers,

Not all lawyers are BS artists. Bigotry.
HarveyH55 wrote:
politicians,

Not all politicians are BS artists. Bigotry.
HarveyH55 wrote:
debaters,

Including you? Bigotry.
HarveyH55 wrote:
philosophers,

Including you? Philosophy isn't BS.
HarveyH55 wrote:
marketing,

Including you? Bigotry.
HarveyH55 wrote:
and scammers.

Scammers are BS artists by definition.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Climate Science follows the same path,

...as scammers, yes.
HarveyH55 wrote:
it only makes sense, if you buy what they are selling you, it's only words, meant to change your thoughts and opinion, to follow their direction.

Thus the circular nature of their argument. They also try to prove that circular argument, which is the circular argument fallacy. It's what a fundamentalist does. The Church of Global Warming is a fundamentalist style religion.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Leans way too far left for my way of thinking.

Agreed. Marxism is no fun. I will fight it whereever I find it.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 02-06-2019 23:42
02-06-2019 23:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9582)
James___ wrote:
Harvey, Americans are inherently unhappy people. All they do is attack each other. They only work together because of money. Outside of that common greed they just don't care for each other. And Harvey, you are ignorant. Like you said, why waste your precious time learning when it's spent on recreational pursuits. I think that's funny as all Hell because you are a typical American.

And Harvey, like you said, if I have surgery to prevent having medical problems the rest of my life, I'll be driving up your health care costs. As you said, doctors are people, they make mistakes. People should be thankful for whatever doctors do for them unless you can do better.
You can't do better with climate change and yet your opinion should matter.
It is funny Harvey because American men are the ones who tell me that they are not happy with their American wives or their life in the US. That's all I've heard, everyone's unhappiness. And it's just that Americans can't have it good enough.

Isn't this ironic? The US has the highest standard of living the world has ever seen and it's people are unhappy because they don't have it good enough.

Bigotry.


The Parrot Killer
03-06-2019 01:07
James___
★★★★☆
(1591)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Harvey, Americans are inherently unhappy people. All they do is attack each other. They only work together because of money. Outside of that common greed they just don't care for each other. And Harvey, you are ignorant. Like you said, why waste your precious time learning when it's spent on recreational pursuits. I think that's funny as all Hell because you are a typical American.

And Harvey, like you said, if I have surgery to prevent having medical problems the rest of my life, I'll be driving up your health care costs. As you said, doctors are people, they make mistakes. People should be thankful for whatever doctors do for them unless you can do better.
You can't do better with climate change and yet your opinion should matter.
It is funny Harvey because American men are the ones who tell me that they are not happy with their American wives or their life in the US. That's all I've heard, everyone's unhappiness. And it's just that Americans can't have it good enough.

Isn't this ironic? The US has the highest standard of living the world has ever seen and it's people are unhappy because they don't have it good enough.

Bigotry.



Why? Because people can't define anything to your satisfaction and you're an American? And as an American yourself you find no meaning in words.
I'm not an American. I've been told this often enough by people who have 2 parents from America. That's not bigotry. It's about people knowing they're better. And you know you are better than me, right?
03-06-2019 01:23
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1355)
Science is a set of falsifiable theories.


I eventually looked this up, since I've never seen anywhere but here, and it's repeated daily...

It comes from the philosophy of Karl Popper, who died in 1994. I'm sure he came up with a simple test, to cut through some of the BS, but science was around for hundreds of years, before he was born. He didn't define science, sorry... Unless somebody like Al Gore gather together a bunch of scientist, and they all formed a consensus, to redefine science. Must have missed it. Philosophy has it's place, but doesn't often come up with a lot of practical applications. Mostly, you learn that there are different ways to look at the world around you. There are a lot of different philosophies, I was only exposed to handful in college, but some were very different, and had a certain following, almost like a cult, and didn't stray too far. I was really into philosophy, just late getting to registration, and need to fill one of those BS required courses, that has nothing to do with your major. Found out why those classes didn't fill up too, they like to assign length papers, and a lot of reading. Learned to show up early for registration, and look for the classes popular with the sports majors, and spoiled rich kid party majors, they seem to know the light homework classes in advance...
03-06-2019 05:58
James___
★★★★☆
(1591)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Science is a set of falsifiable theories.


I eventually looked this up, since I've never seen anywhere but here, and it's repeated daily...

It comes from the philosophy of Karl Popper, who died in 1994. I'm sure he came up with a simple test, to cut through some of the BS, but science was around for hundreds of years, before he was born. He didn't define science, sorry... Unless somebody like Al Gore gather together a bunch of scientist, and they all formed a consensus, to redefine science. Must have missed it. Philosophy has it's place, but doesn't often come up with a lot of practical applications. Mostly, you learn that there are different ways to look at the world around you. There are a lot of different philosophies, I was only exposed to handful in college, but some were very different, and had a certain following, almost like a cult, and didn't stray too far. I was really into philosophy, just late getting to registration, and need to fill one of those BS required courses, that has nothing to do with your major. Found out why those classes didn't fill up too, they like to assign length papers, and a lot of reading. Learned to show up early for registration, and look for the classes popular with the sports majors, and spoiled rich kid party majors, they seem to know the light homework classes in advance...



Basically your computer is a set of falsifiable theories based on Einstein's falsifiable work. The fact that you're reading my post shows that Einstein's work back in 1906 has been falsified. And thus science itself has been falsified.
I am glad that the people in this forum present facts which can be demonstrated. Science is falsifiable. It can be demonstrated to eb none congruent like posting online which is congruent.
And the Earth's position around the Sun and any eclipse can be measured. This happens when something is falsifiable by mere words and no act to the contrary.
No wonder communism is supported in this forum. If people are stupid enough to work for something then those clever enough to control their labour shall profit from it. Basically all Marx said. No wonder climate change isn't discussed in here. It's all about how if China controlled the US then American workers could be productive for the right government. You guys are simply amazing and a bunch of commies at the same time.
And Harvey, like ITN and IBDaMann, I have to consider all 3 of you as communist sympathizers. There are plenty of democratic countries that we can trade with but as Phil Knight owner of Nike said, we can be rich off of cheap Chinese labour. It's about republicans that you support getting richer while, to make you happy Harvey, we can become China since they are our most valued ally. That's what our most valued trading partner is, right?
We can become communist to be more like China because we like what they do and how they do it. We as patriotic Americans support them, right Harvey?
This requires a Yes or No answer. We support China, right?
Edited on 03-06-2019 06:06
03-06-2019 06:17
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4920)
James___ wrote:Harvey, Americans are inherently unhappy people. All they do is attack each other. They only work together because of money. Outside of that common greed they just don't care for each other.

You are the consummate Marxist. Hatred for America. Hatred for Americans. Projection of your own unhappiness and self-loathing. Mischaracterization of economy drivers as "greed." Intellectual dishonesty. The works!

James___ wrote: And Harvey, you are ignorant.

More projection.

James___ wrote: You can't do better with climate change and yet your opinion should matter.

Revered devotion to your religion.

James___ wrote: It is funny Harvey because American men are the ones who tell me that they are not happy with their American wives or their life in the US.

I take it you expect everyone to believe that you speak for American men beyond your projection and self-loathing.


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
03-06-2019 06:26
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4920)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:Atmospheric science can be interesting but it's too technical for this forum.

Homunculus fallacy.


Actually, it's the "hasty generalization" fallacy. I don't believe James__ is capable of grasping recursion sufficiently to misuse it in such a manner.


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 1 of 212>





Join the debate dollars:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Even if Democrats spend 100 trillion dollars and reduce CO2 in air to 100 ppm temperature won't chang124-04-2019 21:42
▲ 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