For IBDM's Sake

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > For IBDM's Sake

For IBDM's Sake10-07-2021 06:28
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Does anyone care why the inverse law in mathematics is wrong? If people don't care, why does it matter? This is the upper cut that I wanted to spare him from. He's too ignorant to know when he's wrong. It's like playing with an"I wanna be a brown dwarf star in a couple of billion years or so" kid. I know, he has his Nintendo 64 and his Game Boy but this is actual science. p.s., IBDM, how about if I buy you a brand new Atari? Maybe a new Sega Genesis? You could be cool with the kids and play all of the latest games. What you want, right? Edited on 10-07-2021 06:31
10-07-2021 18:57
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	James___ wrote: Does anyone care why the inverse law in mathematics is wrong? There isn't one. James___ wrote: If people don't care, why does it matter? This is the upper cut that I wanted to spare him from. He's too ignorant to know when he's wrong. It's like playing with an"I wanna be a brown dwarf star in a couple of billion years or so" kid. I know, he has his Nintendo 64 and his Game Boy but this is actual science. No science here. Just buzzwords. James___ wrote: p.s., IBDM, how about if I buy you a brand new Atari? Maybe a new Sega Genesis? You could be cool with the kids and play all of the latest games. What you want, right? Boy, are YOU stuck in time. The latest games are written for the XBox1, Switch, and Steam. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-07-2021 19:37
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	Didn't Sega go out of business about 20 years ago? The Inverse Law works, how could it be wrong? Try studying it, without the inverted whiskey jug. I know it works from analog electronics. Though, I learned in college, that all those calculations are rarely actually needed. Never really want to push parts to their maximum ratings. Most everything has a forgiving range, you don't need to be that precise, unless you need super efficient circuits.
11-07-2021 04:59
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	HarveyH55 wrote:The Inverse Law works, how could it be wrong? It's correctly referred to as the Inverse Square law. There is no Inverse law in mathematics but rather an inverse property, and that depends on the operation. For example, the inverse of multiplication is division and vice versa. The inverse of addition is subtraction and vice versa. Thus the identity inverse of 1/3 is to multiply by 3. Regarding the Inverse Square law, many things in nature hold the relationship of reducing by the square of the distance. (Newton's) Gravity is a great example, the gravity between to masses is ultimately divided by the square of the distance. Similarly, the power of electromagnetic radiation, e.g. sunlight, is not the power as emitted at the source but must be divided by the square of the distance to the receiving end. So the Inverse Square law simply means that there is a distance involved and that there is some value that must be divided by that distance squared to get the correct value.
11-07-2021 16:47
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	HarveyH55 wrote: Didn't Sega go out of business about 20 years ago? The Inverse Law works, how could it be wrong? Try studying it, without the inverted whiskey jug. I know it works from analog electronics. Though, I learned in college, that all those calculations are rarely actually needed. Never really want to push parts to their maximum ratings. Most everything has a forgiving range, you don't need to be that precise, unless you need super efficient circuits. Didn't Sega go out of business about 20 years ago? And yet you don't understand that innovation happens and things will change. And I guess some people fear change because they're not in control. And at the same time you guys actually reject natural climate change which has been well documented in history. Of course, that does show that it influences civilizations. Yet you and your friends seem to be ignorant of that aspect of climate change.

11-07-2021 17:33
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	James___ wrote:. And at the same time you guys actually reject natural climate change which has been well documented in history. And yet you strangely believe that an unambiguous, formal definition of the global Climate has been well documented in history.
11-07-2021 21:06
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote:. And at the same time you guys actually reject natural climate change which has been well documented in history. And yet you strangely believe that an unambiguous, formal definition of the global Climate has been well documented in history. A lot of it has been well documented. I guess if a person hasn't taken the time to learn about history and how science actually agrees with the climate changes of the past, it's easy to see a relationship. But with you and your friends, all you can say is "CO2" and climate change "doesn't happen". The original "debate" or "argument" was if man was influencing natural climate change. And since you don't remember, one thing I have been on about is understanding natural climate variation or what I like to call NCV. Acronyms make everything sound more "official". And as I mentioned, you and your friends do not support natural climate variation. And if that is not understood, then how could it be understood if mankind is influencing it? I could ask the question that as water tables drop in California, are the resulting fires and arid landscape influencing air currents? Basically does that allow for a domino affect? And water tables that have fallen to 2,000 feet below ground level is caused by farming which is man made. The Dust Bowl of the 1930's was a regional climate change caused by man. Poor farming practices caused the land to become a barren waste land. And once it was realized that sustainable farming practices would allow the land to recover, it did. Irrigation from the Ogallala aquifer might've helped as well. But you Sir live in a tiny little fish bowl. Breath the air if you can.
11-07-2021 21:24
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	James___ wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: Didn't Sega go out of business about 20 years ago? The Inverse Law works, how could it be wrong? Try studying it, without the inverted whiskey jug. I know it works from analog electronics. Though, I learned in college, that all those calculations are rarely actually needed. Never really want to push parts to their maximum ratings. Most everything has a forgiving range, you don't need to be that precise, unless you need super efficient circuits. Didn't Sega go out of business about 20 years ago? And yet you don't understand that innovation happens and things will change. And I guess some people fear change because they're not in control. And at the same time you guys actually reject natural climate change which has been well documented in history. Of course, that does show that it influences civilizations. Yet you and your friends seem to be ignorant of that aspect of climate change. From a guy that believes his surgeon screwed up, by changing the location of his colon. Spent a decade, trying to convince other doctors, that it was a botch surgery, lacking any medical, or even basic physiology training. Didn't take into consideration, that they had to remove a good chunk, with the cancer, and it was never going to be precisely the same. Finally, got the crap-sack install, and still not happy, needs the small intestine version to make the world right, It's not a perfect world, and nobody can predict the future. We don't always get the outcome we expect. Life is full of disappointments and tragedies. We aren't in control of the planet, or weather patterns. They all change, at their own pace. Sometimes we notice a trend, and able to make some preparations. We don't ever really know just what the impact is going to be, until it actually happens. We speculate, we gamble, and we hope we guess right.
11-07-2021 23:20
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	James___ wrote: IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote:. And at the same time you guys actually reject natural climate change which has been well documented in history. And yet you strangely believe that an unambiguous, formal definition of the global Climate has been well documented in history. A lot of it has been well documented. You can't claim documentation for what you can't define. James___ wrote: I guess if a person hasn't taken the time to learn about history and how science actually agrees with the climate changes of the past, it's easy to see a relationship. Science has not theories about undefined phrases and words. James___ wrote: But with you and your friends, all you can say is "CO2" and climate change "doesn't happen". Define 'climate change'. James___ wrote: The original "debate" or "argument" was if man was influencing natural climate change. And since you don't remember, one thing I have been on about is understanding natural climate variation or what I like to call NCV. Define 'climate change'. James___ wrote: Acronyms make everything sound more "official". And as I mentioned, you and your friends do not support natural climate variation. Define 'climate change'. James___ wrote: And if that is not understood, then how could it be understood if mankind is influencing it? It can't. Define 'climate change'. James___ wrote: I could ask the question that as water tables drop in California, They aren't. James___ wrote: are the resulting fires and arid landscape influencing air currents? Yes. Fires and mountains influence air currents. James___ wrote: Basically does that allow for a domino affect? No. James___ wrote: And water tables that have fallen to 2,000 feet below ground level is caused by farming which is man made. They aren't falling. James___ wrote: The Dust Bowl of the 1930's was a regional climate change caused by man. Define 'climate change'. James___ wrote: Poor farming practices caused the land to become a barren waste land. Nope. The land is very productive today. James___ wrote: And once it was realized that sustainable farming practices would allow the land to recover, it did. Correct. The land is very productive today. James___ wrote: Irrigation from the Ogallala aquifer might've helped as well. Irrelevant. James___ wrote: But you Sir live in a tiny little fish bowl. Breath the air if you can. We all do! The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
12-07-2021 01:04
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Into the Night wrote: James___ wrote: IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote:. And at the same time you guys actually reject natural climate change which has been well documented in history. And yet you strangely believe that an unambiguous, formal definition of the global Climate has been well documented in history. A lot of it has been well documented. You can't claim documentation for what you can't define. Sadly, it is you who can't reconcile that observations over time have been made. I am beginning to think that you are either a Republican or a Born Again Christian. There is a place for faith and at the same time history has been thoroughly recorded since Jesus was crucified.
12-07-2021 03:25
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	James___ wrote:A lot of it has been well documented. None of it has been unambiguously defined. Ever. James___ wrote: I guess if a person hasn't taken the time to learn about history and how science actually agrees with the climate changes of the past, it's easy to see a relationship. I guess if a scientifically illiterate person is going to ignore the absence of unambiguous definitions in order to create plausible deniability about his bizarre delusions, it's easy to conclude the predetermined conclusions mandated by ones WACKY religious dogma. James___ wrote: But with you and your friends, all you can say is "CO2" and climate change "doesn't happen". But with you and your friends, all you can do is insist that the totally undefined happens. James___ wrote:The original "debate" or "argument" was if man was influencing natural climate change. The original dogma began without unambiguously defining anything, i.e. totally babbling complete gibberish ... with absolute certainty. James___ wrote:And since you don't remember, one thing I have been on about is understanding natural climate variation or what I like to call NCV. I totally understand that you are all about preaching the completely undefined with amazing levels of emotion. I get it. James___ wrote: And as I mentioned, you and your friends do not support natural climate variation. Friends don't let friends drive the completely undefined. James___ wrote:And if that is not understood, then how could it be understood if mankind is influencing it? And if that is not unambiguously defined, how could it be understood whether the completely undefined is affecting in an completely undefined way the completely undefined? James___ wrote: I could ask the question that as water tables drop in California, are the resulting fires and arid landscape influencing air currents? I could ask the question of whether the total negligence of California's forests and the unabridged mismanagement of California's natural resources results in ever increasing wildfires. (p.s. the answer is "yes") Basically does that allow for a domino affect? (p.s. the answer is "yes") James___ wrote: And water tables that have fallen to 2,000 feet below ground level is caused by farming which is man made. Let's ask Into the Night what he thinks about this one. James___ wrote: The Dust Bowl of the 1930's was a regional climate change caused by man. This is where you provide all your evidence and you make your case ... after you unambiguously define "human activity" (honing in on the word "unambiguously"). James___ wrote: Poor farming practices caused the land to become a barren waste land. Is your opinion based on your extensive farming experience as well as your amazing farming acumen? James___ wrote:And once it was realized that sustainable farming practices would allow the land to recover, it did. ... or the initial problem was environmental and totally beyond the control of any farmer. Hmmmm. James___ wrote: Irrigation from the Ogallala aquifer might've helped as well. Irrigation is good thing. James___ wrote: But you Sir live in a tiny little fish bowl. It's better to be a big fish in a little pond than a small fish in a big pond. James___ wrote:Breath the air if you can. Fish have gills.
12-07-2021 03:37
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote:A lot of it has been well documented. None of it has been unambiguously defined. Ever. And yet it is you who defines what "unambiguously" means. With you, ITN, etc., climate can not be defined. At the same time I can say there are 3 basic climates with many and varied subsets. The subsets are regional variations within the 3 primary sets of climate. Why we agree to disagree. You simply can't understand the 3 basic types of climate. This is because you are aware of all of the subsets and see no pattern to such diversity. You are handicapped like your friends, right?
12-07-2021 04:46
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	James___ wrote:And yet it is you who defines what "unambiguously" means. I hope you aren't planning on faulting me for unambiguously defining my terms. I hope you aren't planning on giving a pass to those who will not unambiguously define their terms. James___ wrote:With you, ITN, etc., You need to define this first. What do I have to do with ITN? Who is "etc."? James___ wrote:climate can not be defined. ... because it is a WACKY religion of hatred and intolerance. I guess we're done. James___ wrote: At the same time I can say there are 3 basic climates with many and varied subsets. So you categorize all of your subjective characterizations into three categories. Great. That doesn't help. James___ wrote: You simply can't understand the 3 basic types of climate. So you have been reduced to declaring what I somehow cannot understand. Great. We're done. James___ wrote: This is because you are aware of all of the subsets and see no pattern to such diversity. What a concept! Patterns of diversity! The convergence of divergence! Yes, I think we're done.

Join the debate For IBDM's Sake:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Arguing for the sake of arguing	1	14-05-2017 01:07