Remember me
▼ Content

Geological Influences



Page 2 of 3<123>
28-05-2017 11:24
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5949)
Wake wrote: Well, I actually spent my life working in science ...

I don't believe it. You are scientifically illiterate.

What, exactly, is this "science" in which you spent your life working?


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
28-05-2017 19:17
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: Well, I actually spent my life working in science ...

I don't believe it. You are scientifically illiterate.

What, exactly, is this "science" in which you spent your life working?
.


I couldn't care less what you and you think about what I have an haven't done.

You and you have told us that there is fission occurring in the Earth's core and that movement of ocean currents breaks the laws of thermodynamics.

I don't believe that we need to count you among the knowledgeable. About anything.
28-05-2017 19:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night,
You also do not consider my pursuing an experiment in Atmospheric Chemistry as thinking for myself. What helped me to consider it work that has been done my scientists. I could day Thank You Jesus but I think most people might wonder what connection has to Jesus.
And if deep faults are helping to warm the eastern Pacific and Indian Oceans then the Great Barrier Reef might be in jeopardy.


There has been a redirection of ocean currents around Australia from the Coral Sea. This has caused warming.

Question - what would make anyone think that corals are not just as accepting of increasing temperatures (which in any case are FAR less than increases in air temperatures) as land animals are?


The movement of ocean currents does not cause the Earth to warm or cool. They are not sources of energy. They are the results of uneven heating of the oceans by the Sun.

It requires energy to warm the Earth. The only way to warm the Earth is to increase the output of the Sun, our only source of energy (other than fission inside the Earth itself, which is pretty insignificant compared to the output of the Sun).

The Great Barrier reef water temperature changes daily. The coral is sturdier than you are led to believe by certain eco-types posing as 'scientists', and by the media willing to lap it up (the media DOES have an agenda).

The problem in this country is that people don't know that Pravda is lying to them. They live behind what I call the Plastic Curtain.



You really don't know much, do you ?


Argument of the Stone.

Are you really this stupid?


The Parrot Killer
28-05-2017 19:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night,
You also do not consider my pursuing an experiment in Atmospheric Chemistry as thinking for myself. What helped me to consider it work that has been done my scientists. I could day Thank You Jesus but I think most people might wonder what connection has to Jesus.
And if deep faults are helping to warm the eastern Pacific and Indian Oceans then the Great Barrier Reef might be in jeopardy.


There has been a redirection of ocean currents around Australia from the Coral Sea. This has caused warming.

Question - what would make anyone think that corals are not just as accepting of increasing temperatures (which in any case are FAR less than increases in air temperatures) as land animals are?


The movement of ocean currents does not cause the Earth to warm or cool. They are not sources of energy. They are the results of uneven heating of the oceans by the Sun.

It requires energy to warm the Earth. The only way to warm the Earth is to increase the output of the Sun, our only source of energy (other than fission inside the Earth itself, which is pretty insignificant compared to the output of the Sun).

The Great Barrier reef water temperature changes daily. The coral is sturdier than you are led to believe by certain eco-types posing as 'scientists', and by the media willing to lap it up (the media DOES have an agenda).

The problem in this country is that people don't know that Pravda is lying to them. They live behind what I call the Plastic Curtain.



You really don't know much, do you ?


He believes that there is fission occurring in Earth's core. What else do you need to know about him?

There is. What else do you think is producing all that energy down there? Gasoline?
Wake wrote:
Despite knowing that the waters below 31 south latitude have been cooling more than normal
You don't know what temperature the waters below latitude 31 S have. Argument from randU.
Wake wrote:
he thinks that redirection of the currents in the coral sea break the laws of thermodynamics.
Where the hell did you get THIS idea from???
Wake wrote:
The level of ignorance suggests to me that IB and into the night are the same person signing on under two different names.
So you think anyone quoting and using the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law is a sock now, do you? Are you normally this paranoid?
Wake wrote:
I cannot believe that two people would have such odd ideas about science in the same place at the same time.

Not even if it's the same science? I didn't write it. Neither did IBDaMann.


The Parrot Killer
28-05-2017 19:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: The level of ignorance suggests to me that IB and into the night are the same person signing on under two different names.

This is the final resort of the stupid. Those who embarrass the crap out of you and who reveal you for the scientifically illiterate moron that you are must all be lumped together as the same person.

Too funny.

I'll take this as confirmation that you are unable to pick up on our differences, thus confirming your inability to grasp the obvious.


Wake wrote: I cannot believe that two people would have such odd ideas about science in the same place at the same time.

Priceless!

First, you refer to science as "such odd ideas."

Second, you don't realize that science does not differ between people. If two people who understand science, such as Into the Night and myself, present it for consideration, it will necessarily be the same. The science we present is not our suddenly coincidental "ideas."

Third, your inability to believe that two people who understand science can post to the same site dumbfounding.
.


Yes, we have seen your science. Well, I actually spent my life working in science and you are a high school student or a gravedigger that uses "science" to dig with.

You're a liar, dude. Your inability to grasp such simple concepts in thermodynamics and the properties of light indicate this.


The Parrot Killer
28-05-2017 19:58
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night,
You also do not consider my pursuing an experiment in Atmospheric Chemistry as thinking for myself. What helped me to consider it work that has been done my scientists. I could day Thank You Jesus but I think most people might wonder what connection has to Jesus.
And if deep faults are helping to warm the eastern Pacific and Indian Oceans then the Great Barrier Reef might be in jeopardy.


There has been a redirection of ocean currents around Australia from the Coral Sea. This has caused warming.

Question - what would make anyone think that corals are not just as accepting of increasing temperatures (which in any case are FAR less than increases in air temperatures) as land animals are?


The movement of ocean currents does not cause the Earth to warm or cool. They are not sources of energy. They are the results of uneven heating of the oceans by the Sun.

It requires energy to warm the Earth. The only way to warm the Earth is to increase the output of the Sun, our only source of energy (other than fission inside the Earth itself, which is pretty insignificant compared to the output of the Sun).

The Great Barrier reef water temperature changes daily. The coral is sturdier than you are led to believe by certain eco-types posing as 'scientists', and by the media willing to lap it up (the media DOES have an agenda).

The problem in this country is that people don't know that Pravda is lying to them. They live behind what I call the Plastic Curtain.



You really don't know much, do you ?


Argument of the Stone.

Are you really this stupid?


I suggest that people who think that fission occurs in the Earth's core needn't make comments about anyone else's intelligence.

That you then demonstrate it again with "where do you think all that energy is coming from? Gasoline?" shows that you haven't even a vague understanding of science. It would only have taken you the small effort to look it up but that never crossed your mind because you're stupid and not simply ignorant.

James may be wrong on many points but at least he is attempting to learn.
Edited on 28-05-2017 20:06
28-05-2017 19:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: Well, I actually spent my life working in science ...

I don't believe it. You are scientifically illiterate.

What, exactly, is this "science" in which you spent your life working?
.


I couldn't care less what you and you think about what I have an haven't done.

You're a liar, dude. You obviously care quite a lot about it. You KEEP BRINGING IT UP to 'qualify' yourself.
Wake wrote:
You and you have told us that there is fission occurring in the Earth's core

There is.
Wake wrote:
and that movement of ocean currents breaks the laws of thermodynamics.

You're confused. Never said any such thing.
Wake wrote:
I don't believe that we need to count you among the knowledgeable. About anything.

You've shown your hand. I amazed you decided to bluff with a 7-2 off suit.


The Parrot Killer
28-05-2017 20:11
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: Well, I actually spent my life working in science ...

I don't believe it. You are scientifically illiterate.

What, exactly, is this "science" in which you spent your life working?
.


I couldn't care less what you and you think about what I have an haven't done.

You're a liar, dude. You obviously care quite a lot about it. You KEEP BRINGING IT UP to 'qualify' yourself.
Wake wrote:
You and you have told us that there is fission occurring in the Earth's core

There is.
Wake wrote:
and that movement of ocean currents breaks the laws of thermodynamics.

You're confused. Never said any such thing.
Wake wrote:
I don't believe that we need to count you among the knowledgeable. About anything.

You've shown your hand. I amazed you decided to bluff with a 7-2 off suit.


You or your alter-ego said it and since it is published it's pretty difficult to get away from now isn't it?

"dude"? That again demonstrates a high school jr. in action.
28-05-2017 23:00
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5949)
Wake wrote:"dude"? That again demonstrates a high school jr. in action.

So, what exactly is this "greenhouse effect"? Is it an increase in the earth's average global temperature?



.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
29-05-2017 11:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote: Well, I actually spent my life working in science ...

I don't believe it. You are scientifically illiterate.

What, exactly, is this "science" in which you spent your life working?
.


I couldn't care less what you and you think about what I have an haven't done.

You're a liar, dude. You obviously care quite a lot about it. You KEEP BRINGING IT UP to 'qualify' yourself.
Wake wrote:
You and you have told us that there is fission occurring in the Earth's core

There is.
Wake wrote:
and that movement of ocean currents breaks the laws of thermodynamics.

You're confused. Never said any such thing.
Wake wrote:
I don't believe that we need to count you among the knowledgeable. About anything.

You've shown your hand. I amazed you decided to bluff with a 7-2 off suit.


You or your alter-ego said it and since it is published it's pretty difficult to get away from now isn't it?

Get away from what?
Wake wrote:
"dude"? That again demonstrates a high school jr. in action.

No, dude. That's because I live in the West.

Are you going to start redefining words now, or would you rather stick to English?


The Parrot Killer
30-05-2017 17:18
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote:"dude"? That again demonstrates a high school jr. in action.

So, what exactly is this "greenhouse effect"? Is it an increase in the earth's average global temperature?



.


The term Greenhouse was first used about 1827. CO2 is supposed to create the same effect as a greenhouse does. Light goes in and heats the interior. This is because the wavelength of solar radiation has been changed. You probably already now this. It's the same as leaving your windows up on your car on a hot day. The interior temperature can go over 130° F. if it's only 90° F. outside.
Scientists have yet to demonstrate that CO2 has this same effect on our atmosphere. All of their claims are based on computer modeling and not physical tests.
One major problem the IPCC has is that once a Global Warming Pause was observed they started including the warming of certain parts of oceans. And they are attributing the warming of the Greenland Sea abyss, Arctic Ocean and the eastern Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean as being caused by CO2 in our atmosphere. I think previously they only considered atmospheric warming.
What bothers me is when they do not say an ocean's temperature relative to atmospheric temps. This would show whether or not our oceans are absorbing or radiating heat.

@Tim, why this matters is it could significantly impact marine life from the North Sea up to Scotland. A major kill off is possible. Marine life prefers cold water to warm. One scientist did not realize what he was writing when he said that marine life lives on the edge without realizing it. This is because if the is no oxygen in the water then fish die off. Colder water absorbs more oxygen.

http://omp.gso.uri.edu/ompweb/doee/science/physical/choxy1.htm
30-05-2017 18:11
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5949)
James_ wrote: CO2 is supposed to create the same effect as a greenhouse does.

It does not. CO2 is not a solid. It is a gas. CO2 cannot stop air flow.

James_ wrote: Light goes in and heats the interior. This is because the wavelength of solar radiation has been changed. You probably already now this. It's the same as leaving your windows up on your car on a hot day. The interior temperature can go over 130° F. if it's only 90° F. outside.

Yes, because in a greenhouse, or in your sealed car, the internal warmed air cannot "rise" out for cooler air to flow in to take its place, whereas this is what is happening outside the greenhouse and the car.

James_ wrote: One major problem the IPCC has is that once a Global Warming Pause was observed they started including the warming of certain parts of oceans.

The issue is that there was never any Global Warming that anyone could ever measure to any accuracy in the first place for there to somehow be a "pause."

James_ wrote: @Tim, why this matters is it could significantly impact marine life from the North Sea up to Scotland. A major kill off is possible.

There are MANY persistent forces that are constantly altering all the world's environments, but you can rest easy knowing that Global Warming is not one of them.

If you are worried about major kill-offs in the North Sea then you should focus on actual threats, e.g. overfishing, introduction of hostile species, etc.

James_ wrote: Marine life prefers cold water to warm.

Fish prefer the temperature and type of water in which they have evolved, or for Creationists, for which they were created.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
30-05-2017 18:28
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote:"dude"? That again demonstrates a high school jr. in action.

So, what exactly is this "greenhouse effect"? Is it an increase in the earth's average global temperature?



.


The term Greenhouse was first used about 1827. CO2 is supposed to create the same effect as a greenhouse does. Light goes in and heats the interior. This is because the wavelength of solar radiation has been changed. You probably already now this. It's the same as leaving your windows up on your car on a hot day. The interior temperature can go over 130° F. if it's only 90° F. outside.
Scientists have yet to demonstrate that CO2 has this same effect on our atmosphere. All of their claims are based on computer modeling and not physical tests.
One major problem the IPCC has is that once a Global Warming Pause was observed they started including the warming of certain parts of oceans. And they are attributing the warming of the Greenland Sea abyss, Arctic Ocean and the eastern Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean as being caused by CO2 in our atmosphere. I think previously they only considered atmospheric warming.
What bothers me is when they do not say an ocean's temperature relative to atmospheric temps. This would show whether or not our oceans are absorbing or radiating heat.

@Tim, why this matters is it could significantly impact marine life from the North Sea up to Scotland. A major kill off is possible. Marine life prefers cold water to warm. One scientist did not realize what he was writing when he said that marine life lives on the edge without realizing it. This is because if the is no oxygen in the water then fish die off. Colder water absorbs more oxygen.

http://omp.gso.uri.edu/ompweb/doee/science/physical/choxy1.htm


At some point these jackasses trying to pedal "global warming" and the horrible consequences from it are going to have to face reality.

One of the latest articles in Science News is that they believe that increasing CO2 in the oceans will cause acidification (you do NOT call having a base solution becoming less base turning it into an acid. This is a direct attempt to use incorrect language to make something look horrifying to the masses. It is a clear lie used by the greenies to promote their agenda.)

Then they claim that the oceans will absorb addition CO2, when heating of the ocean would release more CO2 into the atmosphere. Another clear lie from the greenies against known science.

Then this addition CO2 in the oceans will prevent nitrogen fixation in microscopic organisms. Well there were several papers disproving this but of course their OPINION is that these papers are in error.

The entire discounting of science around the AGW business is sickening to say the very least.
30-05-2017 19:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Wake wrote:"dude"? That again demonstrates a high school jr. in action.

So, what exactly is this "greenhouse effect"? Is it an increase in the earth's average global temperature?



.


The term Greenhouse was first used about 1827. CO2 is supposed to create the same effect as a greenhouse does. Light goes in and heats the interior. This is because the wavelength of solar radiation has been changed. You probably already now this. It's the same as leaving your windows up on your car on a hot day. The interior temperature can go over 130° F. if it's only 90° F. outside.
Scientists have yet to demonstrate that CO2 has this same effect on our atmosphere. All of their claims are based on computer modeling and not physical tests.
One major problem the IPCC has is that once a Global Warming Pause was observed they started including the warming of certain parts of oceans. And they are attributing the warming of the Greenland Sea abyss, Arctic Ocean and the eastern Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean as being caused by CO2 in our atmosphere. I think previously they only considered atmospheric warming.
What bothers me is when they do not say an ocean's temperature relative to atmospheric temps. This would show whether or not our oceans are absorbing or radiating heat.

@Tim, why this matters is it could significantly impact marine life from the North Sea up to Scotland. A major kill off is possible. Marine life prefers cold water to warm. One scientist did not realize what he was writing when he said that marine life lives on the edge without realizing it. This is because if the is no oxygen in the water then fish die off. Colder water absorbs more oxygen.

http://omp.gso.uri.edu/ompweb/doee/science/physical/choxy1.htm


At some point these jackasses trying to pedal "global warming" and the horrible consequences from it are going to have to face reality.

One of the latest articles in Science News is that they believe that increasing CO2 in the oceans will cause acidification (you do NOT call having a base solution becoming less base turning it into an acid. This is a direct attempt to use incorrect language to make something look horrifying to the masses. It is a clear lie used by the greenies to promote their agenda.)

Then they claim that the oceans will absorb addition CO2, when heating of the ocean would release more CO2 into the atmosphere. Another clear lie from the greenies against known science.

Then this addition CO2 in the oceans will prevent nitrogen fixation in microscopic organisms. Well there were several papers disproving this but of course their OPINION is that these papers are in error.

The entire discounting of science around the AGW business is sickening to say the very least.

Unfortunately, redefining words is one of the most popular techniques used by the liberals. Others include contextomies, belittlement of any Outsider to their religions (such as the Church of Global Warming or the Church of Karl Marx), and redefining various laws and theories of science to suit their weird 'physics'.

Don't forget the mainstream media is their biggest friend.

More people are waking up to the idea that something is wrong with their arguments, but because they are poorly educated in science, math, or philosophy as a group, they can't quite put their finger on what.


The Parrot Killer
30-05-2017 22:58
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
ibdamann,
CO2's effect in our atmosphere is supposed to redirect refracted light so it stays in our atmosphere and notice I said supposed to.

@All,
Why the 2013 IPCC reports matter is because one of them suggested there was a 15 year global warming pause.
Another 2013 report said that for the previous 15 years thete was minimal stratospheric ozone depletion.
It is after this that they change the way they collect and process data. It might be that fluorocarbons that were not banned by the 1987 Montreal Protocol are still a problem.
Still, tectonic and under water geological activity are releasing a lot of heat. That'd be the new warming. Is it a threat ? Not sure but will negatively impact marine life.

P.S., would comment on the last few posts but did enjoy reading them. With the IPCC it might be a game of deception now.
Edited on 30-05-2017 23:02
30-05-2017 23:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
James_ wrote:
ibdamann,
CO2's effect in our atmosphere is supposed to redirect refracted light so it stays in our atmosphere and notice I said supposed to.

@All,
Why the 2013 IPCC reports matter is because one of them suggested there was a 15 year global warming pause.
Another 2013 report said that for the previous 15 years thete was minimal stratospheric ozone depletion.
It is after this that they change the way they collect and process data. It might be that fluorocarbons that were not banned by the 1987 Montreal Protocol are still a problem.
Still, tectonic and under water geological activity are releasing a lot of heat. That'd be the new warming. Is it a threat ? Not sure but will negatively impact marine life.

P.S., would comment on the last few posts but did enjoy reading them. With the IPCC it might be a game of deception now.


The IPCC is nothing but deception.

CO2 cannot trap energy. Nothing can.

There is no ozone depletion. There never was. Ozone is created by the action of the Sun's UV-B energy on the oxygen in the atmosphere. It decays by itself, and is also destroyed by the Sun's UV-C energy on the ozone. Each night it decays. Each day it is completely rebuilt.

As long as you have Sun and oxygen, you WILL have ozone. We couldn't destroy the ozone layer even if we wanted to.

CFC's are heavier than air. They will tend to stay in the lower atmosphere. They are also inert. They don't react with ozone. The chlorine by itself is VERY reactive and will react with something else before doing any significant damage to any ozone.

Some marine life dislikes the active undersea volcano. Others thrive in it and can exist nowhere else.


The Parrot Killer
30-05-2017 23:29
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
ibdamann,
CO2's effect in our atmosphere is supposed to redirect refracted light so it stays in our atmosphere and notice I said supposed to.

@All,
Why the 2013 IPCC reports matter is because one of them suggested there was a 15 year global warming pause.
Another 2013 report said that for the previous 15 years thete was minimal stratospheric ozone depletion.
It is after this that they change the way they collect and process data. It might be that fluorocarbons that were not banned by the 1987 Montreal Protocol are still a problem.
Still, tectonic and under water geological activity are releasing a lot of heat. That'd be the new warming. Is it a threat ? Not sure but will negatively impact marine life.

P.S., would comment on the last few posts but did enjoy reading them. With the IPCC it might be a game of deception now.


As I'm sure you're well aware,CO2 does nothing of the sort.

The chloroflourocarbons can in the labs convert O3 to O2. But there was insufficient amount in the atmosphere to have any real effect. It turns out that the south polar regions do not have much ozone protection because O2 is converted to O3 simply in the presence of Ultraviolet light. The southern polar regions do not get a lot of direct sunlight. Or at least not over the last couple thousands of years. This was another "science" panic.

The amount of warmth that is released by the Earth is something like a tenth of a percent of the Sun's daily quota. So it isn't important save local effects such as erupting volcanoes and the like.

The major percentage of the IPCC are not scientists but are politicians who are working towards a one world government.
Edited on 30-05-2017 23:32
31-05-2017 20:07
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Into the Night;
CO2 cannot trap energy. Nothing can.

There is no ozone depletion. There never was.

Stratospheric ozone "reflects" UV-B solar radiation. There is nothing that states that CO2 does not have that characteristic.

James_;
CO2's effect in our atmosphere is supposed to redirect refracted light so it stays in our atmosphere and notice I said supposed to.

As for ozone depletion, it has been happening and why it might matter;
http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/2013/11/linking-ozone-depletion-to-climate-change/#.WS78zGgrLIU

Wake;
As I'm sure you're well aware,CO2 does nothing of the sort.

James_;
I actually believe that CO2 is essential for stratospheric ozone to occur.

Wake;
The major percentage of the IPCC are not scientists but are politicians who are working towards a one world government.

James_;
I think the IPCC realizes the mistakes that it made and doesn't want them to become known. Call it job security.
Edited on 31-05-2017 20:27
31-05-2017 20:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night;
CO2 cannot trap energy. Nothing can.

There is no ozone depletion. There never was.

Stratospheric ozone "reflects" UV-B solar radiation. There is nothing that states that CO2 does not have that characteristic.


No, it does not. UV-B is absorbed by oxygen. The energy absorbed causes a chemical reaction (endothermic) that produces ozone.

Ozone decay or destruction (which happens higher in the stratosphere) is exothermic, resulting in oxygen again.

Energy is STILL moving outward. You cannot trap energy.

CO2 absorption results in heating of the CO2, since it is absorbing infrared light. This heat is thermal energy, which is quickly dissipated to the other material surrounding that molecule.
Only about 1% of the light hitting CO2 is actually absorbed. The rest just passes right on by like the CO2 was transparent.

ALL the material, including CO2, in the atmosphere emits infrared light according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Energy is STILL moving outward. You cannot trap energy.

You cannot use a colder substance to heat a hotter substance. That would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

You cannot reduce radiance and increase the temperature of the Earth at the same time. That would violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

You cannot trap energy. That would violate the 1st law of thermodynamics.


The Parrot Killer
31-05-2017 21:10
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night;
CO2 cannot trap energy. Nothing can.

There is no ozone depletion. There never was.

Stratospheric ozone "reflects" UV-B solar radiation. There is nothing that states that CO2 does not have that characteristic.

James_;
CO2's effect in our atmosphere is supposed to redirect refracted light so it stays in our atmosphere and notice I said supposed to.

As for ozone depletion, it has been happening and why it might matter;
http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/2013/11/linking-ozone-depletion-to-climate-change/#.WS78zGgrLIU

Wake;
As I'm sure you're well aware,CO2 does nothing of the sort.

James_;
I actually believe that CO2 is essential for stratospheric ozone to occur.

Wake;
The major percentage of the IPCC are not scientists but are politicians who are working towards a one world government.

James_;
I think the IPCC realizes the mistakes that it made and doesn't want them to become known. Call it job security.


I think that you are trying to educate yourself and are moving ever closer to the truth as we know it at this point. What you have to beware of is the totally unscientific claims that we KNOW the answers. There is hardly a day goes by that entire theories are smashed to pieces. So we have to always retain a level of skepticism of every theory. That is especially required in quantum theory that is nothing more than mathematical representations with no other real basis. Or Astrophysics in which we know that the universe does not behave as it should with the visible matter and hence have to invent "dark matter" instead of the possibility that gravity may not be a universal constant simply because Newton and Einstein proclaimed it so.
31-05-2017 21:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night;
CO2 cannot trap energy. Nothing can.

There is no ozone depletion. There never was.

Stratospheric ozone "reflects" UV-B solar radiation. There is nothing that states that CO2 does not have that characteristic.

James_;
CO2's effect in our atmosphere is supposed to redirect refracted light so it stays in our atmosphere and notice I said supposed to.

As for ozone depletion, it has been happening and why it might matter;
http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/2013/11/linking-ozone-depletion-to-climate-change/#.WS78zGgrLIU

Wake;
As I'm sure you're well aware,CO2 does nothing of the sort.

James_;
I actually believe that CO2 is essential for stratospheric ozone to occur.

Wake;
The major percentage of the IPCC are not scientists but are politicians who are working towards a one world government.

James_;
I think the IPCC realizes the mistakes that it made and doesn't want them to become known. Call it job security.


I think that you are trying to educate yourself and are moving ever closer to the truth as we know it at this point. What you have to beware of is the totally unscientific claims that we KNOW the answers. There is hardly a day goes by that entire theories are smashed to pieces. So we have to always retain a level of skepticism of every theory. That is especially required in quantum theory that is nothing more than mathematical representations with no other real basis.

It has a real basis. We can see the effects of these particles. We use them on a daily basis in our electronics. It is quantum mechanics that allows us to create and understand things like LEDs, transistors, and diodes.
Wake wrote:
Or Astrophysics in which we know that the universe does not behave as it should with the visible matter and hence have to invent "dark matter" instead of the possibility that gravity may not be a universal constant simply because Newton and Einstein proclaimed it so.

Dark matter is not invented. It exists. We know it exists. Not everything lights up like a star. Newton's 'universal constant' for gravity is nothing more than a constant to convert the equation into convenient units of measurement.

As long as we use the same units of measurement, the constant is the same.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 31-05-2017 21:31
31-05-2017 22:15
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night;
CO2 cannot trap energy. Nothing can.

There is no ozone depletion. There never was.

Stratospheric ozone "reflects" UV-B solar radiation. There is nothing that states that CO2 does not have that characteristic.

James_;
CO2's effect in our atmosphere is supposed to redirect refracted light so it stays in our atmosphere and notice I said supposed to.

As for ozone depletion, it has been happening and why it might matter;
http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/2013/11/linking-ozone-depletion-to-climate-change/#.WS78zGgrLIU

Wake;
As I'm sure you're well aware,CO2 does nothing of the sort.

James_;
I actually believe that CO2 is essential for stratospheric ozone to occur.

Wake;
The major percentage of the IPCC are not scientists but are politicians who are working towards a one world government.

James_;
I think the IPCC realizes the mistakes that it made and doesn't want them to become known. Call it job security.


I think that you are trying to educate yourself and are moving ever closer to the truth as we know it at this point. What you have to beware of is the totally unscientific claims that we KNOW the answers. There is hardly a day goes by that entire theories are smashed to pieces. So we have to always retain a level of skepticism of every theory. That is especially required in quantum theory that is nothing more than mathematical representations with no other real basis.

It has a real basis. We can see the effects of these particles. We use them on a daily basis in our electronics. It is quantum mechanics that allows us to create and understand things like LEDs, transistors, and diodes.
Wake wrote:
Or Astrophysics in which we know that the universe does not behave as it should with the visible matter and hence have to invent "dark matter" instead of the possibility that gravity may not be a universal constant simply because Newton and Einstein proclaimed it so.

Dark matter is not invented. It exists. We know it exists. Not everything lights up like a star. Newton's 'universal constant' for gravity is nothing more than a constant to convert the equation into convenient units of measurement.

As long as we use the same units of measurement, the constant is the same.


Let me repeat - I am an electronics engineer. I have worked in high energy nuclear research. Do not tell me what exists and what doesn't. We do not know if "bosons" are real of a visible effect of the level of energy being used. Most subatomic particles are the same way. The only particles that we have been able to manipulate are electrons, positrons, protons and neutrons. All of the rest are questionable.

We have NO idea if "dark matter" has any existence. We haven't been able to discover any way of detecting it after over a century of the attempt. Lord Kelvin spoke of it in the 19th century. No one has ever designed any method that has successfully detected it. Of the proclaimed successes they have all turned out to be mistaken observations or faulty data.

Since we have not found the theorized dark matter this puts the onus on science to prove that Gravity is a constant in order to support the motions of the Universe.
01-06-2017 21:51
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:

We have NO idea if "dark matter" has any existence. We haven't been able to discover any way of detecting it after over a century of the attempt. Lord Kelvin spoke of it in the 19th century. No one has ever designed any method that has successfully detected it.


I think you missed the obvious on this one. The fact that our solar system works so well that Newton could realize his theory of gravity suggests that gravity interacts with it rather nicely.
Then in 1927 Einstein's Special Theory of relativity had a major component proven also suggests that there is an aether. Still, I think you should worry about the basics unless you plan on going to work someplace like CERN.
01-06-2017 23:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night;
CO2 cannot trap energy. Nothing can.

There is no ozone depletion. There never was.

Stratospheric ozone "reflects" UV-B solar radiation. There is nothing that states that CO2 does not have that characteristic.

James_;
CO2's effect in our atmosphere is supposed to redirect refracted light so it stays in our atmosphere and notice I said supposed to.

As for ozone depletion, it has been happening and why it might matter;
http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/2013/11/linking-ozone-depletion-to-climate-change/#.WS78zGgrLIU

Wake;
As I'm sure you're well aware,CO2 does nothing of the sort.

James_;
I actually believe that CO2 is essential for stratospheric ozone to occur.

Wake;
The major percentage of the IPCC are not scientists but are politicians who are working towards a one world government.

James_;
I think the IPCC realizes the mistakes that it made and doesn't want them to become known. Call it job security.


I think that you are trying to educate yourself and are moving ever closer to the truth as we know it at this point. What you have to beware of is the totally unscientific claims that we KNOW the answers. There is hardly a day goes by that entire theories are smashed to pieces. So we have to always retain a level of skepticism of every theory. That is especially required in quantum theory that is nothing more than mathematical representations with no other real basis.

It has a real basis. We can see the effects of these particles. We use them on a daily basis in our electronics. It is quantum mechanics that allows us to create and understand things like LEDs, transistors, and diodes.
Wake wrote:
Or Astrophysics in which we know that the universe does not behave as it should with the visible matter and hence have to invent "dark matter" instead of the possibility that gravity may not be a universal constant simply because Newton and Einstein proclaimed it so.

Dark matter is not invented. It exists. We know it exists. Not everything lights up like a star. Newton's 'universal constant' for gravity is nothing more than a constant to convert the equation into convenient units of measurement.

As long as we use the same units of measurement, the constant is the same.


Let me repeat - I am an electronics engineer. I have worked in high energy nuclear research.
Let me repeat - Your claims to credentials or work history mean nothing here. I don't believe you.
Wake wrote:
Do not tell me what exists and what doesn't.

I WILL tell you what exists. Do not threaten me or anyone else. The argument of the Stick is a fallacy.
Wake wrote:
We do not know if "bosons" are real of a visible effect of the level of energy being used.
Most subatomic particles are the same way.
Wrong, and a compositional error fallacy.
Wake wrote:
The only particles that we have been able to manipulate are electrons, positrons, protons and neutrons. All of the rest are questionable.
Wrong. We also manipulate photons on a regular basis.
Wake wrote:
We have NO idea if "dark matter" has any existence.
Yes, we do. It is possible to actually see some it.
Wake wrote:
We haven't been able to discover any way of detecting it after over a century of the attempt. Lord Kelvin spoke of it in the 19th century
We don't know how much there is, but we know it exists.
Wake wrote:
No one has ever designed any method that has successfully detected it.
Eyeballs and any nearby source of light.
Wake wrote:
Of the proclaimed successes they have all turned out to be mistaken observations or faulty data.
Some is, some isn't. Compositional error fallacy. You want to watch this fallacy. If you are using people as the class, the fallacy becomes bigotry.
Wake wrote:
Since we have not found the theorized dark matter
We have found some.
Wake wrote:
this puts the onus on science to prove
Science has no proofs. Science is a collection of theories, nothing more.
Wake wrote:
that Gravity is a constant in order to support the motions of the Universe.

Nothing has falsified Newton's theory. It is still in force today.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 01-06-2017 23:05
01-06-2017 23:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:

We have NO idea if "dark matter" has any existence. We haven't been able to discover any way of detecting it after over a century of the attempt. Lord Kelvin spoke of it in the 19th century. No one has ever designed any method that has successfully detected it.


I think you missed the obvious on this one. The fact that our solar system works so well that Newton could realize his theory of gravity suggests that gravity interacts with it rather nicely.
Then in 1927 Einstein's Special Theory of relativity had a major component proven also suggests that there is an aether. Still, I think you should worry about the basics unless you plan on going to work someplace like CERN.


He should worry about the basics there also. CERN doesn't violate laws of physics any more than anywhere else (it doesn't).


The Parrot Killer
02-06-2017 02:01
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:

We have NO idea if "dark matter" has any existence. We haven't been able to discover any way of detecting it after over a century of the attempt. Lord Kelvin spoke of it in the 19th century. No one has ever designed any method that has successfully detected it.


I think you missed the obvious on this one. The fact that our solar system works so well that Newton could realize his theory of gravity suggests that gravity interacts with it rather nicely.
Then in 1927 Einstein's Special Theory of relativity had a major component proven also suggests that there is an aether. Still, I think you should worry about the basics unless you plan on going to work someplace like CERN.


The fact that the gravity constant in our area of the universe happens to be what it is does not mean that other areas of the universe are the same. This isn't a case of missing something - this is a case of all of the theories not having any evidence after concerted observation and millions and millions of dollars of research.

That I happen to think that gravity is a universal constant has nothing whatsoever to do with the matter at hand - we have several theories and we have nothing to support them. One theory is that the universe is populated with black holes the size of an atom. That this is the source of the extra mass/gravity. I happen to believe that to be rather silly.

But the universe is what it is. Someone saying it works this way when that way cannot be proven is not science unless you take a skeptics eye and say, this is the best theory until it is either proven or a better one comes along.
02-06-2017 02:02
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:

We have NO idea if "dark matter" has any existence. We haven't been able to discover any way of detecting it after over a century of the attempt. Lord Kelvin spoke of it in the 19th century. No one has ever designed any method that has successfully detected it.


I think you missed the obvious on this one. The fact that our solar system works so well that Newton could realize his theory of gravity suggests that gravity interacts with it rather nicely.
Then in 1927 Einstein's Special Theory of relativity had a major component proven also suggests that there is an aether. Still, I think you should worry about the basics unless you plan on going to work someplace like CERN.


He should worry about the basics there also. CERN doesn't violate laws of physics any more than anywhere else (it doesn't).


I have worked on linear accelerators - have you? Or are you simply telling us about them from your coloring book?
02-06-2017 04:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
Wake wrote:
But the universe is what it is. Someone saying it works this way when that way cannot be proven is not science unless you take a skeptics eye and say, this is the best theory until it is either proven or a better one comes along.

Science has no proofs.


The Parrot Killer
02-06-2017 04:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:

We have NO idea if "dark matter" has any existence. We haven't been able to discover any way of detecting it after over a century of the attempt. Lord Kelvin spoke of it in the 19th century. No one has ever designed any method that has successfully detected it.


I think you missed the obvious on this one. The fact that our solar system works so well that Newton could realize his theory of gravity suggests that gravity interacts with it rather nicely.
Then in 1927 Einstein's Special Theory of relativity had a major component proven also suggests that there is an aether. Still, I think you should worry about the basics unless you plan on going to work someplace like CERN.


He should worry about the basics there also. CERN doesn't violate laws of physics any more than anywhere else (it doesn't).


I have worked on linear accelerators - have you? Or are you simply telling us about them from your coloring book?


Your credentials and work history are meaningless here. You still don't seem to get that.

I don't believe you.

Are you actually suggesting that CERN is a magick place that ignores laws of physics???


The Parrot Killer
02-06-2017 18:28
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
But the universe is what it is. Someone saying it works this way when that way cannot be proven is not science unless you take a skeptics eye and say, this is the best theory until it is either proven or a better one comes along.

Science has no proofs.


And yet another demonstration of the mentality of deadlynightshade. Gravity has no proof. The existance of the stars in the sky has no proof. Disease has no proof. And you have proof of that.
02-06-2017 20:39
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5949)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
But the universe is what it is. Someone saying it works this way when that way cannot be proven is not science unless you take a skeptics eye and say, this is the best theory until it is either proven or a better one comes along.

Science has no proofs.


And yet another demonstration of the mentality of deadlynightshade. Gravity has no proof. The existance of the stars in the sky has no proof. Disease has no proof. And you have proof of that.

You should learn what a proof is vs. what a science model is. At the moment you are just gibbering.


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
02-06-2017 21:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
But the universe is what it is. Someone saying it works this way when that way cannot be proven is not science unless you take a skeptics eye and say, this is the best theory until it is either proven or a better one comes along.

Science has no proofs.


And yet another demonstration of the mentality of deadlynightshade. Gravity has no proof. The existance of the stars in the sky has no proof. Disease has no proof. And you have proof of that.


Observation is not science. Stars are observed objects. Gravity is an observed force. Disease might not even be a disease. That's more of a definition than anything else.

You really should learn what is and what is not science.


The Parrot Killer
02-06-2017 21:21
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
But the universe is what it is. Someone saying it works this way when that way cannot be proven is not science unless you take a skeptics eye and say, this is the best theory until it is either proven or a better one comes along.

Science has no proofs.


And yet another demonstration of the mentality of deadlynightshade. Gravity has no proof. The existance of the stars in the sky has no proof. Disease has no proof. And you have proof of that.


Observation is not science. Stars are observed objects. Gravity is an observed force. Disease might not even be a disease. That's more of a definition than anything else.

You really should learn what is and what is not science.


At what point does you ignorance get so great that even you cannot support it.

Stars were nothing more than lights in the sky before scientific research revealed them for what they are.

Disease was something that people didn't even know was communicable until science showed it as such.

The essence of gravity was not even understood - down was simply down - until Sir Isacc Newton described it as a universal constant.

Tell us this was nothing more than observation you nitwit.
03-06-2017 09:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
But the universe is what it is. Someone saying it works this way when that way cannot be proven is not science unless you take a skeptics eye and say, this is the best theory until it is either proven or a better one comes along.

Science has no proofs.


And yet another demonstration of the mentality of deadlynightshade. Gravity has no proof. The existance of the stars in the sky has no proof. Disease has no proof. And you have proof of that.


Observation is not science. Stars are observed objects. Gravity is an observed force. Disease might not even be a disease. That's more of a definition than anything else.

You really should learn what is and what is not science.


At what point does you ignorance get so great that even you cannot support it.

You still aren't learning.
Wake wrote:
Stars were nothing more than lights in the sky before scientific research revealed them for what they are.
And they are still nothing more than lights in the sky. We still call them stars, too.
Wake wrote:
Disease was something that people didn't even know was communicable until science showed it as such.
Yes they did. Don't be an idiot.
Wake wrote:
The essence of gravity was not even understood - down was simply down - until Sir Isacc Newton described it as a universal constant.

Down is still simply down. Newton did not create or redefine gravity at all.
Wake wrote:
Tell us this was nothing more than observation you nitwit.

Just observations and definitions, dumbass.


The Parrot Killer
05-06-2017 01:32
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
But the universe is what it is. Someone saying it works this way when that way cannot be proven is not science unless you take a skeptics eye and say, this is the best theory until it is either proven or a better one comes along.

Science has no proofs.


And yet another demonstration of the mentality of deadlynightshade. Gravity has no proof. The existance of the stars in the sky has no proof. Disease has no proof. And you have proof of that.


Observation is not science. Stars are observed objects. Gravity is an observed force. Disease might not even be a disease. That's more of a definition than anything else.

You really should learn what is and what is not science.


At what point does you ignorance get so great that even you cannot support it.

You still aren't learning.
Wake wrote:
Stars were nothing more than lights in the sky before scientific research revealed them for what they are.
And they are still nothing more than lights in the sky. We still call them stars, too.
Wake wrote:
Disease was something that people didn't even know was communicable until science showed it as such.
Yes they did. Don't be an idiot.
Wake wrote:
The essence of gravity was not even understood - down was simply down - until Sir Isacc Newton described it as a universal constant.

Down is still simply down. Newton did not create or redefine gravity at all.
Wake wrote:
Tell us this was nothing more than observation you nitwit.

Just observations and definitions, dumbass.


I see you are an experienced astrophysicist as well as all your other talents. Stars are simply lights in the sky. Interesting. Newton did not use science at all. He simply said something. Again you prove your worth.

But your real best is that people did know that disease was communicable. We always wondered by people staying in cities when plaque struck. I guess they just weren't as smart as you.
05-06-2017 08:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
But the universe is what it is. Someone saying it works this way when that way cannot be proven is not science unless you take a skeptics eye and say, this is the best theory until it is either proven or a better one comes along.

Science has no proofs.


And yet another demonstration of the mentality of deadlynightshade. Gravity has no proof. The existance of the stars in the sky has no proof. Disease has no proof. And you have proof of that.


Observation is not science. Stars are observed objects. Gravity is an observed force. Disease might not even be a disease. That's more of a definition than anything else.

You really should learn what is and what is not science.


At what point does you ignorance get so great that even you cannot support it.

You still aren't learning.
Wake wrote:
Stars were nothing more than lights in the sky before scientific research revealed them for what they are.
And they are still nothing more than lights in the sky. We still call them stars, too.
Wake wrote:
Disease was something that people didn't even know was communicable until science showed it as such.
Yes they did. Don't be an idiot.
Wake wrote:
The essence of gravity was not even understood - down was simply down - until Sir Isacc Newton described it as a universal constant.

Down is still simply down. Newton did not create or redefine gravity at all.
Wake wrote:
Tell us this was nothing more than observation you nitwit.

Just observations and definitions, dumbass.


I see you are an experienced astrophysicist as well as all your other talents.
I see you have to try to belittle people to 'prove' your argument.
Wake wrote:
Stars are simply lights in the sky.
What do YOU call them? Darks in the sky?
Wake wrote:
Interesting. Newton did not use science at all.
He not only used science, he created science. Gravity was simply a given (an observation). He did not try to explain where it came from. He only built a relationship with mass, distance, and gravity...a brilliant connection.
Wake wrote:
He simply said something. Again you prove your worth.
Since you seem to be dropping to using contextomies and belittling people, you are become that which you despise.
Wake wrote:
But your real best is that people did know that disease was communicable.
They did.
Wake wrote:
We always wondered by people staying in cities when plaque struck.
Cities have economies. Some people DID leave the cities when plaque struck (those that could afford to).
Wake wrote:
I guess they just weren't as smart as you.

I guess you are making a compositional error. You do this from time to time. This a particularly serious fallacy that can lead you into bigotry and racism. You should be more careful.


The Parrot Killer
05-06-2017 17:17
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
But the universe is what it is. Someone saying it works this way when that way cannot be proven is not science unless you take a skeptics eye and say, this is the best theory until it is either proven or a better one comes along.

Science has no proofs.


And yet another demonstration of the mentality of deadlynightshade. Gravity has no proof. The existance of the stars in the sky has no proof. Disease has no proof. And you have proof of that.


Observation is not science. Stars are observed objects. Gravity is an observed force. Disease might not even be a disease. That's more of a definition than anything else.

You really should learn what is and what is not science.


At what point does you ignorance get so great that even you cannot support it.

You still aren't learning.
Wake wrote:
Stars were nothing more than lights in the sky before scientific research revealed them for what they are.
And they are still nothing more than lights in the sky. We still call them stars, too.
Wake wrote:
Disease was something that people didn't even know was communicable until science showed it as such.
Yes they did. Don't be an idiot.
Wake wrote:
The essence of gravity was not even understood - down was simply down - until Sir Isacc Newton described it as a universal constant.

Down is still simply down. Newton did not create or redefine gravity at all.
Wake wrote:
Tell us this was nothing more than observation you nitwit.

Just observations and definitions, dumbass.


I see you are an experienced astrophysicist as well as all your other talents.
I see you have to try to belittle people to 'prove' your argument.
Wake wrote:
Stars are simply lights in the sky.
What do YOU call them? Darks in the sky?
Wake wrote:
Interesting. Newton did not use science at all.
He not only used science, he created science. Gravity was simply a given (an observation). He did not try to explain where it came from. He only built a relationship with mass, distance, and gravity...a brilliant connection.
Wake wrote:
He simply said something. Again you prove your worth.
Since you seem to be dropping to using contextomies and belittling people, you are become that which you despise.
Wake wrote:
But your real best is that people did know that disease was communicable.
They did.
Wake wrote:
We always wondered by people staying in cities when plaque struck.
Cities have economies. Some people DID leave the cities when plaque struck (those that could afford to).
Wake wrote:
I guess they just weren't as smart as you.

I guess you are making a compositional error. You do this from time to time. This a particularly serious fallacy that can lead you into bigotry and racism. You should be more careful.


Now you don't believe in my Constitutional right to Freedom of Speech. That puts you squarely in the Millennial Generation and so it's plain why you are unable to use science in any meaningful way.
05-06-2017 20:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
But the universe is what it is. Someone saying it works this way when that way cannot be proven is not science unless you take a skeptics eye and say, this is the best theory until it is either proven or a better one comes along.

Science has no proofs.


And yet another demonstration of the mentality of deadlynightshade. Gravity has no proof. The existance of the stars in the sky has no proof. Disease has no proof. And you have proof of that.


Observation is not science. Stars are observed objects. Gravity is an observed force. Disease might not even be a disease. That's more of a definition than anything else.

You really should learn what is and what is not science.


At what point does you ignorance get so great that even you cannot support it.

You still aren't learning.
Wake wrote:
Stars were nothing more than lights in the sky before scientific research revealed them for what they are.
And they are still nothing more than lights in the sky. We still call them stars, too.
Wake wrote:
Disease was something that people didn't even know was communicable until science showed it as such.
Yes they did. Don't be an idiot.
Wake wrote:
The essence of gravity was not even understood - down was simply down - until Sir Isacc Newton described it as a universal constant.

Down is still simply down. Newton did not create or redefine gravity at all.
Wake wrote:
Tell us this was nothing more than observation you nitwit.

Just observations and definitions, dumbass.


I see you are an experienced astrophysicist as well as all your other talents.
I see you have to try to belittle people to 'prove' your argument.
Wake wrote:
Stars are simply lights in the sky.
What do YOU call them? Darks in the sky?
Wake wrote:
Interesting. Newton did not use science at all.
He not only used science, he created science. Gravity was simply a given (an observation). He did not try to explain where it came from. He only built a relationship with mass, distance, and gravity...a brilliant connection.
Wake wrote:
He simply said something. Again you prove your worth.
Since you seem to be dropping to using contextomies and belittling people, you are become that which you despise.
Wake wrote:
But your real best is that people did know that disease was communicable.
They did.
Wake wrote:
We always wondered by people staying in cities when plaque struck.
Cities have economies. Some people DID leave the cities when plaque struck (those that could afford to).
Wake wrote:
I guess they just weren't as smart as you.

I guess you are making a compositional error. You do this from time to time. This a particularly serious fallacy that can lead you into bigotry and racism. You should be more careful.


Now you don't believe in my Constitutional right to Freedom of Speech. That puts you squarely in the Millennial Generation and so it's plain why you are unable to use science in any meaningful way.


HUH???!?

1) I am not the federal government. I don't work for the federal government. The Constitution of the United States applies only to the federal government, and for certain limits, the State governments. Attempted redefinition of the Constitution of the United States.

2) How am I limiting your opinion? I you REALLY want to be a bigot, you are free to be so. I am cautioning you. Attempted redefinition of 'caution' or 'warning' as 'limit of speech'.

3) Your assumption of my age is grossly wrong. Age beyond childhood has nothing to do with the ability to understand science. There are actually quite a few children that understand science better than you do, though they don't know it.

Now do you want to try a different non-sequitur argument?


The Parrot Killer
05-06-2017 20:58
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
But the universe is what it is. Someone saying it works this way when that way cannot be proven is not science unless you take a skeptics eye and say, this is the best theory until it is either proven or a better one comes along.

Science has no proofs.


And yet another demonstration of the mentality of deadlynightshade. Gravity has no proof. The existance of the stars in the sky has no proof. Disease has no proof. And you have proof of that.


Observation is not science. Stars are observed objects. Gravity is an observed force. Disease might not even be a disease. That's more of a definition than anything else.

You really should learn what is and what is not science.


At what point does you ignorance get so great that even you cannot support it.

You still aren't learning.
Wake wrote:
Stars were nothing more than lights in the sky before scientific research revealed them for what they are.
And they are still nothing more than lights in the sky. We still call them stars, too.
Wake wrote:
Disease was something that people didn't even know was communicable until science showed it as such.
Yes they did. Don't be an idiot.
Wake wrote:
The essence of gravity was not even understood - down was simply down - until Sir Isacc Newton described it as a universal constant.

Down is still simply down. Newton did not create or redefine gravity at all.
Wake wrote:
Tell us this was nothing more than observation you nitwit.

Just observations and definitions, dumbass.


I see you are an experienced astrophysicist as well as all your other talents.
I see you have to try to belittle people to 'prove' your argument.
Wake wrote:
Stars are simply lights in the sky.
What do YOU call them? Darks in the sky?
Wake wrote:
Interesting. Newton did not use science at all.
He not only used science, he created science. Gravity was simply a given (an observation). He did not try to explain where it came from. He only built a relationship with mass, distance, and gravity...a brilliant connection.
Wake wrote:
He simply said something. Again you prove your worth.
Since you seem to be dropping to using contextomies and belittling people, you are become that which you despise.
Wake wrote:
But your real best is that people did know that disease was communicable.
They did.
Wake wrote:
We always wondered by people staying in cities when plaque struck.
Cities have economies. Some people DID leave the cities when plaque struck (those that could afford to).
Wake wrote:
I guess they just weren't as smart as you.

I guess you are making a compositional error. You do this from time to time. This a particularly serious fallacy that can lead you into bigotry and racism. You should be more careful.


Now you don't believe in my Constitutional right to Freedom of Speech. That puts you squarely in the Millennial Generation and so it's plain why you are unable to use science in any meaningful way.


HUH???!?

1) I am not the federal government. I don't work for the federal government. The Constitution of the United States applies only to the federal government, and for certain limits, the State governments. Attempted redefinition of the Constitution of the United States.

2) How am I limiting your opinion? I you REALLY want to be a bigot, you are free to be so. I am cautioning you. Attempted redefinition of 'caution' or 'warning' as 'limit of speech'.

3) Your assumption of my age is grossly wrong. Age beyond childhood has nothing to do with the ability to understand science. There are actually quite a few children that understand science better than you do, though they don't know it.

Now do you want to try a different non-sequitur argument?


In person if you talked to me like that I would simply beat you into a wheelchair. I believe you would have wanted me to respect your right to free speech at that point despite the fact that I am not the federal government.

Since you do not understand science regardless of your age it doesn't much matter now does it? And you are so clearly of the Millennial Generation and their supremely uneducated ignorance it's pretty clear who and what you are.

My wife and all her friends are teachers and they all have precisely the same opinion of the Millennials. You are an illness upon this Earth and I for one believe that the majority of you should be eliminated. Most teachers are retiring as soon as they reach minimum age for qualifying for teacher's retirement plans because, like you, all of the Millennials are like trying to deal with ADHD and Turret's Syndrome cases.

Do you want to meet me someplace and explain your position to me?
05-06-2017 22:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11285)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
But the universe is what it is. Someone saying it works this way when that way cannot be proven is not science unless you take a skeptics eye and say, this is the best theory until it is either proven or a better one comes along.

Science has no proofs.


And yet another demonstration of the mentality of deadlynightshade. Gravity has no proof. The existance of the stars in the sky has no proof. Disease has no proof. And you have proof of that.


Observation is not science. Stars are observed objects. Gravity is an observed force. Disease might not even be a disease. That's more of a definition than anything else.

You really should learn what is and what is not science.


At what point does you ignorance get so great that even you cannot support it.

You still aren't learning.
Wake wrote:
Stars were nothing more than lights in the sky before scientific research revealed them for what they are.
And they are still nothing more than lights in the sky. We still call them stars, too.
Wake wrote:
Disease was something that people didn't even know was communicable until science showed it as such.
Yes they did. Don't be an idiot.
Wake wrote:
The essence of gravity was not even understood - down was simply down - until Sir Isacc Newton described it as a universal constant.

Down is still simply down. Newton did not create or redefine gravity at all.
Wake wrote:
Tell us this was nothing more than observation you nitwit.

Just observations and definitions, dumbass.


I see you are an experienced astrophysicist as well as all your other talents.
I see you have to try to belittle people to 'prove' your argument.
Wake wrote:
Stars are simply lights in the sky.
What do YOU call them? Darks in the sky?
Wake wrote:
Interesting. Newton did not use science at all.
He not only used science, he created science. Gravity was simply a given (an observation). He did not try to explain where it came from. He only built a relationship with mass, distance, and gravity...a brilliant connection.
Wake wrote:
He simply said something. Again you prove your worth.
Since you seem to be dropping to using contextomies and belittling people, you are become that which you despise.
Wake wrote:
But your real best is that people did know that disease was communicable.
They did.
Wake wrote:
We always wondered by people staying in cities when plaque struck.
Cities have economies. Some people DID leave the cities when plaque struck (those that could afford to).
Wake wrote:
I guess they just weren't as smart as you.

I guess you are making a compositional error. You do this from time to time. This a particularly serious fallacy that can lead you into bigotry and racism. You should be more careful.


Now you don't believe in my Constitutional right to Freedom of Speech. That puts you squarely in the Millennial Generation and so it's plain why you are unable to use science in any meaningful way.


HUH???!?

1) I am not the federal government. I don't work for the federal government. The Constitution of the United States applies only to the federal government, and for certain limits, the State governments. Attempted redefinition of the Constitution of the United States.

2) How am I limiting your opinion? I you REALLY want to be a bigot, you are free to be so. I am cautioning you. Attempted redefinition of 'caution' or 'warning' as 'limit of speech'.

3) Your assumption of my age is grossly wrong. Age beyond childhood has nothing to do with the ability to understand science. There are actually quite a few children that understand science better than you do, though they don't know it.

Now do you want to try a different non-sequitur argument?


In person if you talked to me like that I would simply beat you into a wheelchair.

Threats of violence now? You apparently feel that someone is trying to control what you say. Why are you so paranoid. No one can control what you say. No one can control what you think. No one can control what you believe in. That's why these are rights acknowledged by the Constitution of the United States and the Declaration of Independence.

The Constitution does not grant rights. It only acknowledges them.

The Constitution only affects the federal government (with the exceptions I mentioned). It does not affect anything else. I think your knowledge of what a right is is sadly very distorted.
Wake wrote:
I believe you would have wanted me to respect your right to free speech at that point despite the fact that I am not the federal government.
You don't have a choice. Neither does the federal government.
Wake wrote:
Since you do not understand science regardless of your age it doesn't much matter now does it? And you are so clearly of the Millennial Generation and their supremely uneducated ignorance it's pretty clear who and what you are.
Now you are making a compositional error involving people. Now you are being a bigot.
Wake wrote:
My wife and all her friends are teachers and they all have precisely the same opinion of the Millennials.
Bigotry is bigotry. It doesn't matter if someone agrees with the bigotry.
Wake wrote:
You are an illness upon this Earth and I for one believe that the majority of you should be eliminated.
More threats of violence now, even of death?
Wake wrote:
Most teachers are retiring as soon as they reach minimum age for qualifying for teacher's retirement plans because, like you, all of the Millennials are like trying to deal with ADHD
ADHD is psychobabble. It is not a disease or a condition.
Wake wrote:
and Turret's Syndrome cases.
A real condition. It can be treated.
Wake wrote:
Do you want to meet me someplace and explain your position to me?

Sounds like you really want to commit a violent act to support your bigotry.

If you want to go to war, you must face the very real prospect that you could lose. In this case, you could lose your life.

May I suggest you calm down? This kind of melt down may result in you getting banned from this forum, if I know the forum owner's opinions at all.

I know quite a few bars that would ban you as well for your threats.

Bigotry is a fallacy. So is the argument of the Stick. You will not solve your problems by violence. You will only hurt yourself.


The Parrot Killer
Page 2 of 3<123>





Join the debate Geological Influences:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
New research combats the poor reasoning that influences climate-change denial1007-03-2018 19:57
▲ 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 © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact