Remember me
▼ Content

Global warming is not anthropogenic



Page 23 of 23<<<212223
20-04-2021 16:56
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(137)
Into the Night wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
What's a buzzword?
RQAA. I have already answered this question to you. Stop asking it.

What's RQAA? A scientific term or the usual gainsay? You use it a lot so it has to be submissible.
Did you, know that?
20-04-2021 17:14
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(137)
Into the Night wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
I will bullet point my simple understanding
. The planet Earth has an Atmosphere

Okay.
duncan61 wrote:
. It is comprised of gasses

By definition. Okay.
duncan61 wrote:
.Gravity makes the gasses denser at the surface

Okay.
duncan61 wrote:
.Energy of some sort from the sun warms the surface during the day

Okay. It's infrared light coming from the Sun.
duncan61 wrote:
.This Energy warms the Atmosphere at the surface

By conduction. It also warms the atmosphere by radiance.
duncan61 wrote:
.The denser Atmosphere takes more time to heat/cool

Nope. Density does not affect the heat index of any substance.
duncan61 wrote:
.This keeps the temperature of the Atmosphere from going up or down rapidly like the moon.
I find this credible without any knowledge of the physics involved
Without this forum I would not of considered any of this
. I am working today and had a trench to dig which I have just done as by 12pm it will be hot as F;:k out the front even though it's Autumn

This is basically correct. The atmosphere has mass. It takes time to heat or cool it, just as it does to heat and cool the Earth itself. The difference is that you are only considering the bottom of an ocean of air and attempting to describe that as the temperature of the Earth.
duncan61 wrote:
Can you explain any of the points I have made that are not correct and I will take them in to consideration

Certainly. A contextomy shift is taking place here, along with a false equivalence. This is also known as a pivot fallacy. You are also adding a property to mass that doesn't exist in assuming incorrect things about the heat index of a substance.
duncan61 wrote:
This whole AGW/CC theory makes sense it just is not happening

No, it doesn't make sense. You have to define 'climate change' and 'global warming' first. It is not possible to have a theory about meaningless buzzwords. Theories must be valid arguments.
duncan61 wrote:
Based on our very limited ability to measure the temperature of the Earth a small rise was detected so being human we had to find out why.CO2 was easy to blame and that started the whole issue

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. We don't have anywhere near enough thermometers.
duncan61 wrote:
The same devices.Thermometers/Satellites

A satellite is not a thermometer, nor can a satellite measure the temperature of the Earth. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. Neither can it be measured either.
duncan61 wrote:
are now showing stability over the last few decades

Argument from randU fallacy. The temperature of the Earth is unknown. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.
duncan61 wrote:
and Australia has been showing a drop in average

It is not possible to measure the temperature of Australia. The temperature of Australia is unknown.
duncan61 wrote:
so the data is being cooked as the ball is rolling and can not be stopped

Random numbers are not data. There is nothing to 'cook'. Also, cooking data makes it useless for statistical mathematics. Statistical mathematics can only make use of unbiased raw data.

None of this is interperable as science because there is nothing offered in support of assertions; bar the matter of infrared - well done: nor deposition of the concepts offered for falsification so it's just gainsaying - a waste of the boy's time.

These individuals must be adolescent as they apparently lack the understanding of the requirement for deposition of contrary argument. Accordingly its just noise.

I don't think this chap can mentally contain the idea that the Law of Conservation of Energy dictates that compression warms gas.

His reaction will not actually deal with the notion, as I think we will find out, but his brain will somehow tell him tell us that he has, so that's what junk will emerge againt. That it reckons to have falsified particular argument is just noise - that's the level we are dealing with unfortunately.
Teenage egotism knows no limit or honourability it appears.
20-04-2021 19:38
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(137)
IBdaMann wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:That's pretty dumb.

gfm7175's approach is absolutely rational. He has absolutely no reason to rush to embrace your WACKY religion when you won't even make an effort to answer any of his questions. You demand unconditional faith and you call him "dumb" for not OBEYING you "just because you say so."


IBdaMannwroteYou're a moron.

This arrogant name-calling is coming from the very bufoon who insisted that if you reduce the volume of a gas body by 1/2 then the Thermal Energy per unit volume is arrived at by dividing by 2, not 1/2. Such is the mental capacity we are having to deal with. It was so stupid as to be beyond belief, yet amoeba-brain here has the temerity to use the very term - moron - which applies to such foolishness, in denigration of the individual - me - who knew better and had to educate him on the point accordingly. He is revealed - serially - by this kind of thing as being too immature to understand dramatic irony according to this; whereby all except him - for obvious reasons - easily witness the hilarious sight of him shoving his head up his fundament time and again whilst thinking how clever he is.

Nobody has seen hide nor hair of your explanations of the fatal flaws in your WACKY religious dogma. They are all still HERE.

There is no attempt on your part to justify a single word or suggestion so you are demanding that it be accepted as the case because you have written it - effectively - no other reason, and that violation of epistemological principle means that it cannot be ascribed any meaning.

Pete Rogers wrote: I always follow the demands of Epistemology

IBdaMann wrote Why not try following the scientific method? Oh, that's right, you wouldn't get out of the starting gate owing to all of your physics violations. You are pushing a religion, after all, and a particularly WACKY one that isn't even original; it's just a brazen copy of Greenhouse Effect. The only possible congregation that you will be able to attract are the extremely stupid and the extremely dishonest.


This is absolutely priceless beyond pricelessness - what infant is this Mann? Epistemology contains the scientific method you bozo!! Hence you show here that it is you who does not understand the Scientific Method because you make it clear that you have no idea of its relation to Epistemological necessities and their containments you halfwit!

Which one is Duncan?

Either you must follow honest process or stop bothering people.


I think it is time for you to stop struggling with things you don't know how to grapple with correctly, being the difference between valid and void means for falsification of an argument. You use void means almost without exception so what you are doing is of no more than nuisance value really to disrupt sound process - gum up the works so to speak - nothing else.
This thread was specifically created for the falsification of a theory whose particulars were laid before you for bona fide examination at the beginning.
The only acceptable process is for the examiners to take each particular and argue where be deficient in its own terms and follow the defence against that seriatim until the overthrow or dominion of the particular be made clear, then move to the next particular.
On the correct - EXAMINABLE - falsification of a key particular; i.e. one without which the theory cannot be defended: it is then successfully falsified.
The mistake that you and your mates make here is that instead of doing that you decide for yourselves that it is sufficient to simply decry the theory and mock the deposers in order to sweep it all aside so as to substitute what it is that you wish to insist as truth and squabble about that instead of proper argument. That is just quarreling, so please stop as it violates common sense because instead of falsifying anything all that you do is to deflect from material which is left improperly examined in dielectical terms. Instead forcing its dismissal by declaration.
That approach of is well known formally as The Method of Propaganda - being precisely what epistemology and the scientific method were created to forbid.
Accordingly please stop wasting everyone's time - particularly your own - as there is no point in what you are doing
The best approach for you to take is to start another thread where you put your own theory down for falsification and do the analysis - capish? Maybe not eh?
I have severe doubts that you will have understood any of this, so we can only wait and see whether we just get more malignancy, which has been about the limit of your understanding of what falsification entails so far. Either smarten up or go away please.
20-04-2021 20:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15559)
Pete Rogers wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
What's a buzzword?
RQAA. I have already answered this question to you. Stop asking it.

What's RQAA? A scientific term or the usual gainsay? You use it a lot so it has to be submissible.
Did you, know that?

RQAA


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
20-04-2021 21:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15559)
Pete Rogers wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
I will bullet point my simple understanding
. The planet Earth has an Atmosphere

Okay.
duncan61 wrote:
. It is comprised of gasses

By definition. Okay.
duncan61 wrote:
.Gravity makes the gasses denser at the surface

Okay.
duncan61 wrote:
.Energy of some sort from the sun warms the surface during the day

Okay. It's infrared light coming from the Sun.
duncan61 wrote:
.This Energy warms the Atmosphere at the surface

By conduction. It also warms the atmosphere by radiance.
duncan61 wrote:
.The denser Atmosphere takes more time to heat/cool

Nope. Density does not affect the heat index of any substance.
duncan61 wrote:
.This keeps the temperature of the Atmosphere from going up or down rapidly like the moon.
I find this credible without any knowledge of the physics involved
Without this forum I would not of considered any of this
. I am working today and had a trench to dig which I have just done as by 12pm it will be hot as F;:k out the front even though it's Autumn

This is basically correct. The atmosphere has mass. It takes time to heat or cool it, just as it does to heat and cool the Earth itself. The difference is that you are only considering the bottom of an ocean of air and attempting to describe that as the temperature of the Earth.
duncan61 wrote:
Can you explain any of the points I have made that are not correct and I will take them in to consideration

Certainly. A contextomy shift is taking place here, along with a false equivalence. This is also known as a pivot fallacy. You are also adding a property to mass that doesn't exist in assuming incorrect things about the heat index of a substance.
duncan61 wrote:
This whole AGW/CC theory makes sense it just is not happening

No, it doesn't make sense. You have to define 'climate change' and 'global warming' first. It is not possible to have a theory about meaningless buzzwords. Theories must be valid arguments.
duncan61 wrote:
Based on our very limited ability to measure the temperature of the Earth a small rise was detected so being human we had to find out why.CO2 was easy to blame and that started the whole issue

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. We don't have anywhere near enough thermometers.
duncan61 wrote:
The same devices.Thermometers/Satellites

A satellite is not a thermometer, nor can a satellite measure the temperature of the Earth. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. Neither can it be measured either.
duncan61 wrote:
are now showing stability over the last few decades

Argument from randU fallacy. The temperature of the Earth is unknown. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.
duncan61 wrote:
and Australia has been showing a drop in average

It is not possible to measure the temperature of Australia. The temperature of Australia is unknown.
duncan61 wrote:
so the data is being cooked as the ball is rolling and can not be stopped

Random numbers are not data. There is nothing to 'cook'. Also, cooking data makes it useless for statistical mathematics. Statistical mathematics can only make use of unbiased raw data.

None of this is interperable as science

Science isn't interpretation. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
Pete Rogers wrote:
because there is nothing offered in support of assertions;

Theories stand on their own. They need nothing else.
Pete Rogers wrote:
bar the matter of infrared -

What about infrared light? Pivot fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
well done: nor deposition of the concepts offered for falsification so it's just gainsaying -

I don't have to falsify any theory of science to justify a theory of science. Paradox.
Pete Rogers wrote:
a waste of the boy's time.
These individuals must be adolescent as they apparently lack the understanding of the requirement for deposition of contrary argument.

Arguments do not need to contradict themselves. Paradox.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Accordingly its just noise.

Argument of the stone fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
I don't think this chap can mentally contain the idea that the Law of Conservation of Energy dictates that compression warms gas.

No, it doesn't. Argument by repetition fallacy. The atmosphere is not being compressed. The atmosphere is not energy. Gravity is not energy either.
Pete Rogers wrote:
His reaction will not actually deal with the notion, as I think we will find out, but his brain will somehow tell him tell us that he has, so that's what junk will emerge againt. That it reckons to have falsified particular argument is just noise - that's the level we are dealing with unfortunately.
Teenage egotism knows no limit or honourability it appears.

Bulverism fallacy. Insult fallacies.

No argument presented.


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
20-04-2021 21:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15559)
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:That's pretty dumb.

gfm7175's approach is absolutely rational. He has absolutely no reason to rush to embrace your WACKY religion when you won't even make an effort to answer any of his questions. You demand unconditional faith and you call him "dumb" for not OBEYING you "just because you say so."


IBdaMannwroteYou're a moron.

This arrogant name-calling is coming from the very bufoon who insisted that if you reduce the volume of a gas body by 1/2 then the Thermal Energy per unit volume is arrived at by dividing by 2, not 1/2. Such is the mental capacity we are having to deal with. It was so stupid as to be beyond belief, yet amoeba-brain here has the temerity to use the very term - moron - which applies to such foolishness, in denigration of the individual - me - who knew better and had to educate him on the point accordingly. He is revealed - serially - by this kind of thing as being too immature to understand dramatic irony according to this; whereby all except him - for obvious reasons - easily witness the hilarious sight of him shoving his head up his fundament time and again whilst thinking how clever he is.

Bulverism fallacy. Argument by repetition fallacy. Insult fallacies. Assumption of victory fallacy.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Nobody has seen hide nor hair of your explanations of the fatal flaws in your WACKY religious dogma. They are all still HERE.

There is no attempt on your part to justify a single word or suggestion so you are demanding that it be accepted as the case because you have written it - effectively - no other reason, and that violation of epistemological principle means that it cannot be ascribed any meaning.

Pete Rogers wrote: I always follow the demands of Epistemology

IBdaMann wrote Why not try following the scientific method? Oh, that's right, you wouldn't get out of the starting gate owing to all of your physics violations. You are pushing a religion, after all, and a particularly WACKY one that isn't even original; it's just a brazen copy of Greenhouse Effect. The only possible congregation that you will be able to attract are the extremely stupid and the extremely dishonest.


This is absolutely priceless beyond pricelessness - what infant is this Mann? Epistemology contains the scientific method you bozo!! Hence you show here that it is you who does not understand the Scientific Method because you make it clear that you have no idea of its relation to Epistemological necessities and their containments you halfwit!

Science is not a method or a procedure. You obviously do not know what epistemoloy is. You are using it as a buzzword.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Which one is Duncan?

Either you must follow honest process or stop bothering people.


I think it is time for you to stop struggling with things you don't know how to grapple with correctly, being the difference between valid and void means for falsification of an argument.

Assumption of victory fallacy. Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
You use void means almost without exception so what you are doing is of no more than nuisance value really to disrupt sound process - gum up the works so to speak - nothing else.

Argument of the stone fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
This thread was specifically created for the falsification of a theory whose particulars were laid before you for bona fide examination at the beginning.

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The only acceptable process is for the examiners to take each particular and argue where be deficient in its own terms and follow the defence against that seriatim until the overthrow or dominion of the particular be made clear, then move to the next particular.
On the correct - EXAMINABLE - falsification of a key particular; i.e. one without which the theory cannot be defended: it is then successfully falsified.

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. Buzzword fallacies.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The mistake that you and your mates make here is that instead of doing that you decide for yourselves that it is sufficient to simply decry the theory and mock the deposers in order to sweep it all aside so as to substitute what it is that you wish to insist as truth and squabble about that instead of proper argument. That is just quarreling, so please stop as it violates common sense because instead of falsifying anything all that you do is to deflect from material which is left improperly examined in dielectical terms. Instead forcing its dismissal by declaration.

A theory of science stands on it's own. You cannot just ignore them. External consistency check failure. Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. Burden shift fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
That approach of is well known formally as The Method of Propaganda - being precisely what epistemology and the scientific method were created to forbid.

Buzzword fallacy. You deny logic. You deny science. Science is not a method or procedure.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Accordingly please stop wasting everyone's time - particularly your own - as there is no point in what you are doing

Cliche fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The best approach for you to take is to start another thread where you put your own theory down for falsification and do the analysis - capish? Maybe not eh?

Void argument fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
I have severe doubts that you will have understood any of this, so we can only wait and see whether we just get more malignancy, which has been about the limit of your understanding of what falsification entails so far. Either smarten up or go away please.

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. Insult fallacy. Thought terminating cliche fallacy.


No argument presented.


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
20-04-2021 21:31
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(2107)
Pete Rogers wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
Its getting personal Pete let it go and move on to other stuff.

Indeed he should, if he refuses to hold a discussion. He is not going to convert ITN, IBD, nor myself over to believing in his wacky "ATE" religion. It is now to the point of insanity.


That's pretty dumb.

The word you are looking for here is 'rational'. That is very 'rational' of me.

Pete Rogers wrote:
I always follow the demands of Epistemology, taking the trouble to support my contentions with arguments,

... that fail internal consistency checks, let alone external ones.

Pete Rogers wrote:
but it is met with stuff like this, pure gainsay.

The words you are looking for here are 'rational counterarguments'. You are being met with 'rational counterarguments'.

Pete Rogers wrote:
There is no attempt on your part to justify a single word or suggestion so you are demanding that it be accepted as the case because you have written it - effectively - no other reason, and that violation of epistemological principle means that it cannot be ascribed any meaning. Either you must follow honest process or stop bothering people.

What are you even talking about? It is you who is basing arguments on meaningless buzzwords... Heck, even the name of your theory ("ATE") is a meaningless buzzword.

Either you need to start forming valid arguments or you need to stop expecting us to buy into your wacky fundamentalist religious garbage.
20-04-2021 21:41
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9190)
Pete Rogers wrote: This arrogant name-calling is ...

... well deserved. Stop desperately changing the subject and reconcile the FATAL FLAWS in your affirmative argument. It is no one else's responsibility to somehow prove that your WACKY and unfalsifiable religious dogma is FALSE. You bear the full responsibility of convincing others of its merit, but thus far you have failed miserably with the notable exception of your obedient admirer Duncan who wouldn't question you if you were to instruct him to believe that Venus is hot because it's just a big ball of vegetable soup.

Pete Rogers wrote: ... coming from the very bufoon who insisted that if you reduce the volume of a gas body by 1/2 then the Thermal Energy per unit volume is arrived at by dividing by 2, not 1/2.

As I said, worshippers of the various Greenhouse Effect theories are mathematically incompetent. You are no exception.

You spoke of halving the volume of a gas. Mathematically, this means you divide the volume by two, not divide the volume by 1/2 as you stated. At the time, I was simply correcting what I believed to be your careless wording, but now I see by your insistence on being stupid that you have no mathematical understanding to even begin any reasoning on the matter, which explains a lot as to how you could fall for such a WACKY religion in the first place.

Pete Rogers wrote:There is no attempt on your part to justify a single word or suggestion

None is needed. It is your affirmative argument. If you are satisfied with it being summarily dismissed on account of it being FATALLY FLAWED then so am I and we can close out this thread in complete agreement.

Pete Rogers wrote: ... so you are demanding that it be accepted as the case because you have written it - effectively - no other reason,

That would be your position. You will not address the FATAL FLAWS in your affirmative argument. You are simply demanding obedient compliance simply because you have so ordered it.

I think it is time for you to stop struggling with things with which you don't know how to correctly grapple, such as handling an online discussion with those who are not willing to simply OBEY you like Duncan does.

IBdaMann wrote The difference between valid and void ...

... is internal consistency. I wouldn't expect you to know this.

Pete Rogers wrote: This thread was specifically created for the falsification of a theory whose particulars were laid before you for bona fide examination at the beginning.

The FATAL FLAWS were, in turn, presented to you.

So we're done. We can close out this thread. Your WACKY religious dogma has been falsified.

Enjoy!

Pete Rogers wrote: The best approach for you to take is to ...

... clearly present to you the FATAL FLAWS in your WACKY religious dogma so you can address them and fix them, seeing as how they get your WACKY religious dogma summarily dismissed in short order.

Pete Rogers wrote: I have severe doubts that you will have understood any of this, ...

... because you realize all too well that what you wrote is pure gibberish.

20-04-2021 21:58
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(2107)
IBdaMann wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:There is no attempt on your part to justify a single word or suggestion

None is needed. It is your affirmative argument. If you are satisfied with it being summarily dismissed on account of it being FATALLY FLAWED then so am I and we can close out this thread in complete agreement.

I'm most certainly satisfied with this. It seems to me that Pete doesn't wish to fix the flaws that you have noted.
Page 23 of 23<<<212223





Join the debate Global warming is not anthropogenic:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Liberals have mental disease caused by anthropogenic chemicals103-02-2017 20:30
▲ 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