Greenhouse Gas and Warming

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Greenhouse Gas and Warming > Page 2

Page 2 of 3

06-02-2020 20:12
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14475)	keepit wrote: Tmid, I think you might be trying to create order out of chaos with these lists and definitions. I know what you mean. He risks inadvertently understanding something. He's definitely flirting with disaster. You should remind him of the safety and security of only simulating being awake throughout the day. It's like a permanent pair of noise canceling headphones, i.e. you can't hear what you're babbling and you can't irritate yourself. keepit's mantra: If you aren't learning anything then none of your misconceptions can be put in jeopardy. Congratulations on your big 0.000 Well earned. keepit wrote: Kind of like trying to manage the middle eastern countries and various factions with military might. It's just one list. It doesn't fight back. It doesn't have AK-47s or FAJR-5 rockets. It does, however, contain information which I can see how you would find that particularly dangerous. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles 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
06-02-2020 20:27
Into the Night★★★★★ (21699)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:You can't prove it. Not 100% no, rarely happens. Can't prove you're not dreaming this Neo. NOTE THESE ARE TMIDDLES UNDERSTANDINGS! NOT ITNs. HE MAY CLARIFY IF HE SO CHOOSES. CLARITY IS LACKING IN BOLD: ...deleted redundancy...Mantras 29...4... No new questions asked. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
06-02-2020 21:02
Into the Night★★★★★ (21699)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: You say this with all the certainty of someone who has some rational basis for his conclusion, ...deleted false dichotomomy...Mantras 33...32...33...10 (definition<->observation)...15...33... I hadn't heard before that we were drifting away from the sun. Why is that? For the same reason the Moon is drifting away from the Earth. Tides. Earth accepts energy from the Sun. That energy can be stored as potential energy. The Earth is 'higher' in it's orbit. This results in a slower orbit. The difference is very tiny, but it's there. Thus, our year gets very slightly longer. Our current year length is 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, and 46.08 seconds. The same thing happens to the Moon. It is accepting energy from the Earth and storing it as potential energy. The Moon is 'higher' in orbit. Thus, there will eventually come a time when the Moon does not move in the sky, but remains in the same place. Well, if the Earth and Moon survived the death of the Sun, which comes first! The current sidereal orbital period of the Moon is 27 days, 19 hours, and 12 minutes. It's phase repeats every 29 days, 12 hours, 43 minutes, and 12 seconds. Of course, our length of day changes also. It is currently 84000.002 seconds long, and gains approximately 1.7 milliseconds each century (so far). The length of a second is currently defined as 9,192,631,770 cycles between two states of a cesium-133 atom. Happy leap year! The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: economic06-02-2020 21:40
keepit ★★★★★ (3080)	IBD, You misinterpreted my post and added fabrications.
06-02-2020 21:58
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: It's just one list. It doesn't fight back. It doesn't have AK-47s or FAJR-5 rockets. It does, however, contain information which I can see how you would find that particularly dangerous. . This reminds me of the Babylon Bee article that made reference to AR-16's (AR-15's with MAGA hats)

06-02-2020 22:27
Into the Night★★★★★ (21699)	keepit wrote: IBD, You misinterpreted my post and added fabrications. Nah. You're just trying to deny what you said again. This seems to be a habit with you. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 06-02-2020 22:27
06-02-2020 23:53
keepit ★★★★★ (3080)	Get real ITN. As usual IBDM's post was just a bunch of fluff and baloney. There is just too many to comment on. I don't want to waste my effort.
07-02-2020 00:26
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	keepit wrote: Tmid, I think you might be trying to create order out of chaos with these lists and definitions. Kind of like trying to manage the middle eastern countries and various factions with military might. My initially poor understanding on all of this is evolving. There are two topics here: 1- What is known as "Global Warming" and "Climate Change" as a topic 2- Debate and reason itself (universal to all topics) ITN's fallacies do actually coincide for the most part with the long established list of these BS posturings we are all likely to slip into (he's done some customization). Calling someone on their fallacy is really, as I see it, pointing out that they did not make their actual argument if they have one. It's a re-centering of the debate. Or, it is itself a dodge, pretending that no real point was made, which can be pointed out. Example of this type IBD clarified: "That violated the Stefan-Boltzmann law you idiot" To dismiss this with "ad hominem, dismissed" is a cop out since an argument, in addition to the ad hominem attack, was made Most of the time I haven't known what rebuttal to give ITN but now it will be easier since I'll know what his objection is.
07-02-2020 00:31
keepit ★★★★★ (3080)	Best of luck to you. Some people can't be reasoned with and just want to argue. I still haven't figured out what their motivation is.
07-02-2020 00:46
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	keepit wrote: Get real ITN. As usual IBDM's post was just a bunch of fluff and baloney. There is just too many to comment on. I don't want to waste my effort. Mantra 11? Mantras are not arguments.
07-02-2020 00:59
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	gfm7175 wrote: keepit wrote: Get real ITN. As usual IBDM's post was just a bunch of fluff and baloney. There is just too many to comment on. I don't want to waste my effort. Mantra 11? Mantras are not arguments. No they are not. So for: "That violated the Stefan-Boltzmann law you idiot" You have the argument: "That violated the Stefan-Boltzmann law" followed by the fallacy: "you idiot" ad hominem attack Why do you mention ITN's #11? Keepit is not saying that it's too complicated to be presented here he is admitting he does not know the answer as to why things are as he's concluded they are. Saying you haven't figured out something is not a fallacy. NOT responding to an argument and INSTEAD pointing to motivation (like making Trump happy, ect) would be ITN's #24, an ulterior motive. However Keepit is very valiant in IMO in really taking the arguments all on. As I see it pointing out a fallacy when there is a real argument there is itself a cop out, unless you also address the argument that is made. Keepit expressing his frustration to me is a perfectly legitimate comment for this board.
07-02-2020 01:00
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	keepit wrote:...Some people can't be reasoned with... Maybe but we've all wondered about that looking back at history when things got wacky. It's worth exploring. I also want to be able to consider my own ability be unreasonable.
07-02-2020 01:52
Into the Night★★★★★ (21699)	keepit wrote: ...deleted Mantras 22...1...30...23...22...7... 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 While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
07-02-2020 02:03
Into the Night★★★★★ (21699)	tmiddles wrote: [quote]keepit wrote: Tmid, I think you might be trying to create order out of chaos with these lists and definitions. Kind of like trying to manage the middle eastern countries and various factions with military might. My initially poor understanding on all of this is evolving. There are two topics here: 1- What is known as "Global Warming" and "Climate Change" as a topic 2- Debate and reason itself (universal to all topics) Mantra 8, 30. Only YOU keep bringing up the 'debate' on reason itself. That itself is a redirection fallacy. tmiddles wrote: ...deleted Mantras 8...16...34...30... A fallacy is not a valid argument. There is no 'established' list. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
07-02-2020 02:04
Into the Night★★★★★ (21699)	keepit wrote: ...deleted Mantras 1...24...30...30... 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 While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

07-02-2020 02:12
Into the Night★★★★★ (21699)	tmiddles wrote: ...deleted Mantras 8...30...34...8...24...34...16...34...30...31...34...8...30...16...30... 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 While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
07-02-2020 02:13
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote:There is no 'established' list. ] "established": having been in existence for a long time and therefore recognized and generally accepted. certainly applies to what I'm finding online. Your definitions mostly line up. Saying something is "generally accepted" is not a very bold claim.
07-02-2020 02:14
Into the Night★★★★★ (21699)	tmiddles wrote: ...deleted 21...30...22...22... 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 While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
07-02-2020 02:15
Into the Night★★★★★ (21699)	tmiddles wrote: ...deleted Mantras 4...8...4...4... 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 While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
07-02-2020 02:48
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: ...deleted 21...30...22...22... No argument presented. Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: ...deleted Mantras 4...8...4...4... No argument presented. Not that this "discussion" is anything to develop but generally speaking if you only present multiple posts you're responding to as "deleted" it's not easy to know which is which. I'd keep a few identifying words. Like: Into the Night wrote:...Only YOU keep....
07-02-2020 17:10
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: As I see it pointing out a fallacy when there is a real argument there is itself a cop out, unless you also address the argument that is made. Keepit expressing his frustration to me is a perfectly legitimate comment for this board. Pointing out a fallacy IS addressing the argument that is made. That is in no way a "cop out". That is quite literally forming a counterargument to the argument that was presented.
07-02-2020 18:05
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: As I see it pointing out a fallacy when there is a real argument there is itself a cop out, unless you also address the argument that is made. Keepit expressing his frustration to me is a perfectly legitimate comment for this board. Pointing out a fallacy IS addressing the argument that is made. That is in no way a "cop out". That is quite literally forming a counterargument to the argument that was presented. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=14&v=FOxHxhWxULI&feature=emb_logo
07-02-2020 20:31
Into the Night★★★★★ (21699)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: ...deleted 21...30...22...22... No argument presented. Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: ...deleted Mantras 4...8...4...4... No argument presented. Not that this "discussion" is anything to develop but generally speaking if you only present multiple posts you're responding to as "deleted" it's not easy to know which is which. I'd keep a few identifying words. Like: Into the Night wrote:...Only YOU keep.... Not necessary. No argument is no argument. Stop filling posts with no argument. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
07-02-2020 20:32
Into the Night★★★★★ (21699)	gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: As I see it pointing out a fallacy when there is a real argument there is itself a cop out, unless you also address the argument that is made. Keepit expressing his frustration to me is a perfectly legitimate comment for this board. Pointing out a fallacy IS addressing the argument that is made. That is in no way a "cop out". That is quite literally forming a counterargument to the argument that was presented. Correct. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
07-02-2020 21:46
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: ...deleted 21...30...22...22... No argument presented. Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: ...deleted Mantras 4...8...4...4... No argument presented. Not that this "discussion" is anything to develop but generally speaking if you only present multiple posts you're responding to as "deleted" it's not easy to know which is which. I'd keep a few identifying words. Like: Into the Night wrote:...Only YOU keep.... Not necessary. No argument is no argument. Stop filling posts with no argument. Good point. I'm not sure why tmiddles wishes to keep track of which 'no argument' is which. In the end, they are all 'no argument'. He'd be much better off if he would instead focus his efforts on forming valid arguments, in which case there would be words left over for him to identify which post of his you are responding to. Edited on 07-02-2020 21:47
07-02-2020 22:04
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14475)	gfm7175 wrote: Good point. I'm not sure why tmiddles wishes to keep track of which 'no argument' is which. In the end, they are all 'no argument'. Well, in tmiddles' defense, he is trying to ask questions ... but he is trying to walk a thin line. He needs to be careful to not do it in such a way that he is giving the appearance of accepting anyone as an authority nor of accepting the conclusions that necessarily come with the answers provided. Ergo, tmiddles frames his questions in the form of arguments so that his follow-on questions can look like "push-back." He is trying to build the aircraft as it is rolling down the runway. I think he would be better off just stating the areas for which his understanding is deficient (because it's already obvious), to just ditch the religion for a brief moment and to accept someone else as an authority on those areas, and then to simply and straightforwardly ask the questions ... and to actually read the responses of course. Unfortunately, tmiddles has already asked many fundamental questions several times each and has ignored the answers. There is little motivation to keep answering those questions. Meanwhile there is motivation to respond to new questions as "void argument." OK, so that might not have been a particularly good "defense" but that's how I see the situation. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles 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
07-02-2020 22:39
Into the Night★★★★★ (21699)	gfm7175 wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: ...deleted 21...30...22...22... No argument presented. Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: ...deleted Mantras 4...8...4...4... No argument presented. Not that this "discussion" is anything to develop but generally speaking if you only present multiple posts you're responding to as "deleted" it's not easy to know which is which. I'd keep a few identifying words. Like: Into the Night wrote:...Only YOU keep.... Not necessary. No argument is no argument. Stop filling posts with no argument. Good point. I'm not sure why tmiddles wishes to keep track of which 'no argument' is which. In the end, they are all 'no argument'. He'd be much better off if he would instead focus his efforts on forming valid arguments, in which case there would be words left over for him to identify which post of his you are responding to. Well put. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
07-02-2020 23:03
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote: Good point. I'm not sure why tmiddles wishes to keep track of which 'no argument' is which. In the end, they are all 'no argument'. Well, in tmiddles' defense, he is trying to ask questions ... but he is trying to walk a thin line. He needs to be careful to not do it in such a way that he is giving the appearance of accepting anyone as an authority nor of accepting the conclusions that necessarily come with the answers provided. Ergo, tmiddles frames his questions in the form of arguments so that his follow-on questions can look like "push-back." He is trying to build the aircraft as it is rolling down the runway. I think he would be better off just stating the areas for which his understanding is deficient (because it's already obvious), to just ditch the religion for a brief moment and to accept someone else as an authority on those areas, and then to simply and straightforwardly ask the questions ... and to actually read the responses of course. Unfortunately, tmiddles has already asked many fundamental questions several times each and has ignored the answers. There is little motivation to keep answering those questions. Meanwhile there is motivation to respond to new questions as "void argument." OK, so that might not have been a particularly good "defense" but that's how I see the situation. . Yes, it would be ideal if he were willing to ditch the religion for a moment and to be honest about what areas his understanding is deficient in. I used to be rather deficient in logic and science until having and witnessing numerous exchanges with ITN. Of course, I did enter into those exchanges quite willing to let him form arguments against my currently held position and I actually read and comprehended his arguments and pitted them against my own. In short order, from asking questions about things that I did not understand, and asking questions about elements of ITN's argumentation that I did not understand, I gained quite a bit of understanding about logic, science, religion, and the like. tmiddles would benefit from doing likewise, rather than what he's currently doing.
07-02-2020 23:10
Into the Night★★★★★ (21699)	gfm7175 wrote: IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote: Good point. I'm not sure why tmiddles wishes to keep track of which 'no argument' is which. In the end, they are all 'no argument'. Well, in tmiddles' defense, he is trying to ask questions ... but he is trying to walk a thin line. He needs to be careful to not do it in such a way that he is giving the appearance of accepting anyone as an authority nor of accepting the conclusions that necessarily come with the answers provided. Ergo, tmiddles frames his questions in the form of arguments so that his follow-on questions can look like "push-back." He is trying to build the aircraft as it is rolling down the runway. I think he would be better off just stating the areas for which his understanding is deficient (because it's already obvious), to just ditch the religion for a brief moment and to accept someone else as an authority on those areas, and then to simply and straightforwardly ask the questions ... and to actually read the responses of course. Unfortunately, tmiddles has already asked many fundamental questions several times each and has ignored the answers. There is little motivation to keep answering those questions. Meanwhile there is motivation to respond to new questions as "void argument." OK, so that might not have been a particularly good "defense" but that's how I see the situation. . Yes, it would be ideal if he were willing to ditch the religion for a moment and to be honest about what areas his understanding is deficient in. I used to be rather deficient in logic and science until having and witnessing numerous exchanges with ITN. Of course, I did enter into those exchanges quite willing to let him form arguments against my currently held position and I actually read and comprehended his arguments and pitted them against my own. In short order, from asking questions about things that I did not understand, and asking questions about elements of ITN's argumentation that I did not understand, I gained quite a bit of understanding about logic, science, religion, and the like. tmiddles would benefit from doing likewise, rather than what he's currently doing. He first has to drop his religion. He perceives that has an extremely high cost. His mind is closed, due to the fundamentalist nature of his religion. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 07-02-2020 23:13
07-02-2020 23:22
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Into the Night wrote: He first has to drop his religion. He perceives that has an extremely high cost. His mind is closed, due to the fundamentalist nature of his religion. This is what both Republicans and Christians say.

07-02-2020 23:36
Into the Night★★★★★ (21699)	James___ wrote: Into the Night wrote: He first has to drop his religion. He perceives that has an extremely high cost. His mind is closed, due to the fundamentalist nature of his religion. This is what both Republicans and Christians say. Fundamentalism can occur in any religion, including Christianity. For such fundamentalists, their mind is just as closed. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
08-02-2020 00:24
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Into the Night wrote: James___ wrote: Into the Night wrote: He first has to drop his religion. He perceives that has an extremely high cost. His mind is closed, due to the fundamentalist nature of his religion. This is what both Republicans and Christians say. Fundamentalism can occur in any religion, including Christianity. For such fundamentalists, their mind is just as closed. But seriously, do you need to be a part of the problem? Basically overpopulation isn't good for the environment. I mean there's Gaia and what you people promote. I'm not one of your kind. It's not personal ITN but some people will never get it. They'll have no understanding. They have no eyes to see with. How would you teach people like them? Edited on 08-02-2020 00:31
08-02-2020 00:40
keepit ★★★★★ (3080)	Those 100,000 year cycles covering CO2 and temp do look interesting. Some of them seem as if temp goes up before CO2 goes up. I think there are other cycles at work that influence the CO2 and temp cycles. Depending on how the various cycles coincide you get different results. There could be cycles that generate other cycles and sometimes, depending on what is going on at the time, a CO2 cycle may be generated and some times not. A temperature cycle could be generated but may fizzle out unless a CO2 comes in to maximize the temp cycle. If the CO2 cycle comes in to maximize the temperature cycle, then you have the spikes in temp as seen on the charts. I realize this is overly generalized so i welcome constructive comment. Edited on 08-02-2020 00:41
08-02-2020 00:47
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	keepit wrote: Those 100,000 year cycles covering CO2 and temp do look interesting. Some of them seem as if temp goes up before CO2 goes up. I think there are other cycles at work that influence the CO2 and temp cycles. Depending on how the various cycles coincide you get different results. There could be cycles that generate other cycles and sometimes, depending on what is going on at the time, a CO2 cycle may be generated and some times not. A temperature cycle could be generated but may fizzle out unless a CO2 comes in to maximize the temp cycle. If the CO2 cycle comes in to maximize the temperature cycle, then you have the spikes in temp as seen on the charts. I realize this is overly generalized so i welcome constructive comment. I was actually hoping to hear what ITN had to say about Gaia. How do people with eyes see? Edited on 08-02-2020 00:57
08-02-2020 01:08
Into the Night★★★★★ (21699)	keepit wrote: ...deleted Mantras 25...25...25...25...25...25...22...22...25...22... There is nothing constructive about using random numbers as data. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
08-02-2020 12:17
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Yes, it would be ideal if he were willing to ditch the religion for a moment and to be honest about what areas his understanding is deficient in. I used to be rather deficient in logic and science until having and witnessing numerous exchanges with ITN. Of course, I did enter into those exchanges quite willing to let him form arguments against my currently held position and I actually read and comprehended his arguments and pitted them against my own. In short order, from asking questions about things that I did not understand, and asking questions about elements of ITN's argumentation that I did not understand, I gained quite a bit of understanding about logic, science, religion, and the like. tmiddles would benefit from doing likewise, rather than what he's currently doing. This is where I am at also.in the 6 months I have been interested in this subject so much new information comes to light
08-02-2020 12:34
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	gfm7175 wrote:...why tmiddles wishes to keep track of which 'no argument' is which.... Because dismissing a real argument (as I made, twice) as a fallacy is a legitimate counter argument I can rebutt. However intentionally jumbling what fallacys you claim were committed pretty much makes your post, ITN, "No argument just because" and you needn't bother listing mantras at all. You're reverting back into nonsense posts when you do that. And guess what! I just made an argument. IBdaMann wrote:...accept someone else as an authority on those areas, ... I think it's constructive to do so temporarily and I'm happy to anytime you want to propose something. My understanding is deficient across the board. I would freely admit that. I'm not a scientist or a mathematician and have no ego as either. So do any of you have anything you want go through? I would be happy to stipulate your are an authority in any example of your choosing to see how it shakes out. And no this is not a deceptive offer to work together. We would definitely be opponents. keepit wrote:Some of them seem as if temp goes up before CO2 goes up. Isn't that the thinking now? That if temp just went up for some other reason we'd have more CO2 degassing out of the ocean?
08-02-2020 21:39
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14475)	tmiddles wrote: So do any of you have anything you want go through? I would be happy to stipulate your are an authority in any example of your choosing to see how it shakes out. And no this is not a deceptive offer to work together. We would definitely be opponents. Great. Do you still believe in Greenhouse Effect? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles 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
08-02-2020 23:30
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: Do you still believe in Greenhouse Effect? . yes
09-02-2020 01:47
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14475)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Do you still believe in Greenhouse Effect? . yes Why? Is it for the same reasons Christians continue believing that God is real? Because it affords comfort and helps them bring a sense of order and justice to their lives? ... or does this belief afford you a sense of community, of belonging with others who believe as you do? Surely by now you are aware that there is no science supporting your belief and that no one can unambiguously define Greenhouse Effect in such a way as to not violate physics and then remain consistent with that definition to support any sort of claim. Surely by now you are aware that Greenhouse Effect is nothing more than an alternating violation between thermodynamics and Stefan-Boltzmann. So, why do you personally choose to believe? [hint: there are many possible answers and only one is a wrong answer] . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles 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

Page 2 of 3

Join the debate Greenhouse Gas and Warming:

Threads	Replies	Last post
The "radiative Greenhouse effect" does not exist	145	24-04-2024 02:48
A Gas Can Be A Barrier	8	17-04-2024 13:39
A Gas Can Be ing A Barrier	0	12-02-2024 04:51
Burn Gasoline and Natural Gas To Fight Against Climate Change	25	04-01-2024 06:33
'Greenhouse' Effect?	49	30-11-2023 06:45