Remember me
▼ Content

How society will positively advance



Page 1 of 3123>
How society will positively advance11-04-2020 12:59
luvioni
☆☆☆☆☆
(7)
https://www.luvioni.com/how-society-will-positively-advance/
12-04-2020 11:47
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1319)
Care to quote from it?
13-04-2020 17:04
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1103)
... or form any sort of argument at all with relation to it?

A website link is not an argument.
13-04-2020 20:41
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3323)
gfm7175 wrote:
... or form any sort of argument at all with relation to it?

A website link is not an argument.


Neither is making contrarian statements without supporting them GFM.

You just ducked the debate here: link

"the Moon is made of cheese" or any other random and unsupported notion is not an argument.
13-04-2020 23:43
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1103)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
... or form any sort of argument at all with relation to it?

A website link is not an argument.


Neither is making contrarian statements without supporting them GFM.

My statement is supported by the proof of identity. You know, that little thing called logic which you regularly deny on this forum.

tmiddles wrote:
You just ducked the debate here: link

I'll respond to that post in that thread.

tmiddles wrote:
"the Moon is made of cheese" or any other random and unsupported notion is not an argument.

Actually, it IS an argument. Still illiterate in logic I see...
13-04-2020 23:45
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7310)
tmiddles wrote:Neither is making contrarian statements without supporting them GFM.

Acutally, contrarian statements do not need to be supported. He who makes the affirmative argument bears full burden of support.

For example, when you claim Global Warming, I do not need to support any contrarian statement I make until you unambiguously define Global Warming and validly support your affirmative argument. Until then, it is sufficient to merely mock you as a known liar who makes chit up. No support required whatsoever.


.


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
14-04-2020 00:42
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1103)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Neither is making contrarian statements without supporting them GFM.

Acutally, contrarian statements do not need to be supported. He who makes the affirmative argument bears full burden of support.

For example, when you claim Global Warming, I do not need to support any contrarian statement I make until you unambiguously define Global Warming and validly support your affirmative argument. Until then, it is sufficient to merely mock you as a known liar who makes chit up. No support required whatsoever.

.

Right you are!
14-04-2020 04:14
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3323)
gfm7175 wrote:
My statement is supported by the proof of identity.

What? A healthcare benefit in California??
https://www.coveredca.com/documents-to-confirm-eligibility/proof-of-identity/

gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
"the Moon is made of cheese" or any other random and unsupported notion is not an argument.

Actually, it IS an argument. Still illiterate in logic I see...

No it is a statement, an assertion, a claim. An argument is a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong. An argument is supported. Like a lawyer in court. How absurd would it be if a prosecutor said "He is guilty your honor, the state now rests". Nope, that would not be an argument at all.

IBdaMann wrote:...contrarian statements do not need to be supported....
I would agree there is no law against it. It's still useless.

IBdaMann wrote:... I do not need to support any contrarian statement I make until you unambiguously define Global Warming and validly support your affirmative argument....
Or you can of course just fall silent. As you have here:
Misuse of the 1st LTD, Plancks Law/SB Law, and glaring hypocrisy of "Valid Data" exposed:
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/venus-is-hotter-than-mercury--d6-e2710-s720.php#post_53762
35 days with no reply
Here:
Debating "photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object." and that the a light bulb absorbs the radiance from an oven, IBD claims "go ahead ... I'm ready to debate it.":
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/the-radiative-greenhouse-effect-does-not-exist-d10-e3047-s40.php#post_53357
42 days with no reply
And Here:
2nd Law and disproving IBD's confusion about Earth being a isolated system:
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/2nd-law-d6-e3030-s80.php#post_53063
48 days with no reply

No one can force anyone to debate. Quiting or never showing up at all are always options in life.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
14-04-2020 21:07
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1103)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
My statement is supported by the proof of identity.

What? A healthcare benefit in California??
https://www.coveredca.com/documents-to-confirm-eligibility/proof-of-identity/

Wrong proof of identity. I realize that you are illiterate in logic, so I might as well be speaking Swahili to you right now...

tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
"the Moon is made of cheese" or any other random and unsupported notion is not an argument.

Actually, it IS an argument. Still illiterate in logic I see...

No it is a statement, an assertion, a claim.

It is also an argument.

tmiddles wrote:
An argument is a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.

Andddddd, since your mind is enslaved, you resort to The Almighty Google for a definition... False Authority Fallacy. No wonder you are illiterate in logic. You don't even know what an argument IS, let alone what makes one valid or invalid.

tmiddles wrote:
An argument is supported. Like a lawyer in court.

What moves an argument from "unsupported" to "supported"?

tmiddles wrote:
How absurd would it be if a prosecutor said "He is guilty your honor, the state now rests". Nope, that would not be an argument at all.

Actually, it would be. It wouldn't be a very convincing one (to me anyway), but it would be an argument nonetheless.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...contrarian statements do not need to be supported....
I would agree there is no law against it. It's still useless.

Actually, it's rather useful. It goes to show that some people don't blindly believe in any and all BS that they hear someone else spouting off. If you are making an affirmative argument, then the burden of proof is yours.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:... I do not need to support any contrarian statement I make until you unambiguously define Global Warming and validly support your affirmative argument....
Or you can of course just fall silent. As you have here:
Misuse of the 1st LTD, Plancks Law/SB Law, and glaring hypocrisy of "Valid Data" exposed:
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/venus-is-hotter-than-mercury--d6-e2710-s720.php#post_53762
35 days with no reply
Here:
Debating "photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object." and that the a light bulb absorbs the radiance from an oven, IBD claims "go ahead ... I'm ready to debate it.":
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/the-radiative-greenhouse-effect-does-not-exist-d10-e3047-s40.php#post_53357
42 days with no reply
And Here:
2nd Law and disproving IBD's confusion about Earth being a isolated system:
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/2nd-law-d6-e3030-s80.php#post_53063
48 days with no reply

No one can force anyone to debate. Quiting or never showing up at all are always options in life.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN

Your questions have likely already been answered ad nauseum, as I've seen occur in numerous threads.
Edited on 14-04-2020 21:15
14-04-2020 21:40
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3323)
gfm7175 wrote:
Wrong proof of identity.
I'm a dictionary guy. You're an intentionally vague guy. So I still don't know what you mean as you are denying the dictionary definition and declining to clarify what you mean.

gfm7175 wrote:
What moves an argument from "unsupported" to "supported"?
Support. A reason.

I can't even address your reasons if you do not present any. I have nothing to argue against if you fail to make an argument at all. (this is why IBD/ITN love this approach, they hate losing. This is why ITN is reduced to RQAA now)

"Well you see you're wrong there because..." except you didn't say anything in support of your claim. So I can make no such rebuttal.

You are as invincible as a 5 year old saying "Yu huh it is so!"

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
14-04-2020 22:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13024)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Wrong proof of identity.
I'm a dictionary guy.
You're an intentionally vague guy. So I still don't know what you mean as you are denying the dictionary definition and declining to clarify what you mean.

Dictionaries don't define words. The problem is that you don't understand English. The only language you know is Liberal.
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
What moves an argument from "unsupported" to "supported"?
Support. A reason.

I can't even address your reasons if you do not present any. I have nothing to argue against if you fail to make an argument at all. (this is why IBD/ITN love this approach, they hate losing. This is why ITN is reduced to RQAA now)

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that is reduced to RQAA. You keep asking the same question over and over and over and over and over, even though it has already been answered.
tmiddles wrote:
"Well you see you're wrong there because..." except you didn't say anything in support of your claim. So I can make no such rebuttal.

He is not making a claim. YOU are. Inversion fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
You are as invincible as a 5 year old saying "Yu huh it is so!"

Insult fallacy.


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
14-04-2020 23:43
keepit
★★★★☆
(1628)
Trash talk ITN.
14-04-2020 23:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7310)
tmiddles wrote:No one can force anyone to debate. Quiting or never showing up at all are always options in life.

Exactly. Perhaps someday you will stop running away and resume the discussion.

You quoted my statement once again ... and now we come to the part where you either provide a repeatabe example showing some thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer ... or you run away again.

For how many months have you been on the lam? ... and all this time you have been intentionally misrepresenting the position in the hopes that you aren't revealed as a petty liar. [ oops, too late ]

How's the workload at Reuters?


.


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
14-04-2020 23:55
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7310)
tmiddles wrote: I'm a dictionary guy.

Which dictionary do you believe owns the English language?

tmiddles wrote:So I still don't know what you mean as you are denying the dictionary definition and declining to clarify what you mean.

Who is authorized to "define" a word such that everyone else must comply?


tmiddles wrote:You are as invincible as a 5 year old saying "Yu huh it is so!"

Isn't that your argument for the completely undefined?
Isn't that your argument for thermal energy flowing from cold to hot?
Isn't that your argument for every lie you prefess about Trump?
Isn't that your argument for what occurs on Venus?


Well, now that I think about it, ... it *is* your argument for ... well, for everything. In fact, I'm trying to recall you having any argument that differs from "I read it on the internet ... and someone told me to believe it ... therefore Yu huh it is so!"


.


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
15-04-2020 00:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13024)
keepit wrote:
Trash talk ITN.

Void argument fallacy.


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
15-04-2020 00:04
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1103)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Wrong proof of identity.
I'm a dictionary guy.

Dictionaries do not define words.

tmiddles wrote:
You're an intentionally vague guy.

No, you've just been speaking Liberal for far too long. You are also illiterate in logic.

tmiddles wrote:
So I still don't know what you mean as you are denying the dictionary definition

There are MANY dictionaries, dude. There is no such thing as "the dictionary definition". Dictionaries often contradict one another. Dictionaries do not define words.

tmiddles wrote:
and declining to clarify what you mean.

The Proof of Identity is ?A->A. ("If A, then A")

tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
What moves an argument from "unsupported" to "supported"?
Support. A reason.

Okay then... Polar bears are brown because they are black. Has this argument now moved from "unsupported" to "supported" since I provided a reason?

tmiddles wrote:
I can't even address your reasons if you do not present any.

You can't make reasons disappear by ignoring them.

tmiddles wrote:
I have nothing to argue against if you fail to make an argument at all.

You can't make arguments disappear by ignoring them.

tmiddles wrote:
(this is why IBD/ITN love this approach, they hate losing.

They make arguments all the time. You cannot make arguments disappear by ignoring them.

tmiddles wrote:
This is why ITN is reduced to RQAA now)

No, he responds to you with RQAA because you ask the same questions over and over while ignoring the answers to them that you have already been given.

tmiddles wrote:
"Well you see you're wrong there because..." except you didn't say anything in support of your claim. So I can make no such rebuttal.

I didn't make a claim. YOU did.

tmiddles wrote:
You are as invincible as a 5 year old saying "Yu huh it is so!"

Insult Fallacy.
15-04-2020 20:53
James___
★★★★★
(2987)
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Wrong proof of identity.
I'm a dictionary guy.

Dictionaries do not define words.



That's true. Dictionaries collect words.
15-04-2020 21:53
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1103)
James___ wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Wrong proof of identity.
I'm a dictionary guy.

Dictionaries do not define words.



That's true. Dictionaries collect words.

Close. Dictionaries don't collect words, but they ARE a collection of words. The purpose of compiling such a collection is to standardize spelling and pronunciation of said words.
16-04-2020 07:33
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3323)
gfm7175 wrote:
The Proof of Identity is ?A->A. ("If A, then A")

Uh?? The claim at issue was from here: link
gfm7175 wrote:...the global economy has unnecessarily suffered over a mild flu virus.
gfm7175 wrote:
My statement is supported by the proof of identity.

So that would be:
If A, then A
If Covid-19 is mild, then Covid-19 is mild.

Am I plugging that into your logic correctly?

gfm7175 wrote:
Dictionaries do not define words.
I said I am a dictionary man. Use the dictionary if you want to know what I mean and I'll clarify as needed. As you're not a dictionary guy you'll have to define your own terms which you decline to do.

gfm7175 wrote:Polar bears are brown because they are black. Has this argument now moved from "unsupported" to "supported" since I provided a reason?
Wow you are jut terrified to actually support one of your own claims aren't you! Yes you WILL be ripped apart because you're full of it. If someone says "Polar bears are brown because they are black." it's easy to move on isn't it? You know it's just crap. There is no illusive reference, or secret knowledge they are holding back.

gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
I have nothing to argue against if you fail to make an argument at all.

You can't make arguments disappear by ignoring them.
You really think anyone would find it plausible that you CAN prove me wrong here but choose not to? Just a liar.

gfm7175 wrote:
I didn't make a claim. YOU did.
You claimed Covid-19 is mild.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:No one can force anyone to debate. Quiting or never showing up at all are always options in life.

Exactly. Perhaps someday you will stop running away and resume the discussion.
You are still ducking your debunking here:
Misuse of the 1st LTD, Plancks Law/SB Law, and glaring hypocrisy of "Valid Data" exposed:
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/venus-is-hotter-than-mercury--d6-e2710-s720.php#post_53762
35 days with no reply
Here:
Debating "photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object." and that the a light bulb absorbs the radiance from an oven, IBD claims "go ahead ... I'm ready to debate it.":
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/the-radiative-greenhouse-effect-does-not-exist-d10-e3047-s40.php#post_53357
42 days with no reply
And Here:
2nd Law and disproving IBD's confusion about Earth being a isolated system:
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/2nd-law-d6-e3030-s80.php#post_53063
48 days with no reply

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 16-04-2020 07:39
16-04-2020 19:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13024)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
The Proof of Identity is ?A->A. ("If A, then A")

Uh?? The claim at issue was from here: link
gfm7175 wrote:...the global economy has unnecessarily suffered over a mild flu virus.
gfm7175 wrote:
My statement is supported by the proof of identity.

So that would be:
If A, then A
If Covid-19 is mild, then Covid-19 is mild.

Am I plugging that into your logic correctly?

Covid-19 is mild, according to the numbers from the CDC. It is infecting less and killing less than most any other flu.
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Dictionaries do not define words.
I said I am a dictionary man. Use the dictionary if you want to know what I mean and I'll clarify as needed. As you're not a dictionary guy you'll have to define your own terms which you decline to do.

Dictionaries do not define words. False authority fallacy. People define words. Since you are failing to declare what word you are confused on, void argument fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
I have nothing to argue against if you fail to make an argument at all.

You can't make arguments disappear by ignoring them.
You really think anyone would find it plausible that you CAN prove me wrong here but choose not to? Just a liar.

Void argument fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
I didn't make a claim. YOU did.
You claimed Covid-19 is mild.

According to the numbers from the CDC, it is.
tmiddles wrote:
...deleted Mantras TMSb4...

No argument presented. 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
16-04-2020 21:50
keepit
★★★★☆
(1628)
Hopefully it's not just getting started.
17-04-2020 00:38
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1103)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
The Proof of Identity is ?A->A. ("If A, then A")

Uh?? The claim at issue was from here: link
gfm7175 wrote:...the global economy has unnecessarily suffered over a mild flu virus.
gfm7175 wrote:
My statement is supported by the proof of identity.

So that would be:
If A, then A
If Covid-19 is mild, then Covid-19 is mild.

Am I plugging that into your logic correctly?

No, you are confusing the conversation in this thread with the conversation in another thread. Contextomy Fallacy.

tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Dictionaries do not define words.
I said I am a dictionary man. Use the dictionary if you want to know what I mean and I'll clarify as needed. As you're not a dictionary guy you'll have to define your own terms which you decline to do.

Define "dictionary man".

tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:Polar bears are brown because they are black. Has this argument now moved from "unsupported" to "supported" since I provided a reason?
Wow you are jut terrified to actually support one of your own claims aren't you! Yes you WILL be ripped apart because you're full of it. If someone says "Polar bears are brown because they are black." it's easy to move on isn't it? You know it's just crap. There is no illusive reference, or secret knowledge they are holding back.

You're making fun of your own rule, dude. YOU said that "providing a reason" is what moves an argument from what you call "unsupported" to what you call "supported".

tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
I have nothing to argue against if you fail to make an argument at all.

You can't make arguments disappear by ignoring them.
You really think anyone would find it plausible that you CAN prove me wrong here but choose not to? Just a liar.

Nope, you're the liar here.

tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
I didn't make a claim. YOU did.
You claimed Covid-19 is mild.

Not in this thread. Do try to keep up.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:No one can force anyone to debate. Quiting or never showing up at all are always options in life.

Exactly. Perhaps someday you will stop running away and resume the discussion.
You are still ducking your debunking here:
Misuse of the 1st LTD, Plancks Law/SB Law, and glaring hypocrisy of "Valid Data" exposed:
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/venus-is-hotter-than-mercury--d6-e2710-s720.php#post_53762
35 days with no reply
Here:
Debating "photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object." and that the a light bulb absorbs the radiance from an oven, IBD claims "go ahead ... I'm ready to debate it.":
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/the-radiative-greenhouse-effect-does-not-exist-d10-e3047-s40.php#post_53357
42 days with no reply
And Here:
2nd Law and disproving IBD's confusion about Earth being a isolated system:
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/2nd-law-d6-e3030-s80.php#post_53063
48 days with no reply

This has already been addressed. You have yet to answer his question. That's what that particular discussion is hung up on...
17-04-2020 00:52
James___
★★★★★
(2987)
keepit wrote:
Hopefully it's not just getting started.


Ditto.
17-04-2020 06:52
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3323)
Into the Night wrote:
Covid-19 is mild, according to the numbers from the CDC. It is infecting less and killing less than most any other flu.
And what about only looking at the State of New York and not the known universe. Is is "mild" in your estimation just looking at at that geographic territory ITN?

Into the Night wrote:
According to the numbers from the CDC, it is.
What numbers?

gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Am I plugging that into your logic correctly?

No, you are confusing the conversation in this thread with the conversation in another thread.
OK so wtf did you mean by that then?

gfm7175 wrote:Define "dictionary man".
I use the dictionary definitions of words and defer to the dictionary definition for words. So if I want to say something I either conform to the dictionary definition of a word or I use a different word. I do not attempt to redefine words.

gfm7175 wrote:You're making fun of your own rule,...
That made no sense.

gfm7175 wrote:You have yet to answer his question.
No question has been asked and all of those topics have been ducked by IBD and by you for that matter.

Misuse of the 1st LTD, Plancks Law/SB Law, and glaring hypocrisy of "Valid Data" exposed:
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/venus-is-hotter-than-mercury--d6-e2710-s720.php#post_53762
36 days with no reply
IBD has not responded to that post at all.

Here:
Debating "photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object." and that the a light bulb absorbs the radiance from an oven, IBD claims "go ahead ... I'm ready to debate it.":
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/the-radiative-greenhouse-effect-does-not-exist-d10-e3047-s40.php#post_53357
42 days with no reply
IBD dodged this one too. He claimed I was supposed to respond to something but there is nothing there. Go look!

And Here:
2nd Law and disproving IBD's confusion about Earth being a isolated system:
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/2nd-law-d6-e3030-s80.php#post_53063
49 days with no reply
You'll notice this predates the other two and there is without question no response there from IBD.

So yeah, Bullshit called.

I know you clowns hate losing so I'm no surprised you've all been reduced to constantly running away.

R to the Q to the A A


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 17-04-2020 06:53
17-04-2020 13:39
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7310)
tmiddles wrote:And Here: 2nd Law and disproving IBD's confusion about Earth being a isolated system:

What kind of response are you hoping to get besides mockery? I understand the 2nd LoT and your statement misrepresenting my position merely serves to show that you do not understand the 2nd LoT and are blaming others for your willful ignorance.

Just tell me what question you are looking to get answered ... and don't post any links; I'm not going to waste my time on them.



.


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
17-04-2020 14:56
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3323)
IBdaMann wrote:
Just tell me ....

https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/2nd-law-d6-e3030-s80.php#post_53063
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: No falsifiable model
Sure it is. In fact your arguments the greenhouse effect is impossible are falsified by what we've learned about Venus, which simply confirms what we are fairly certain of about Earth. All you got now is random doubt.

IBdaMann wrote:... and the best of his knowledge lacks any understanding of what Greenhouse Effect is, in any formal sense.
You keep skipping past the part where we KNOW, we KNOW!!! it's there. Venus leaves no boubt about it. Now you can talk about WHY it's happening but to pretend it's not is simply insane.

IBdaMann wrote: The religious dogma specifies a temperature increase of 33°C which requires additional energy to be created, an obvious violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics ... so discussion is not allowed to "go there."
You mean the discussion you're currently dodging? You've been debunked here and have no rebuttal. Because you're dead wrong. No magical nuclear reactor on Venus creating an additional 500 degrees!

IBdaMann wrote:
One Punch Man quoted: ... its surface-temperature at about –18°C, ...

This number is completely fabricated.
No that is a temperature based on the radiance we receive from the Sun. Pretend we can't measure that too. No one can stop you.

IBdaMann wrote:
One Punch Man quoted: ... whereas its observed actual temperature is about +15°C.

This number is completely fabricated,...
No it's an estimate and accurate enough to prove a greenhouse effect exists. Maybe not accurate enough to show a 1/4 degree shift. Oh and then there's Venus you've been dodging. 500 extra degrees IBD. But keep pretending.

IBdaMann wrote:If energy is merely recycled then "cooling" exactly equals "warming".....Greenhouse Effect, ...is considered an energy source that is creating energy....1st law is still being violated
You're still pretending Earth is an isolated system, it is not. You have been debunked here

IBdaMann wrote:
One Punch Man quoted: The principle at work here is the same as that used in a metal-foil survival-blanket when applied to a striken mountaineer ...

In this example, the heat source is INSIDE the bag, not outside the bag.
Let's alter this scenario. Let's say that you place the survival blanket over a rock that is sitting in the sun. When does the rock's temperature increase?
Hey I got a great example for you IBD. A GREENHOUSE!

IBdaMann wrote:
One Punch Man quoted:The back-radiation from CO2 may be too slight to be detectable in practice,
There is no "back radiation."
Did you say that as you waved your commemorative Harry Potter wand? Because you didn't make an argument. Radiance is back, forward and side to side. You see it goes in all directions.

IBdaMann wrote:Only the 1st law is still being violated.
And you are still debunked without a rebuttal: here

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN

Edited on 17-04-2020 14:56
17-04-2020 18:51
James___
★★★★★
(2987)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Just tell me ....

https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/2nd-law-d6-e3030-s80.php#post_53063
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: No falsifiable model
Sure it is. In fact your arguments the greenhouse effect is impossible are falsified by what we've learned about Venus, which simply confirms what we are fairly certain of about Earth. All you got now is random doubt.

IBdaMann wrote:... and the best of his knowledge lacks any understanding of what Greenhouse Effect is, in any formal sense.
You keep skipping past the part where we KNOW, we KNOW!!! it's there. Venus leaves no boubt about it. Now you can talk about WHY it's happening but to pretend it's not is simply insane.

IBdaMann wrote: The religious dogma specifies a temperature increase of 33°C which requires additional energy to be created, an obvious violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics ... so discussion is not allowed to "go there."
You mean the discussion you're currently dodging? You've been debunked here and have no rebuttal. Because you're dead wrong. No magical nuclear reactor on Venus creating an additional 500 degrees!

IBdaMann wrote:
One Punch Man quoted: ... its surface-temperature at about –18°C, ...

This number is completely fabricated.
No that is a temperature based on the radiance we receive from the Sun. Pretend we can't measure that too. No one can stop you.

IBdaMann wrote:
One Punch Man quoted: ... whereas its observed actual temperature is about +15°C.

This number is completely fabricated,...
No it's an estimate and accurate enough to prove a greenhouse effect exists. Maybe not accurate enough to show a 1/4 degree shift. Oh and then there's Venus you've been dodging. 500 extra degrees IBD. But keep pretending.

IBdaMann wrote:If energy is merely recycled then "cooling" exactly equals "warming".....Greenhouse Effect, ...is considered an energy source that is creating energy....1st law is still being violated
You're still pretending Earth is an isolated system, it is not. You have been debunked here

IBdaMann wrote:
One Punch Man quoted: The principle at work here is the same as that used in a metal-foil survival-blanket when applied to a striken mountaineer ...

In this example, the heat source is INSIDE the bag, not outside the bag.
Let's alter this scenario. Let's say that you place the survival blanket over a rock that is sitting in the sun. When does the rock's temperature increase?
Hey I got a great example for you IBD. A GREENHOUSE!

IBdaMann wrote:
One Punch Man quoted:The back-radiation from CO2 may be too slight to be detectable in practice,
There is no "back radiation."
Did you say that as you waved your commemorative Harry Potter wand? Because you didn't make an argument. Radiance is back, forward and side to side. You see it goes in all directions.

IBdaMann wrote:Only the 1st law is still being violated.
And you are still debunked without a rebuttal: here

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN



An interesting aspect of "global warming" is that where it's the greenest there is almost no warming. An example would be that since California doesn't have the healthy vegetation that it used to have. Why so many fires.
It's known that healthy vegetation absorbs solar radiation and that solar radiation helps to warm our atmosphere. This is where deforestation is constantly overlooked. It produces CO2 while reducing O2 and it decreases the amount of solar radiation and CO2 that can be processed by photosynthesis.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/deforestation/
17-04-2020 19:11
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1103)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Covid-19 is mild, according to the numbers from the CDC. It is infecting less and killing less than most any other flu.
And what about only looking at the State of New York and not the known universe.

The CDC is not a universal agency. They aren't even a global agency.

According to the New York State Department of Health (I'm not a fan of their website btw), from 4/9/20 - 4/15/20, NYS saw about 8,900 new "confirmed" cases per day over that time period. That amounts to a very insignificant infection rate.

To date, they have reported 222,284 total confirmed cases ("total persons tested positive") and 12,192 "fatalities". Using 20 million as the NYS population number, that means that, as of now, 1.11% of all New Yorkers have been (or currently are) "confirmed" cases, and that 0.06% of all New Yorkers have died while being infected with the virus. Those are rather insignificant numbers.

tmiddles wrote:
Is is "mild" in your estimation just looking at at that geographic territory ITN?

Yes, it is rather mild.

tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
According to the numbers from the CDC, it is.
What numbers?

The numbers from the CDC.

tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Am I plugging that into your logic correctly?

No, you are confusing the conversation in this thread with the conversation in another thread.
OK so wtf did you mean by that then?

Okay, I'll help you out. I asserted that a website link is not an argument. You called that assertion "a contrarian statement without support". I then told you that the proof of identity is what supports my statement. IBDaMann also kindly and correctly informed you that contrarian statements do not need to be supported, as the burden of proof is with the person who makes the affirmative argument. Like I've said numerous times, you are completely illiterate in logic.

tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:Define "dictionary man".
I use the dictionary definitions of words and defer to the dictionary definition for words.

Perfect. That means that you are appealing to a false authority, acting as if "the dictionary definition" (there is no such thing, as there are MANY dictionaries, many of which contradict one another) is "deemed holy" and is "official".

tmiddles wrote:
So if I want to say something I either conform to the dictionary definition of a word or I use a different word.

There is no "the dictionary definition". There are MANY dictionaries. How do you suppose that those meanings got into those dictionaries to begin with?

tmiddles wrote:
I do not attempt to redefine words.

LIE.

tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:You're making fun of your own rule,...
That made no sense.

... because you have spoken Liberal for far too long and have forgotten the English language...

tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:You have yet to answer his question.
No question has been asked and all of those topics have been ducked by IBD and by you for that matter.

Misuse of the 1st LTD, Plancks Law/SB Law, and glaring hypocrisy of "Valid Data" exposed:
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/venus-is-hotter-than-mercury--d6-e2710-s720.php#post_53762
36 days with no reply
IBD has not responded to that post at all.

Here:
Debating "photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object." and that the a light bulb absorbs the radiance from an oven, IBD claims "go ahead ... I'm ready to debate it.":
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/the-radiative-greenhouse-effect-does-not-exist-d10-e3047-s40.php#post_53357
42 days with no reply
IBD dodged this one too. He claimed I was supposed to respond to something but there is nothing there. Go look!

And Here:
2nd Law and disproving IBD's confusion about Earth being a isolated system:
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/2nd-law-d6-e3030-s80.php#post_53063
49 days with no reply
You'll notice this predates the other two and there is without question no response there from IBD.

So yeah, Bullshit called.

I know you clowns hate losing so I'm no surprised you've all been reduced to constantly running away.

R to the Q to the A A

Continued lying...
17-04-2020 19:17
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1103)
James___ wrote:
An interesting aspect of "global warming" is that where it's the greenest there is almost no warming. An example would be that since California doesn't have the healthy vegetation that it used to have. Why so many fires.
It's known that healthy vegetation absorbs solar radiation and that solar radiation helps to warm our atmosphere. This is where deforestation is constantly overlooked. It produces CO2 while reducing O2 and it decreases the amount of solar radiation and CO2 that can be processed by photosynthesis.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/deforestation/

The Earth spins, it is tilted, etc. etc. etc... There is always warming and cooling. Hell, just at my current location, it has warmed up from being in the 30s to just cracking 40 degrees as of now... I'm not about to freak out over the weather simply being the weather.
Edited on 17-04-2020 19:18
17-04-2020 20:41
James___
★★★★★
(2987)
gfm7175 wrote:
James___ wrote:
An interesting aspect of "global warming" is that where it's the greenest there is almost no warming. An example would be that since California doesn't have the healthy vegetation that it used to have. Why so many fires.
It's known that healthy vegetation absorbs solar radiation and that solar radiation helps to warm our atmosphere. This is where deforestation is constantly overlooked. It produces CO2 while reducing O2 and it decreases the amount of solar radiation and CO2 that can be processed by photosynthesis.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/deforestation/

The Earth spins, it is tilted, etc. etc. etc... There is always warming and cooling. Hell, just at my current location, it has warmed up from being in the 30s to just cracking 40 degrees as of now... I'm not about to freak out over the weather simply being the weather.



And yet I was talking about deforestation and you say;
I'm not about to freak out over the weather simply being the weather


Kind of makes your opinion worthless. ie., lacking validity.
Edited on 17-04-2020 20:43
17-04-2020 21:09
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1103)
James___ wrote:
And yet I was talking about deforestation and you say;
I'm not about to freak out over the weather simply being the weather


Kind of makes your opinion worthless. ie., lacking validity.

What "deforestation"?
18-04-2020 02:33
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3323)
gfm7175 wrote:...New York State Department of Health ...4/9/20 - 4/15/20, NYS saw about 8,900 new "confirmed" cases per day over that time period. That amounts to a very insignificant infection rate.
That's your own assessment of a flu infection rate? I presume you're comparing that number to the entire state of New York in years when no mitigation steps have been taken (social distancing, shut down and so on) or that you think the mitigation steps have had little to no effect?

Of course people don't get tested for regular flu strains unless they are very sick so we don't have a basis for comparison on that. I think deaths are the only number that is going to be counted accurately for Covid-19 and other flu deaths.

gfm7175 wrote:....12,192 "fatalities". Using 20 million as the NYS population number,...Those are rather insignificant numbers.
So your logic is that you take the impact and divide by the total population. If it's a small % then it is insignificant. So by that logic 911 was completely insignificant, toddlers with revolvers are a far far greater threat than Al Queda and hot dogs are more dangerous than machine guns.

Of course the crux of our not seeing eye to eye on this is your presumption that had we not taken such dramatic action to slow Covid-19 everything would also qualify as "mild" in your estimation.

BUT you didn't say the Covid-19 was "mild" generically you said it was "mild" as a flu which is comparing it to other flus. You repeatedly ignore this data which is New York state:



This disproves your "mild" assessment for Covid-19 as a flu even using your hilarious per capita logic.

gfm7175 wrote:
I asserted that a website link is not an argument.
Ah, fine I would agree sure. I was not responding to your post here but to the other thread. Simple confusion.

gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
I do not attempt to redefine words.

LIE.
call me on it. Be specific.
18-04-2020 04:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7310)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
I do not attempt to redefine words.

LIE.
call me on it. Be specific.

He should give you a worthless link to nothing ... and claim he answered your question in your style.


I will personally award him five bonus points if he does.



.


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
18-04-2020 04:56
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2199)
Social distancing has been a failure. People continue to test positive, get hospitalized, and die. There was no control group in this experiment, so no valid comparison. Every virus is different, ever pandemic has been different, again, comparisons are fantasy. For most people, it's a mild cold. Others, crap their pants, everytime they hear someone sneeze...
18-04-2020 04:58
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3323)
IBdaMann wrote:...


Do you have anything to actually say IBD or are you now just reduced to dumb jokes, which are also indirect and unsupported?
18-04-2020 10:50
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7310)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...

Do you have anything to actually say IBD or are you now just reduced to dumb jokes, which are also indirect and unsupported?

That's my question to you, except that I don't ask because I know that you did not come to this site to engage in honest discussion.

I asked you for a quote and not a bogus link concerning your (intentional) misrepresentation of my position ... and since you have no intention of being honest, you refused to give me the quote I requested.

My hope is that you are treated equally.


.


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
18-04-2020 11:16
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3323)
IBdaMann wrote:
... your (intentional) misrepresentation of my position ... and .
take your own position IBD. I have no magic powers I assure you.

You sure do sounds like the INFOWARS guy you are Mr. Coronahoaxconspiracy

Good luck with that
19-04-2020 17:36
James___
★★★★★
(2987)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Social distancing has been a failure. People continue to test positive, get hospitalized, and die. There was no control group in this experiment, so no valid comparison. Every virus is different, ever pandemic has been different, again, comparisons are fantasy. For most people, it's a mild cold. Others, crap their pants, everytime they hear someone sneeze...



You mean you've never been on a ship that's crossed the ocean? I've heard about people like you. Kind of hate to say it but maybe if you had more life experiences you'd be a little more aware of what's out there in the world?
While a cruise (have been on one too) isn't the same thing, you'll get the idea that it is an isolated mobile location. I did post a link to what has been observed on ships with a minimum of 1,000 personnel or passengers. On this ship, 1 out of every 5 people are known to be infected. And I don't think everyone has been tested.

Lazaras was one of about 3,000 passengers who disembarked the Ruby Princess in Sydney, Australia on March 19. Over 600 have since tested positive for the novel coronavirus, making the ship Australia's largest single source of COVID-19 cases.

https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/head-doctor-aboard-cruise-ship-with-covid-19-outbreak-dies
19-04-2020 19:25
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2199)
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Social distancing has been a failure. People continue to test positive, get hospitalized, and die. There was no control group in this experiment, so no valid comparison. Every virus is different, ever pandemic has been different, again, comparisons are fantasy. For most people, it's a mild cold. Others, crap their pants, everytime they hear someone sneeze...



You mean you've never been on a ship that's crossed the ocean? I've heard about people like you. Kind of hate to say it but maybe if you had more life experiences you'd be a little more aware of what's out there in the world?
While a cruise (have been on one too) isn't the same thing, you'll get the idea that it is an isolated mobile location. I did post a link to what has been observed on ships with a minimum of 1,000 personnel or passengers. On this ship, 1 out of every 5 people are known to be infected. And I don't think everyone has been tested.

Lazaras was one of about 3,000 passengers who disembarked the Ruby Princess in Sydney, Australia on March 19. Over 600 have since tested positive for the novel coronavirus, making the ship Australia's largest single source of COVID-19 cases.

https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/head-doctor-aboard-cruise-ship-with-covid-19-outbreak-dies


Closest I've been, ocean fishing a few times... Cruise ship hold no appeal, I like a lot of room to move around. I know quite a few people who go on cruises regularly, and get to see plenty of pictures and video. Doesn't look like fun to me, and crowded. When they go ashore, seems like there are only a few places to go. Somehow doubt, that 'being there' would make any better. Cross the ocean on a boat, when you can hop on a plane for the same cost, or cheaper? Not to mention be there in a day, instead of a month...

How many of those confirmed boat cases, actually died? Between the 3 plague ships that dock in Florida, there was a grand total of 7 fatalities, 4 were at sea. Likely poor medical care onboard, compared to a land hospital. They've had higher mortality, on the normal cruise ship stomach viruses in the past, just on one boat...
20-04-2020 01:55
James___
★★★★★
(2987)
HarveyH55 wrote:
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Social distancing has been a failure. People continue to test positive, get hospitalized, and die. There was no control group in this experiment, so no valid comparison. Every virus is different, ever pandemic has been different, again, comparisons are fantasy. For most people, it's a mild cold. Others, crap their pants, everytime they hear someone sneeze...



You mean you've never been on a ship that's crossed the ocean? I've heard about people like you. Kind of hate to say it but maybe if you had more life experiences you'd be a little more aware of what's out there in the world?
While a cruise (have been on one too) isn't the same thing, you'll get the idea that it is an isolated mobile location. I did post a link to what has been observed on ships with a minimum of 1,000 personnel or passengers. On this ship, 1 out of every 5 people are known to be infected. And I don't think everyone has been tested.

Lazaras was one of about 3,000 passengers who disembarked the Ruby Princess in Sydney, Australia on March 19. Over 600 have since tested positive for the novel coronavirus, making the ship Australia's largest single source of COVID-19 cases.

https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/head-doctor-aboard-cruise-ship-with-covid-19-outbreak-dies


Closest I've been, ocean fishing a few times... Cruise ship hold no appeal, I like a lot of room to move around. I know quite a few people who go on cruises regularly, and get to see plenty of pictures and video. Doesn't look like fun to me, and crowded. When they go ashore, seems like there are only a few places to go. Somehow doubt, that 'being there' would make any better. Cross the ocean on a boat, when you can hop on a plane for the same cost, or cheaper? Not to mention be there in a day, instead of a month...

How many of those confirmed boat cases, actually died? Between the 3 plague ships that dock in Florida, there was a grand total of 7 fatalities, 4 were at sea. Likely poor medical care onboard, compared to a land hospital. They've had higher mortality, on the normal cruise ship stomach viruses in the past, just on one boat...



Like I said, you don't really know enough to discuss anything. It doesn't matter what anyone says because you'll just say the opposite. That's all you know. It is funny how you know enough to stay away from your mother. Why would it matter if she got it? It wouldn't. I think that shows how hypocritical you are.
Page 1 of 3123>





Join the debate How society will positively advance:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Not exactly climate related, but increasing CO2 is making society stupid2012-11-2016 16:03
▲ 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