I have a theory
IB: You have to admit, though, you are insulting them, which to a newcomer poisons the well for whatever else you say.
But he does NOT have to admit anything.
Yeah, IdaBM insults the newcomers right out of the gate.
It DOES poison the well for anything else he might say.
In the unlikely event that he eventually makes some kind of valid point, it gets completely lost among the insults, false accusations, and false claims.
Oh good grief. Is this STILL going on? Over and over and over again ad nauseum:
Surface Detail wrote:
What? Now you're contradicting yourself. You're the one claiming that radiation is emitted strictly in accordance with Planck's Law at all times. The examples that you've just given contradict your claim, not mine!
They not only contradict themselves, they contradict each other (see below quotes).
Into the Night wrote:
Planck is talking about absorption, not radiation.
IBdaMann wrote:First, Planck's Radiation Law is about radiation, not about absorption.
What they don't appear to comprehend, (despite you trying to explain several times to them) is that they are both contradicting Max Planck:
When IB didn't even recognise what the blackbody temperature curves in the graph you posted were, and told you to 'remove them', it was hilarious. As was ITN asserting that "Spectra has nothing to do with black body radiation".
Typical of autodidacts who pick up bits of information here and there but never study a subject fully in an environment where their mistakes and misunderstandings would get picked up, and the huge gaps in their knowledge would get filled. They never seem to realise just how incompetent they are because there was no-one to correct them when they go wrong. Combine that with ideological/religiously induced stupidity, extreme confirmation bias, and sheer arrogance and you get people like IB and ITN who seriously believe they are 'experts' and will not listen to anyone trying to show them where they are going wrong.
They'll never go read that source from ACS you provided (which would clearly show them where they are going wrong), because they already believe they 'know it all!'
All they would need to do would be to search for Planck's Law and blackbody radiation from an authoritative source which explains it in the context of Max Planck's original work. Instead they are convinced that characteristics that only apply to a theoretical blackbody in equilibrium that is a perfect absorber and emitter of EM (not found in nature) applies to 'everything, all the time'
From wrong assumptions, they leap to the wrong conclusions that the temperature of the atmosphere (which is NOT a perfect blackbody and NOT a perfect absorber and emitter of EM radiation) has nothing to do with it's composition. Because they believe they are right, they are incapable of seeing it when you show them that graph which shows they are wrong.
They just go straight back to their baseless assertions and pseudoscience waffle and tell you you're wrong without really being able to explain it coherently. And of course, they can never provide any support from authoritative sources, but will completely dismiss yours. Over and over and over and over again ad nauseum until they wear you down with the same nonsense they have been repeating for years, and you give up in exasperation. Then of course they claim 'victory' because you couldn't be bothered wasting your time any more
That's why I've found it's a complete waste of time trying to explain anything to people who reject science like the 'greenhouse' effect, evolution, age of the earth etc especially if it's because of their deeply held ideological/religious beliefs.
Oh.... and they also didn't have a clue what the graphs I posted showed or signified. They would be self-explanatory to most people who have even fairly basic knowledge about this subject.
By the way, note how in that thread Into the Night uses the term 'evolutionist'? Who does that? Other than someone who doesn't accept evolution because of their religious beliefs?
As they aren't capable of rational discussions, you might as well have some fun just mocking them rather than engaging with them directly.
|Into the Night★★★★★
sealover wrote:Well, since you refuse to define your terms you are just filling your posts with meaningless crud.
IB, I'm not blaming you. I'm not saying that you started it. I'm just noting that saying things like
...and they're both as stupid as fock. They probably depend on Wikipedia to find the bathroom.
is detrimental to what people think of you. I know that my first impression of you was shaped significantly by statements like that, and it means that people are less likely to listen to you.
Yes, he makes a very bad first impression.
Within an hour of my first post, IBdaMann wrote to me
"Define your fuggin terms you lying schitt"
Along with "Go and learn some science" and "You don't even know what science is" Plenty of "you are a liar"s and "you are a moron"s
So even when he pretends to be respectful, there is no way to forget that disgusting first impression.
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
sealover wrote:Yes, he makes a very bad first impression.
Would you care to take a guess at the kind of first impression that you made, that you continue to purvey?
Join the debate I have a theory:
▲ Top of page
Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.