Remember me
▼ Content

I have a theory



Page 1 of 3123>
I have a theory01-10-2016 00:22
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1079)
The distance between Jupiter and Saturn is cyclical and varies over time just like day and night and the four seasons. Once in a while, Jupiter and Saturn move to closest to each other and pull Earth further away from the Sun and this starts glacial periods. Once in a while, Jupiter and Saturn move to furthest away from each other and Earth is pulled closer to the Sun and this starts interglacial periods. Unless the Sun's output changes, the only thing that can meaningfully affect Earth's climate is Earth's distance from the Sun. What do you think? Makes sense?
Edited on 01-10-2016 00:22
01-10-2016 00:23
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Only one problem: why the hell would they do that?
01-10-2016 00:24
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Also, the effects of such an interaction between Saturn and Jupiter would be MUCH more chaotic than that.

Oh, joy. Now the astronomers are going to be accused of joining the Evul Conspeeracy.
01-10-2016 00:25
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1079)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Only one problem: why the hell would they do that?


Jupiter orbits the Sun. Saturn orbits the Sun. Periodically, they become synchronized with each other and the distance between them is minimal. Periodically, one of them is always on one side of the Sun and the other one is on the other side of the Sun, and the distance between them is maximal.
Edited on 01-10-2016 00:26
01-10-2016 00:28
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Oh, that! That has a much shorter period than the glacials and interglacials. Less than a thousand years for sure.

They have different periods, you know. They don't spend much time "next to each other".

Also,

1. This is a hypothesis, not a theory.
2. "You don't use science to show that you are right. You use science to BECOME right."
01-10-2016 03:14
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5234)
jwoodward48 wrote:1. This is a hypothesis, not a theory.

If you don't mind me asking, what is it you are claiming is an hypothesis and not a theory?

I ask because I am fairly certain you don't know the difference.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
01-10-2016 03:58
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Tai's statement hasn't been tested. Theories are supported by data; hypotheses are just educated guesses about to be tested.

Of course, there's also the null hypothesis.
01-10-2016 13:11
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
The distance between Jupiter and Saturn is cyclical and varies over time just like day and night and the four seasons. Once in a while, Jupiter and Saturn move to closest to each other and pull Earth further away from the Sun and this starts glacial periods. Once in a while, Jupiter and Saturn move to furthest away from each other and Earth is pulled closer to the Sun and this starts interglacial periods. Unless the Sun's output changes, the only thing that can meaningfully affect Earth's climate is Earth's distance from the Sun. What do you think? Makes sense?


I think you know nothing about orbital mechanics.

Yes there is an effect of the position of the large gas giants on the earth's orbit but it's small and very predictable.
02-10-2016 04:34
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5234)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Tai's statement hasn't been tested. Theories are supported by data; hypotheses are just educated guesses about to be tested.

Of course, there's also the null hypothesis.

An hypothesis is derived from a model.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-10-2016 11:23
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Tai's statement hasn't been tested. Theories are supported by data; hypotheses are just educated guesses about to be tested.

Of course, there's also the null hypothesis.

An hypothesis is derived from a model.


Not really. You have to have a working theory or hypothesis to build a model.

e.g. The thing I did about day length where I used the theory of rotational dynamics, which sounds impressive but is very easy, to work out the impact of a 1mm rise in sea level due to ice melt at the poles.

The hypothesis of CO2 causing warming is used to build the models which predict the future temperatures by the IPCC etc.

If the models give unexpected results that come out right then the hypothesis is looking good.

Pitty there....
02-10-2016 15:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5234)
Tim the plumber wrote:[color=blue]Not really. You have to have a working theory or hypothesis to build a model.

It's the other way around.

You gather up the empirical, i.e. your observations, your data, etc.., you analyze it and you use that to form a model.

Then, from your model you derive an hypothesis, which usually takes the form of "If this model is correct then that would mean X will happen if we do Y under circumstances Z."

That hypothesis then becomes the basis of an experiment. If the experiment shows the hypothesis to be false then it's not the hypothesis that must be fixed but rather the model from which the hypothesis was derived.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-10-2016 16:02
spot
★★★★☆
(1231)
IBdaMann wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:[color=blue]Not really. You have to have a working theory or hypothesis to build a model.

It's the other way around.

You gather up the empirical, i.e. your observations, your data, etc.., you analyze it and you use that to form a model.

Then, from your model you derive an hypothesis, which usually takes the form of "If this model is correct then that would mean X will happen if we do Y under circumstances Z."

That hypothesis then becomes the basis of an experiment. If the experiment shows the hypothesis to be false then it's not the hypothesis that must be fixed but rather the model from which the hypothesis was derived.


.
how does that work in astronomy?
02-10-2016 19:52
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Tai's statement hasn't been tested. Theories are supported by data; hypotheses are just educated guesses about to be tested.

Of course, there's also the null hypothesis.

An hypothesis is derived from a model.


.


Ah, you're right. I was kind of stretching the definition when I called Tai's guess a hypothesis. Hypotheses don't necessarily have to come from a model, though; see "null hypothesis".


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
02-10-2016 21:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10263)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
The distance between Jupiter and Saturn is cyclical and varies over time just like day and night and the four seasons. Once in a while, Jupiter and Saturn move to closest to each other and pull Earth further away from the Sun and this starts glacial periods. Once in a while, Jupiter and Saturn move to furthest away from each other and Earth is pulled closer to the Sun and this starts interglacial periods. Unless the Sun's output changes, the only thing that can meaningfully affect Earth's climate is Earth's distance from the Sun. What do you think? Makes sense?


Nice try, but that would mean ice ages would occur every 29 years (the orbital period of Saturn). That's how often it comes closest to Jupiter. All three planets (Earth, Jupiter, Saturn) line up every 29 years.


The Parrot Killer
02-10-2016 21:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10263)
spot wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:[color=blue]Not really. You have to have a working theory or hypothesis to build a model.

It's the other way around.

You gather up the empirical, i.e. your observations, your data, etc.., you analyze it and you use that to form a model.

Then, from your model you derive an hypothesis, which usually takes the form of "If this model is correct then that would mean X will happen if we do Y under circumstances Z."

That hypothesis then becomes the basis of an experiment. If the experiment shows the hypothesis to be false then it's not the hypothesis that must be fixed but rather the model from which the hypothesis was derived.


.
how does that work in astronomy?


Exactly the same way. Why?


The Parrot Killer
04-10-2016 15:00
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
That makes sense.
04-10-2016 22:39
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5234)
jwoodward48 wrote: Hypotheses don't necessarily have to come from a model, though; see "null hypothesis".

The null hypothesis comes directly from the model. A mathematician would refer to it as a "trivial" hypothesis. It is a direct test of the model as formally specified.

For example, My buddy Isaac states that the gravity between two masses is determined by g[M1*M2]/d^2 ...so that is exactly what I'm going to test. I'm going to take two known masses out into deep, deep space, far away from any other matter, measure the force of gravity between them and check to see if it is the value that g[M1*M2]/d^2 says it should be. The null hypothesis is simply the hypothesis of the model itself.

Another example would be my buddy Surface Detail who claims that Planck's law fails the null hypothesis when we look at radiation of gases. All we need is for him to give one example of Planck's failing the null hypothesis, not another lame excuse.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
05-10-2016 00:15
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
That's not the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is "no correlation", or "no significant difference between A and B", or whatever. In a medical study, the null hypothesis is that the treatment is effectively a placebo - this is certainly not what is predicted at the time!
05-10-2016 01:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10263)
jwoodward48 wrote:
That's not the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is "no correlation", or "no significant difference between A and B", or whatever. In a medical study, the null hypothesis is that the treatment is effectively a placebo - this is certainly not what is predicted at the time!


IBDaMann has it right.


The Parrot Killer
05-10-2016 01:02
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Oh, for ****'s sake. The null hypothesis is not "what we think will happen". That's a normal hypothesis. You're all barking mad.
05-10-2016 01:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10263)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Oh, for ****'s sake. The null hypothesis is not "what we think will happen". That's a normal hypothesis. You're all barking mad.


I'm certainly mad at you, that's for sure. You're just an ingrate. You go read his post again. You have some severe reading comprehension problems.


The Parrot Killer
05-10-2016 02:14
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
What the model predicts, that is. Most people accept the current models. Most scientists will be testing said models. Most scientists will be using a null hypothesis, not of "the model is correct", but of "no correlation."
05-10-2016 05:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5234)
jwoodward48 wrote:
What the model predicts, that is. Most people accept the current models. Most scientists will be testing said models. Most scientists will be using a null hypothesis, not of "the model is correct", but of "no correlation."


It's called the "null hypothesis" because you are not hypothesizing anything. You are just testing the base model on face value. You are only testing "is it true as stated?" and nothing of "if it is true then that would mean X and then Y." No hypothesizing beyond the bare statement of the model itself.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
05-10-2016 15:23
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
That's still wrong. The null hypothesis is "no correlation".
14-10-2016 02:45
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Oh, damn it. There are two meanings to that word. We're both right.
14-10-2016 14:07
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5234)
jwoodward48 wrote: Oh, damn it. There are two meanings to that word. We're both right.

No, you are not correct. Nice try, though.

In order for something to be science it must first be falsifiable. It was also be useful in predicting nature (i.e. the future). It must also survive the rigorous scrutiny of scientific method.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
14-10-2016 18:25
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
I'm talking about the meaning of "null hypothesis" specifically. It has been used to mean both "no correlation" and "predictions of current accepted models." (Not at the same time, of course.) (And that doesn't mean "not within the same time period," but rather "when I say "null hypothesis," it can only have one meaning out of the two.")
Edited on 14-10-2016 18:26
14-10-2016 18:50
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5234)
jwoodward48 wrote:I'm talking about the meaning of "null hypothesis" specifically. It has been used to mean both "no correlation" and "predictions of current accepted models." (Not at the same time, of course.) (And that doesn't mean "not within the same time period," but rather "when I say "null hypothesis," it can only have one meaning out of the two.")

No.

The null hypothesis is the model itself, i.e. no hypotheses derived from applying the model as assumptions into other models.

Let's run through an example. Pick your favorite science model.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
14-10-2016 20:56
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
I'm a bit sketchy on the difference between theory and model, but I think this is correct:

The theory of Special Relativity contains equations. These equations can be used to construct models. Right?

A way to test SRelativity would be an experiment in which the independent variable is speed and the dependent variable is mass. I'm not sure how mass could be measured in a non-relative way, but let's assume that we can do so.

Your definition: The null hypothesis is that there is a positive correlation between speed and mass (because that's what the model predicts).

This is a perfectly valid definition. I don't dispute that any longer.

My definition: The null hypothesis is that there is no correlation between speed and mass.

This is also valid. AFAICT, it appears to be the more common use of the term.

Websites that agree with you:

https://explorable.com/null-hypothesis
http://www.statisticshowto.com/what-is-the-null-hypothesis/

Websites that agree with me:

https://www.google.com/search?q=null+hypothesis&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
http://psc.dss.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites//sommerb/sommerdemo/stat_inf/null.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/null_hypothesis.asp
http://stattrek.com/statistics/dictionary.aspx?definition=null%20hypothesis
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/null%20hypothesis
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/null-hypothesis.htmlhttp://mathworld.wolfram.com/NullHypothesis.html

I do not have the intention of starting a link war. I do not claim that your definition is incorrect. I do not claim that "more links" = "right". I am just trying to show that my definition is fine too.
Edited on 14-10-2016 20:57
14-10-2016 21:49
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5234)
jwoodward48 wrote:Your definition: The null hypothesis is that there is a positive correlation between speed and mass (because that's what the model predicts).

No. The problem is that you are writing in natural language (i.e. English). The null hypothesis is a test of the formal expression of the science as it is.

I'll repeat my previous example. Please pay attention:

Newton's model for gravity is not the English verbiage "There is an attractive force between any two masses that decreases with greater distance."

Newton's model of gravity is the formal expression:

Given two masses M1, M2 distance d apart, Gravity = g[M1*M2]/d^2

When the scientific method tests the null hypothesis, it tests exactly this, trying to show it to be false. How can you go about testing the null hypothesis for Newton's model yourself? You try to show that some pair of masses d-distance apart have some gravity other than g[M1*M2]/d^2. Just one example renders the model false. Find one example, whatever it takes.

This should look familiar. It is exactly what I'm asking of Surface Detail, i,e, provide just one example of any gas the fails Planck's null hypothesis. I'm requesting only what the scientific method demands. Of course Surface Detail whines and complains because, when you put it that way, it makes him look really stupid.

Hey, does this mean that the scientific method is the next thing to "not apply"?

jwoodward48 wrote: Websites that agree with me:

Ooooh, you just dropped four points in the polls. First, consensus has no bearing on science. Science is not determined by subjective opinion. No one owns science.

Secondly, I saw Wikipedia in that list. Dismissed!

Look, the main point here is that every model must be directly tested. If you don't want to use the term "null hypothesis" then don't use it. If a falsifiable model that predicts nature is directly tested rigorously through the scientific method, survives and the word "null hypothesis" is never used then it's still passes on to the next set of tests.

Personally, I don't use the term "null hypothesis" myself. I prefer just stating "direct testing."


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
14-10-2016 21:58
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:Your definition: The null hypothesis is that there is a positive correlation between speed and mass (because that's what the model predicts).

No. The problem is that you are writing in natural language (i.e. English). The null hypothesis is a test of the formal expression of the science as it is.

I'll repeat my previous example. Please pay attention:

Newton's model for gravity is not the English verbiage "There is an attractive force between any two masses that decreases with greater distance."

Newton's model of gravity is the formal expression:

Given two masses M1, M2 distance d apart, Gravity = g[M1*M2]/d^2

When the scientific method tests the null hypothesis, it tests exactly this, trying to show it to be false. How can you go about testing the null hypothesis for Newton's model yourself? You try to show that some pair of masses d-distance apart have some gravity other than g[M1*M2]/d^2. Just one example renders the model false. Find one example, whatever it takes.

This should look familiar. It is exactly what I'm asking of Surface Detail, i,e, provide just one example of any gas the fails Planck's null hypothesis. I'm requesting only what the scientific method demands. Of course Surface Detail whines and complains because, when you put it that way, it makes him look really stupid.

Hey, does this mean that the scientific method is the next thing to "not apply"?

You correctly explained one meaning of "null hypothesis." Yes. Entirely correct.

Also, I was describing the experiment, not the theory.
jwoodward48 wrote: Websites that agree with me:

Ooooh, you just dropped four points in the polls. First, consensus has no bearing on science. Science is not determined by subjective opinion. No one owns science.

Ah, but this isn't science anymore. There is no model of "null hypothesis." We're discussing the meaning of fundamental terms, or the semantics of such. And semantics is democratically determined by the people who are using the word - if all scientists used "null hypothesis" to mean "no correlation," then that's what the word would mean.
Secondly, I saw Wikipedia in that list. Dismissed!

Is that specific source dismissed, or the entire argument? If the latter, you're skirting dangerously close to an ad hominem.
Look, the main point here is that every model must be directly tested. If you don't want to use the term "null hypothesis" then don't use it.

Indeed, I would like to move beyond semantics.
If a falsifiable model that predicts nature is directly tested rigorously through the scientific method, survives and the word "null hypothesis" is never used then it's still passes on to the next set of tests.

A direct test by any other name would smell as scientific, yes.
Personally, I don't use the term "null hypothesis" myself. I prefer just stating "direct testing."

Since "null hypothesis" has two distinct meanings, that's probably for the better.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
14-10-2016 22:06
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5234)
jwoodward48 wrote: Is that specific source dismissed, or the entire argument?

The source. Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. It is a completely biased (leftist/Marxist) non-authoritative source.

It can be very useful as a research starting point or as a pointer to actual authoritative sources, but whenever Wikipedia itself is cited, the reference is summarily dismissed!


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
14-10-2016 23:12
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Oh, okay. (Not the "evil leftist liberal bias", but the "Wikipedia is unreliable." As an occasional vandal-fighter myself, I know firsthand how inaccurate a statement can be.)
17-10-2016 21:07
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5234)
jwoodward48 wrote: Oh, okay. (Not the "evil leftist liberal bias", but the "Wikipedia is unreliable." As an occasional vandal-fighter myself, I know firsthand how inaccurate a statement can be.)

You, or anyone for that matter, are welcome to present any "evil leftist liberal bias" you want, i.e. your opinion. You are welcome to present your beliefs on any topic.

My particular issue is not the Global Warming religion; I'm happy to discuss all faiths.

My issue is the bulveristic declaration of said religious dogma being science. That's a whole different Oreo cookie. When someone claims something is science then I should be able to apply all the scientific method to it *and* it should hold up. I should be able to question, doubt, examine and scrutinize every aspect without getting a rash of knee-jerk religious hatred.

As you are well aware, warmizombies become complete ashsoles to those who simply don't worship as they do, and that holds especially true when the non-believer points out that their unfalsifiable beliefs are not science.

Surface Detail and spot are classic examples. They are ficking haters. If I were a betting man I'd bet that they are classic losers who sit around thinking the world owes them everything. They are hateful morons who project their own scientific illiteracy onto those who simply hold differing opinions.

...and they're both as stupid as fock. They probably depend on Wikipedia to find the bathroom. If the two of them were to leave, the IQ of this site would shoot up. All you can expect from them is bogus gibber-babble and petty hate-filled insults.

...and don't expect Surface Detail to be giving you any examples of any gases radiating in violation of Planck's. You have seen how he insists that's the case despite knowing that he has no example. He won't ever be honest. If I could sell his honesty short, I'd make a mint.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
17-10-2016 22:39
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: Oh, okay. (Not the "evil leftist liberal bias", but the "Wikipedia is unreliable." As an occasional vandal-fighter myself, I know firsthand how inaccurate a statement can be.)

You, or anyone for that matter, are welcome to present any "evil leftist liberal bias" you want, i.e. your opinion. You are welcome to present your beliefs on any topic.

My particular issue is not the Global Warming religion; I'm happy to discuss all faiths.

My issue is the bulveristic declaration of said religious dogma being science. That's a whole different Oreo cookie. When someone claims something is science then I should be able to apply all the scientific method to it *and* it should hold up. I should be able to question, doubt, examine and scrutinize every aspect without getting a rash of knee-jerk religious hatred.

As you are well aware, warmizombies become complete ashsoles to those who simply don't worship as they do, and that holds especially true when the non-believer points out that their unfalsifiable beliefs are not science.

Surface Detail and spot are classic examples. They are ficking haters. If I were a betting man I'd bet that they are classic losers who sit around thinking the world owes them everything. They are hateful morons who project their own scientific illiteracy onto those who simply hold differing opinions.

...and they're both as stupid as fock. They probably depend on Wikipedia to find the bathroom. If the two of them were to leave, the IQ of this site would shoot up. All you can expect from them is bogus gibber-babble and petty hate-filled insults.

...and don't expect Surface Detail to be giving you any examples of any gases radiating in violation of Planck's. You have seen how he insists that's the case despite knowing that he has no example. He won't ever be honest. If I could sell his honesty short, I'd make a mint.

I love it when you lose it.
17-10-2016 22:42
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
What bogus gibber-babble, Surface!
17-10-2016 22:49
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5234)
Surface Detail wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote:I love it when you lose it.

You wish.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
17-10-2016 22:52
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IB: You have to admit, though, you are insulting them, which to a newcomer poisons the well for whatever else you say.
Edited on 17-10-2016 22:52
17-10-2016 22:56
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
jwoodward48 wrote:
IB: You have to admit, though, you are insulting them, which to a newcomer poisons the well for whatever else you say.

Exactly. Who's going to take any notice of a red-faced ranter? He's tipped his king.
17-10-2016 23:00
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5234)
jwoodward48 wrote: IB: You have to admit, though, you are insulting them, which to a newcomer poisons the well for whatever else you say.

I do not have to admit that. You are using entirely wrong wording. They have been indoctrinated to become offended at differing opinions. That was not my doing. When I point out the unfalsifiability of their religion and that it isn't science, it is entirely on them for going chit-bonkers. They are responsible for all the bulverism and all the venom they bring to the discussion.

I will admit to becoming insulting myself therafter but this is another case whereby you will not challenge those of your religion. The comment you just hurled at me should have been rightfully hurled at Surface Detail and spot. You intentionally chose to throw it in my direction like I am the one responsible for their bulverism and ashsole attitude. I'm certainly not responsible for their egregious scientific illiteracy.

You should try that one again, but this time throwing the comment in their general direction. Let's see how that goes down.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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 1 of 3123>





Join the debate I have a theory:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N226013-12-2019 17:04
Revealing the 160 year systematic error behind greenhouse theory with Raman Spectroscopy2422-09-2019 22:20
Theory coming to fruition?1418-05-2019 22:43
An alternative theory from a non-scientist529-04-2019 18:28
Whirlpool theory of ocean deadzones?325-04-2019 05:47
Articles
Theory
▲ 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 © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact