Remember me
▼ Content

Is math that important? (for believers only, pleeease!)



Page 1 of 4123>>>
Is math that important? (for believers only, pleeease!)10-04-2022 17:45
GretaGroupieProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(348)
Ok, so I'm a bit of a dummy when it comes to numbers, unless of course you're talking diner math (how many plates, how much tax, what percent tip?).

I seems like a lot of threads here get lost in numbers ("my math is better than your math!").

When it comes down to it, I think it's more about quality than quantity. In other words, how is climate change (if you believe in it like I do) affecting the quality of your life.

Maybe we (beleivers) could talk about that?

PS - if you're a non-believer in climate change, can we talk about that somewhere else?

10-04-2022 18:39
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4239)
I don't buy into climate change. The planet has been changing, long before mankind walked on their hind legs. The planet never stopped changing, nor ever will. It's a very dynamic planet, everything constantly in motion, shifting. Climate Change activism is bullshit.

Math, and numbers are very important tools. Depends on how they are used though. We would have much of our modern conveniences, without math. But, politics, marketing, and greed, also use math to manipulate, which is bad. Pure evil in some cases. Using math (computer models) to predict all life on the planet will be wiped out by the end of the century, if we all don't join the ant-progress cause, is one of those evil uses of math. We have no means to see the future. It's only an opinion, and wishful thinking.
10-04-2022 19:28
Spongy Iris
★★★★☆
(1034)
GretaGroupie wrote:
Ok, so I'm a bit of a dummy when it comes to numbers, unless of course you're talking diner math (how many plates, how much tax, what percent tip?).

I seems like a lot of threads here get lost in numbers ("my math is better than your math!").

When it comes down to it, I think it's more about quality than quantity. In other words, how is climate change (if you believe in it like I do) affecting the quality of your life.

Maybe we (beleivers) could talk about that?

PS - if you're a non-believer in climate change, can we talk about that somewhere else?



I'm quite ignorant about the math of climate change, in the sense that I don't know how much CO2 must be pumped up from what density of land, and for how long, before it becomes a threat.

Apparently AOC says we got until 2031 to make some major changes. I don't know how she knows that. She must have heard it from an Angel.


10-04-2022 20:16
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11757)
GretaGroupie wrote:I seems like a lot of threads here get lost in numbers ("my math is better than your math!").

Nope. There really aren't any. There is only attempted gibber-babble. Whenever gibber-babble is countered with actual science, he who is babbling the gibberish normally pivots to other gibber-babble with different empty buzzwords.

GretaGroupie wrote:When it comes down to it, I think it's more about quality than quantity.

Unfortunately, you have to be unambiguous if you wish to discuss science. If you are fine with discussing "quality" of religious dogma then you can get away with being totally ambiguous without defining any terms you use.

I would encourage you to demand unambiguous definitions for all terms you read being presented in all affirmative claims. Then, at your leisure, you can verify each and every one independently.

GretaGroupie wrote:In other words, how is climate change (if you believe in it like I do) affecting the quality of your life.

I'll give you an example right here.

You are asking a question. You omitted the question mark but the question is there and I would very much like to answer your question. But how am I supposed to give you an answer if you won't tell me what "climate change" is supposed to mean? What answer am I to give if "climate change" exists only in your mind? What answer should I give if you are simply being manipulated because your scientific illiteracy has rendered you totally gullible to this kind of gibber-babble?

I'd really like to know all of the above so I can get right to answering your question.

GretaGroupie wrote:Maybe we (beleivers) could talk about that?

Two things here:

1. I see by your wording that you recognize "Climate Change" as WACKY religious dogmababble that requires religious belief ... and that no rational adult has any rational basis for accepting any of the tenets of the faith, and

2. Do you consider yourself to be a rational adult? (careful, this question is a trap)

GretaGroupie wrote:PS - if you're a non-believer in climate change, can we talk about that somewhere else?

... but "we" can also discuss it here. "We" have many options.

Tell me, where do you believe that one's ideas should get him censored?
Where do you believe that truth, expressed honestly, should be censored?

Trolls, such as squeal over, who leap to demanding that differing views and beliefs be banned get my immediate attention. If you find that differing views are simply too much to bear then you really should not be wandering the internet. It really isn't safe and the internet certainly is full of annoying, different views.

Cheers
.
RE: "Pig headed douchebags"?10-04-2022 20:23
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
"Pig headed douchebags"?

GretaGroupie, since you are here to honestly represent yourself in good faith.

Tell me more about the "Pig headed douchebags" you wrote about before.

How would I know how to spot one?

What should I do or say if I encounter one?

These things are BAD, right?

Maybe in some cultures they worship pigs and therefore don't eat them, and the word "pig" has no insulting connotations?

Did you hustle on the streets for two years in a place where they worship pigs?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

GretaGroupie wrote:
Ok, so I'm a bit of a dummy when it comes to numbers, unless of course you're talking diner math (how many plates, how much tax, what percent tip?).

I seems like a lot of threads here get lost in numbers ("my math is better than your math!").

When it comes down to it, I think it's more about quality than quantity. In other words, how is climate change (if you believe in it like I do) affecting the quality of your life.

Maybe we (beleivers) could talk about that?

PS - if you're a non-believer in climate change, can we talk about that somewhere else?

10-04-2022 21:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11757)
Spongy Iris wrote:I'm quite ignorant about the math of climate change,

You are not ignorant of the math of Climate Change. There simply isn't any of which to be ignorant.
11-04-2022 00:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
GretaGroupie wrote:
Ok, so I'm a bit of a dummy when it comes to numbers, unless of course you're talking diner math (how many plates, how much tax, what percent tip?).

I seems like a lot of threads here get lost in numbers ("my math is better than your math!").

When it comes down to it, I think it's more about quality than quantity. In other words, how is climate change (if you believe in it like I do) affecting the quality of your life.

Maybe we (beleivers) could talk about that?

PS - if you're a non-believer in climate change, can we talk about that somewhere else?



You will have to define 'climate change' at some point. It doesn't mean anything. It's a buzzword.

Now about the math that is ignored by religions like the Church of Global Warming:

The basic premise is that the Earth is somehow warming.

To make this claim, the temperature of the Earth must be known, and a beginning and end point of measurement must be stated. Those beginning and end points in time must be justified as well (why those beginning and end points are significant, and why any other beginning and end points are NOT significant).

You will actually see arguments over these two points in time for this reason. The phrase 'global warming' itself is not defined because these two endpoints are not defined, and the method of measuring the temperature of the Earth has never been described.

Most people point to the government 'data' at NASA to indicate the temperature of the Earth. There is a problem with this 'data'. It isn't data.

NASA claims to use some 3500 thermometer readings around the world for their numbers. This is a slightly higher number than NOAA claims, so we'll use that.

The surface area Earth is 196,936,994 square miles (most recently known estimate).

If you place 3500 thermometers uniformly across that area, you will get one thermometer for every 54704 square miles. This is roughly an area the size of the State of Florida or Wisconsin.

A couple of points here:
Thermometers are not uniformly spaced. They are concentrated in cities and along roads where civilization is. They must be serviced. Ten thermometers in an area tells you NOTHING about the temperature of something as little as just ten miles away.

A statistical analysis demands that a margin of error must be calculated along with the summary. This value comes from the declared variance (the possible range of data) and not from the data itself.

It is not unusual to see temperature vary as much as 20 deg F per mile. This can easily happen across weather fronts, mountain compression wave effects, type of surface (water vs black asphalt vs open land vs forested areas), and even local terrain (north sides of mountains receive less sunlight than south sides of mountains, for example), or even the presence of a wildfire.

So using 20 deg F per square mile is completely reasonable.

Over an area of 54000 sq miles, possible temperatures can easily exceed the highest and lowest temperatures ever recorded on Earth, so these two values form the limit of variance.

Statistical math takes the value of some data and averages it, and accompanies that value with a margin of error as a confidence in the average as a meaningful result.

Data MUST be chosen by randN. Once you pick a value, it cannot be picked again. You MUST use raw data. You cannot use cooked or interpolated 'data', since that 'data' is manufactured using a statistical summary that has not yet been run! The raw data itself MUST be published and available (not kept secret or locked behind paywalls).

The raw data MUST be unbiased. All biasing influences during collection must be removed. This means the method of collection must be known, when the data was collected, the instrumentation used, the biasing influences identified and avoided, etc.

For temperature, there are two biasing influences:
1) Thermometers must be uniformly spaced. Location grouping is significant. Measuring only cities does nothing to measure wild areas or the ocean. This biasing influence MUST be eliminated during collection by uniformly spacing thermometers.
2) Readings must be taken simultaneously by the same authority. Time is significant. Earth spins, it moves in orbit, storms form and move, air is fluid and is in constant motion. Terrain changes. Ocean currents move and shift position. Ocean water is fluid and in constant motion. This biasing influence MUST be eliminated by reading all thermometers at the same time by the same authority.

If these influences are NOT removed during collection, selection is NOT being made by randN, as required by statistical math.

Data MUST be normalized by paired randR. This compares the data over the classic bell curve of probability, casting out points that rarely occur as statistically insignificant. Too many people forget this crucial step.

The summary is NOT capable of prediction that is normally inherent in mathematics. This is due to the importation and use of random numbers. This affects both statistical math and probability math. The summary is a summary of existing data, NOT of future data.

The thermometer readings are averaged, and published along with the margin of data. BOTH must be published, or there is no valid summary. An average means NOTHING without the margin of error value.

The end result of 3500 thermometers uniformly scattered across the Earth and read at the same time is an average temperature +- the total range of temperatures ever observed on the surface of the Earth. In other words, mathematically, you are GUESSING.

Anyone that tries to tell you the temperature of the Earth is MAKING SHIT UP. Oh...the government makes shit up all the time to suit their agendas.

And then people around the world quote this manufactured 'data' as The Data.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
11-04-2022 00:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
Spongy Iris wrote:
GretaGroupie wrote:
Ok, so I'm a bit of a dummy when it comes to numbers, unless of course you're talking diner math (how many plates, how much tax, what percent tip?).

I seems like a lot of threads here get lost in numbers ("my math is better than your math!").

When it comes down to it, I think it's more about quality than quantity. In other words, how is climate change (if you believe in it like I do) affecting the quality of your life.

Maybe we (beleivers) could talk about that?

PS - if you're a non-believer in climate change, can we talk about that somewhere else?



I'm quite ignorant about the math of climate change, in the sense that I don't know how much CO2 must be pumped up from what density of land, and for how long, before it becomes a threat.

Assuming 'climate change' is a synonym to 'global warming', the answer is that it's irrelevant.

The first law of thermodynamics states:
E(t+1) = E(t) - U where 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work.

No gas or vapor, just by it's presence in the atmosphere is performing any work, so 'U' is zero. Thus, energy is not changing. To warm the Earth, additional energy is needed. No gas or vapor provides any just by it's presence, so no gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing.

The second law of thermodynamics states:
e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy (the randomness of a system) and 't' is time.

This law defines the concept of 'heat'. Heat is the flow of thermal energy from concentrations of energy (or hot regions) to relative voids of thermal energy (or cold regions). Heat always flows from hot to cold, never the reverse. Heat will flow until all energy is uniform, at which point there is no more heat. Heat is zero and temperature is uniform.

No gas or vapor can trap heat. To do so would be to deny the very definition of 'heat'.
No gas or vapor can trap thermal energy. To do so would reduce entropy, in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. In other words, there is always heat as long as there is a difference of temperature within a given system.

Assuming Earth itself to be that given system (no Sun and no space around Earth is considered as sources or sinks of heat), the effect of any gas or vapor cannot be such that entropy is reduced.

Assuming the Earth-Sun-space system to be that given system, it is the same. You cannot prevent the Sun from dissipating energy to Earth in the form of light, and you cannot prevent Earth from dissipating the energy it obtains from the Sun into space. To attempt to do so would AGAIN reduce entropy. Not allowed.

Any matter above absolute zero (any matter, therefore) converts thermal energy into light according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which states:
r = C * e * t^4 where 'r' is radiance per square area (usually meters is used), 'C' is a natural constant (which serves to convert the relation to our units of measure), 'e' is emissivity (how well the surface absorbs or emits light as opposed to reflecting it or being transparent to it), and 't' is temperature in deg K.

Note that this is true uniformly for ALL substances, regardless of what they are made of.
Note also that this includes ALL frequencies of light combined, and that there is no frequency term in the equation.

This means that it is not possible to trap light. Radiant heating can always take place. No gas or vapor has the capability to trap light.

Therefore:
* you cannot create energy out of nothing. No gas or vapor has this capability.
* you cannot trap heat. Heat is not contained in anything and has no temperature.
* you cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
* you cannot trap light. There is always radiant heat from Earth, and there is always radiant heat from the Sun.
* you cannot heat a warmer surface with a colder gas. Heat can never flow 'uphill'. It can only flow from hot to cold. The atmosphere is colder than the surface (in general).

Assuming that any gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth is simply discarding these three laws of physics. Science is a package deal. You can't just discard any theory of science. It must be falsified to destroy a theory of science.

If you ignore a single theory of science, you ignore science.
If you ignore even a single bit of mathematics, you ignore mathematics.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. The temperature of Earth is unknown. It cannot be measured with the instrumentation available. There is nowhere near enough thermometers to even begin a sensible statistical summary of that type.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Apparently AOC says we got until 2031 to make some major changes. I don't know how she knows that. She must have heard it from an Angel.

It has been "We have only 5-10 years to make some major changes to avert disaster" for about six decades now.

Nah. She's just chanting the same mantra.


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
11-04-2022 01:01
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4239)
sealover wrote:
"Pig headed douchebags"?

GretaGroupie, since you are here to honestly represent yourself in good faith.

Tell me more about the "Pig headed douchebags" you wrote about before.

How would I know how to spot one?

What should I do or say if I encounter one?

These things are BAD, right?

Maybe in some cultures they worship pigs and therefore don't eat them, and the word "pig" has no insulting connotations?

Did you hustle on the streets for two years in a place where they worship pigs?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

GretaGroupie wrote:
Ok, so I'm a bit of a dummy when it comes to numbers, unless of course you're talking diner math (how many plates, how much tax, what percent tip?).

I seems like a lot of threads here get lost in numbers ("my math is better than your math!").

When it comes down to it, I think it's more about quality than quantity. In other words, how is climate change (if you believe in it like I do) affecting the quality of your life.

Maybe we (beleivers) could talk about that?

PS - if you're a non-believer in climate change, can we talk about that somewhere else?



Tell me more about the "Pig headed douchebags" you wrote about before.

How would I know how to spot one?


A good look in a mirror, is all you need...
11-04-2022 01:43
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1729)
The climate affects my life.Last week was nice and sunny and now it has rained and everything is wet.Made cleaning the windscreen easy.Harness the good.Block the bad.Soon we will get storms from the South and the wind will howl but even in the middle of winter we get nice days.Its called seasons and they change
11-04-2022 01:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
duncan61 wrote:
The climate affects my life.Last week was nice and sunny and now it has rained and everything is wet.Made cleaning the windscreen easy.Harness the good.Block the bad.Soon we will get storms from the South and the wind will howl but even in the middle of winter we get nice days.Its called seasons and they change


You have not described any climate.


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
11-04-2022 02:26
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11757)
duncan61 wrote:The climate affects my life.Last week was nice and sunny and now it has rained and everything is wet.Made cleaning the windscreen easy.Harness the good.Block the bad.Soon we will get storms from the South and the wind will howl but even in the middle of winter we get nice days.Its called seasons and they change

It sounds like you don't know the difference between "climate" and "weather."
11-04-2022 16:42
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(3118)
duncan61 wrote:
The climate affects my life.

Indeed. THE one THE only Climate affects your life, as she oversees the administration of all weather, among other similarly related things.

duncan61 wrote:
Last week was nice and sunny and now it has rained and everything is wet.

What a bitch! Maybe it's her time of the month? That would explain her erratic behavior, anyway...

duncan61 wrote:
Made cleaning the windscreen easy.Harness the good.Block the bad.Soon we will get storms from the South and the wind will howl but even in the middle of winter we get nice days.Its called seasons and they change

Yup, Climate is indeed changing, yet by nature she never changes. Don't you know that this is settled science?
11-04-2022 18:26
GretaGroupieProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(348)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Math, and numbers are very important tools. Depends on how they are used though.

Yes, I agree Harvey. I just wish people used math like a tool and not a sword for proving how right they are and everyone else is wrong. After all, a lot of math went into some real disasters like the Titanic and this one from Boing:


A China Eastern flight plunged straight down from 30,000 feet killing all 132 people on board.
11-04-2022 18:28
GretaGroupieProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(348)
Spongy Iris wrote:
I'm quite ignorant about the math of climate change...

I'm thinking of getting my GED online. Maybe we could take a math class together?
11-04-2022 18:34
GretaGroupieProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(348)
IBdaMann wrote:
But how am I supposed to give you an answer if you won't tell me what "climate change" is supposed to mean?

IBM, you are the silliest. Me tell YOU what climate change is? If you don't already know, then we're all in a lot of trouble.

Okay, so you are a genius, and genius borders on insanity, but I think you're just messing with me. So, according to Miss Manners, I should just politely curtsy, smile, and slowly walk away


11-04-2022 18:42
GretaGroupieProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(348)
sealover wrote:
Tell me more about the "Pig headed douchebags" you wrote about before.

The prof, the one who finally got me off the streets was a Phd and taught at a local university. His wife is a professor there too and was away on some sabbath-cycle thing in Europe for a year (which is weird, cause they're not Jewish), so I got to live with him for almost a year. He always said that most people with Phds were pig headed douchebags because they thought being educated made them better than everyone else. In reality, even though they were smart, they had spent so much time studying that they were socially incompetent and insensitive to others.
11-04-2022 18:46
GretaGroupieProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(348)
Into the Night wrote:
Anyone that tries to tell you the temperature of the Earth is MAKING SHIT UP. Oh...the government makes shit up all the time to suit their agendas.

A lot for me to think about, but I get the idea that measuring can be very inaccurate and that it's dangerous to assume a little bit of data tells the whole story.

Kinda like life itself!
11-04-2022 18:49
GretaGroupieProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(348)
duncan61 wrote:
The climate affects my life...Its called seasons and they change

That was lovely Duncan.

Thank you, and thank you to everyone who has contributed to this thread!

See, it is possible to talk about climate change and be nice, too
11-04-2022 21:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
GretaGroupie wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Math, and numbers are very important tools. Depends on how they are used though.

Yes, I agree Harvey. I just wish people used math like a tool and not a sword for proving how right they are and everyone else is wrong. After all, a lot of math went into some real disasters like the Titanic and this one from Boing:


A China Eastern flight plunged straight down from 30,000 feet killing all 132 people on board.

Very little math went into the China Eastern flight disaster. Poor maintenance caused the tail to fall off.

Doesn't take a whole lotta math to smack into an iceberg either.


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
11-04-2022 21:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
GretaGroupie wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
But how am I supposed to give you an answer if you won't tell me what "climate change" is supposed to mean?

IBM, you are the silliest. Me tell YOU what climate change is? If you don't already know, then we're all in a lot of trouble.

Okay, so you are a genius, and genius borders on insanity, but I think you're just messing with me. So, according to Miss Manners, I should just politely curtsy, smile, and slowly walk away



The phrase 'climate change' has never been define. It's a buzzword.
I usually assume it's a synonym to 'global warming', which is also undefined.

Both seem to be centered around a paranoia of CO2.


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
11-04-2022 21:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
GretaGroupie wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Anyone that tries to tell you the temperature of the Earth is MAKING SHIT UP. Oh...the government makes shit up all the time to suit their agendas.

A lot for me to think about, but I get the idea that measuring can be very inaccurate and that it's dangerous to assume a little bit of data tells the whole story.

Kinda like life itself!

This is good to think about this. It comes up with several such claims of 'data'.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
12-04-2022 01:08
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11757)
GretaGroupie wrote:IBM, you are the silliest. Me tell YOU what climate change is? If you don't already know, then we're all in a lot of trouble.

I know what Climate Change means in an absolute sense. It is an empty buzzword of a religious dogma.

However, I was asking you what you believe it means ... or what the term means to you, so that I can understand your question and to provide you a meaningful answer.

If the term carries no personal meaning to you then you must not really have any questions about it.

GretaGroupie wrote:Okay, so you are a genius,

I don't claim to be a genius. I claim to know everything, and even then, I have to admit that there are a few things that I still don't know, and I ask you to keep that just between you and me.

GretaGroupie wrote:and genius borders on insanity,

I have no aversion to being considered "insane" because I am certain that I am not "normal." We just have to recognize that there are levels of insanity, and I'm on one of the good levels, e.g. I don't require one of Swan's padded cells, although my children might disagree with that assessment.

GretaGroupie wrote:but I think you're just messing with me.

It is true that I am messing with you (I mess with everyone because I am an equal opportunity messer) but my preferred method of messing with those trying to push a Climate Change agenda is to ask them to define their terms. On the one hand, they NEED for their religion to be revered by others as "thettled thienth" ... which requires unambiguity and falsifiability ... but on the other hand, they have nothing by vague and unfalsifiable religion which precludes any involvement of any science. The inability to unambiguously define one's terms is all the testament needed for one to broadcast "My beliefs are religious in nature and have nothing to do with any science."

You would be very honest to acknowledge that your faith in Climate Change is your religion and that that is why you don't want to discuss any science or math and why you can't define any of your doctrinal terminology.

GretaGroupie wrote: So, according to Miss Manners, I should just politely curtsy, smile, and slowly walk away

According to the Marxist playbook, this is where you pretend that your inability to define your terms is somehow my fault, and that you should then flee before the scientific method makes its way into the discussion.

GretaGroupie wrote: His wife is a professor there too and was away on some sabbath-cycle thing in Europe for a year (which is weird, cause they're not Jewish),

That's called a "sabbatical" and it's when a professor takes time away from teaching to perform research.

GretaGroupie wrote:He always said that most people with Phds were pig headed douchebags because they thought being educated made them better than everyone else.

This guy sounds wise. There is a saying: "Those who can, do, and those who can't, teach." This is not to say that all those who teach are losers; it says that losers have no other option than to become teachers. All the top professors, in my experience, have one or two classes but work normally in that particular industry. Every single full-time academic professor I have encountered has sucked, yet they have egos the size of mountains ... because they have entirely captive audiences whose "grades" are completely dependent upon strict regurgitation of the professor's ideas. That's why they are in it. They don't have to be good at anything and they don't have to add any value to society. Professors teaching from industry are in it to promote productivity and the addition of value to society through their discipline.

If you ever want a free yet outstanding performance, put me in the same room as a few career academics, sit back and enjoy the show.

GretaGroupie wrote: In reality, even though they were smart,

Very debatable. Definitely not presumed.

GretaGroupie wrote: ...they had spent so much time studying that they were socially incompetent and insensitive to others.

They didn't spend any time studying. They were busy having others tell them what to think and what to teach, ... so that they wouldn't have to expend the effort.

GretaGroupie wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Anyone that tries to tell you the temperature of the Earth is MAKING SHIT UP. Oh...the government makes shit up all the time to suit their agendas.
A lot for me to think about, but I get the idea that measuring can be very inaccurate

GretaGroupie, forgive me but you aren't getting it. This statement of yours is a gross understatement. Things like the "temperature of the earth" or "the pH of the ocean" or "the CO2 content of the atmosphere" simply cannot be measured. It is not the case that they can be measured but are merely somewhat inaccurate. The results of any attempts to make such measurements will be totally unusable for any application/purpose.

You can verify this by checking the entirety of the internet. There is a reason there is no valid dataset of all the raw data from the last time the earth's average global temperature was measured ... because no one has ever tried ... because it's not possible. In order to attempt such a measurement of the earth's average temperature, you would have to generate an overall project plan that spells out what measurements you will take, where you will take them and with what instrumentation. Before you can make such a plan you will have to establish your target "margin of error" which, in conjunction with statistical math, will guide the development of your project plan.

However, once you determine your target usable margin of error, you will quickly find that you need billions upon billions of synchronized measurements, a large portion of which will need to be taken where you cannot take them, e.g. across the surface of the ocean, under the surface of the ocean at a depth of about a half-kilometer, across the entirety of the atmosphere at about 10 kilometers altitude, etc... You'll quickly abandon your project long before you establish everything you will require to produce anything useable. You will quickly understand the futility in any such attempt.

The same for trying to measure the ocean's average pH value or the atmosphere's average CO2 content.

It cannot be done to any usable margin of error. As such, anyone offering you "measurement values" without the supposed "margin of error" is presuming you are gullible. If a margin of error is included, dollars to donuts it is wrong and is being presented under the pretense that you are stupid, that you won't be verifying its veracity and no raw data will be provided for you to ever confirm the dishonesty. Posters like tmiddles and squeal over will make up numbers and insist that you respect their omniscience.
12-04-2022 15:24
GretaGroupieProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(348)
Into the Night wrote:
Very little math went into the China Eastern flight disaster. Poor maintenance caused the tail to fall off.

Well then, that's the math right there:

1 plane - 1 tail = 0 alive

Maybe I will get that GED after all.

AFTERTHOUGHT: Did the tail really fall off? That's so sad. I shouldn't joke about that. Sorry.
Edited on 12-04-2022 15:24
12-04-2022 15:28
GretaGroupieProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(348)
Into the Night wrote:
The phrase 'climate change' has never been define. It's a buzzword.
I usually assume it's a synonym to 'global warming', which is also undefined.

Both seem to be centered around a paranoia of CO2.

I know. The prof taught environmental sciences and biology, and he said CO2 and other gases starting with F, N and S (oh and farts, too - methane!) were just a fuse for something bigger.

I'm not sure what the bigger thing was.
12-04-2022 15:38
GretaGroupieProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(348)
IBdaMann wrote:
That's called a "sabbatical" and it's when a professor takes time away from teaching to perform research.

I think it was more like a go-get-laid-ical. Mr and Mrs prof had one of those open marriage things, so I'm pretty sure she was off playing hookey beneath the sheets over there while I was couch surfing in his bedroom that year.

Anywho, he was very smart, a good cook, gentle, and great in bed (a real trifecta). And he taught me a lot. How to use computers, make a basic website, climate change, history (especially the 60-80's - Woodstock!), and, well, how to be a nice person.

He was like having my own private Pluto, but good looking.

12-04-2022 18:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11757)
GretaGroupie wrote:The prof taught environmental sciences and biology, and he said CO2 and other gases starting with F, N and S (oh and farts, too - methane!) were just a fuse for something bigger.

Science doesn't include hype. The moment he began pretending to wander into chemistry you should have reminded him that he knows biology, not everything else.

The gases you mention are not "fuses" for any sort of problem. It would seem that he was gullible as well and let some Marxist do his thinking for him at some point.
12-04-2022 21:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
GretaGroupie wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Very little math went into the China Eastern flight disaster. Poor maintenance caused the tail to fall off.

Well then, that's the math right there:

1 plane - 1 tail = 0 alive

Maybe I will get that GED after all.

AFTERTHOUGHT: Did the tail really fall off? That's so sad. I shouldn't joke about that. Sorry.

Yes. It really fell off in flight. Even sadder, it was due to poor maintenance.

The Chinese are notorious for extremely poor maintenance of their aircraft. It is not safe to fly the Chinese airline. Indeed, several foreign airlines have many major problems, either poor pilot training, poor maintenance of equipment, poorly maintained runways and airports, etc.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 12-04-2022 21:31
12-04-2022 21:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
GretaGroupie wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The phrase 'climate change' has never been define. It's a buzzword.
I usually assume it's a synonym to 'global warming', which is also undefined.

Both seem to be centered around a paranoia of CO2.

I know. The prof taught environmental sciences and biology, and he said CO2 and other gases starting with F, N and S (oh and farts, too - methane!) were just a fuse for something bigger.

I'm not sure what the bigger thing was.


Sounds like he was trying to teach scripture from the Church of Global Warming, or leading up to it. Anyone using terminology like this is a Believer.


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
14-04-2022 19:45
GretaGroupieProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(348)
Into the Night wrote:
Sounds like he was trying to teach scripture from the Church of Global Warming, or leading up to it. Anyone using terminology like this is a Believer.

I don't know. He taught environmental sciences and bio. He was definitely smart like you and IBM but he did get a bit into it sometimes. He talked about putting solar panels on his house the whole time I was there but never did. I still think he's right about some of it, but probably not all of it.
14-04-2022 22:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
GretaGroupie wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Sounds like he was trying to teach scripture from the Church of Global Warming, or leading up to it. Anyone using terminology like this is a Believer.

I don't know. He taught environmental sciences and bio. He was definitely smart like you and IBM but he did get a bit into it sometimes. He talked about putting solar panels on his house the whole time I was there but never did. I still think he's right about some of it, but probably not all of it.


There actually is no such thing as 'environmental science' (as a branch of science anyway).

Science it a set of falsifiable theories. A theory is an explanatory argument. An argument is set of predicates and a conclusion. 'Falsifiable' simply means the theory itself can be tested in a manner as to try to break it (to show it's wrong). As long as the theory can withstand such tests, it is automatically a theory of science and will remain so until some test comes along that shows the theory to be wrong. That event utterly destroys the theory.

Science has many branches, but they all consist of explanatory arguments (that are falsifiable), explaining things around us (what many people call the environment). Chemistry, for example, are theories concerning how matter behaves as a combination of atoms and compounds and their bonds between them. That certainly describes stuff in the 'environment'. So does physics, biology, and any other branch of science.

In other words, ALL science is 'environmental science'.

Global warming is not science. Indeed, such believers ignore the laws of thermodynamics, which ARE theories of science, and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, another theory of science.


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
14-04-2022 23:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
GretaGroupie wrote:
He talked about putting solar panels on his house the whole time I was there but never did. I still think he's right about some of it, but probably not all of it.


Solar power isn't cheap. It's actually the most expensive method of producing electricity, watt for watt.

It also doesn't work when the Sun goes down. Sure, you install ballasting in the form of batteries, but these are also expensive and you wind up using your solar power just to charge the batteries. It's not available for any other use while it's charging the batteries.

Solar panels don't put out much power either. They really are piddle power. There is just no way the average roof is going to produce anything like the needs of the building. You will still have to stay connected to the grid to fill in the rest of the needs.

Solar panels are heavily subsidized, especially in the SDTC. Money is taken from people by force (in the form of taxes) so some schmuck can afford to put solar panels on his roof. In other words, others are buying those panel for him.

There's a word for that:
Communism.

Communism is government ownership of markets. It is taking money from one by force and giving it to another. Yes. All forms of government welfare is communism.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 14-04-2022 23:05
15-04-2022 03:49
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11757)
GretaGroupie wrote:I still think he's right about some of it, but probably not all of it.

Great.

What parts do you think he got right?

15-04-2022 15:33
SwanProfile picture★★★★☆
(1218)
GretaGroupie wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Sounds like he was trying to teach scripture from the Church of Global Warming, or leading up to it. Anyone using terminology like this is a Believer.

I don't know. He taught environmental sciences and bio. He was definitely smart like you and IBM but he did get a bit into it sometimes. He talked about putting solar panels on his house the whole time I was there but never did. I still think he's right about some of it, but probably not all of it.


Why are you calling the turds smart? is this part of your cover to pretend to be an imbecile?

CIAO
15-04-2022 17:59
GretaGroupieProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(348)
Into the Night wrote:
In other words, ALL science is 'environmental science'.

Well he taught a class called introduction to earth sciences and some biology classes. I don't know if they were real but he got paid for it.

Into the Night wrote:
It also doesn't work when the Sun goes down.

Yeah he said that too and that it was real expensive. I guess that's why you don't see solar panels in poor neghborhoods.
15-04-2022 18:06
GretaGroupieProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(348)
IBdaMann wrote:
What parts do you think he got right?

Great pic. It made me all woozy. Puprle is the best!

I'm not sure. He told me about acid rain and the hole in the pole somewhere and how people can affect the planet. We read about a place called Love Canal that was all poluted (not lovely). He said it's like smoking. One cigarrete won't kill you but if you keep doing it then it can. I don't think one fart is going to destroy the planet but if we all keep farting it might get pretty stinky.

The real cause of global warming (ha-ha):

15-04-2022 18:14
GretaGroupieProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(348)
Swan wrote:
CIAO

Swan, if you want people to know you're in the CIA with a smiley face after it then type CIA and : and ) (skip the ands) so it looks like this:

CIA


15-04-2022 20:13
SwanProfile picture★★★★☆
(1218)
GretaGroupie wrote:
Swan wrote:
CIAO

Swan, if you want people to know you're in the CIA with a smiley face after it then type CIA and : and ) (skip the ands) so it looks like this:

CIA




I am not in the CIA, I am in the QTB

CIAO means hello or goodbye in Italian.

Next
15-04-2022 20:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
GretaGroupie wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
In other words, ALL science is 'environmental science'.

Well he taught a class called introduction to earth sciences and some biology classes. I don't know if they were real but he got paid for it.

They were real enough for him to get paid for it. There is no branch of science called 'Earth' though.

Government employees are paid to do all kinds of useless stuff. Make no mistake. A university professor is a government employee.

GretaGroupie wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It also doesn't work when the Sun goes down.

Yeah he said that too and that it was real expensive. I guess that's why you don't see solar panels in poor neghborhoods.

And this is despite the subsidies (communism) of making his neighbors pay for his system.


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
15-04-2022 21:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
GretaGroupie wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
What parts do you think he got right?

Great pic. It made me all woozy. Puprle is the best!

I'm not sure. He told me about acid rain

Rain is naturally acidic. As water drains over and through the soil, it becomes alkaline. Before coal plants trapped sulfur impurities in coal, localized areas where these plants burned coal saw an increase of sulfuric acid in the rain, harming local vegetation. No longer a problem now.
GretaGroupie wrote:
and the hole in the pole somewhere

He is referring the ozone hole at each pole during the winter of that pole. A naturally occurring phenomenon. There are religious types that believe Man is somehow responsible for it.
GretaGroupie wrote:
and how people can affect the planet.

None of these thing mentioned is an example of people affecting the planet in any way.
GretaGroupie wrote:
We read about a place called Love Canal that was all poluted (not lovely).

Love Canal was a landfill. The polluter was a chemical company and the fill was sanctioned by the government. They dumped all kinds of chemicals in there, including some rather toxic ones...then they capped it with clay. There was no leaching base installed or anything. This 16 acre site is still a mess today, even though dumping ended in 1953 and cleanup started as early as 1980. The pollution did not extend beyond 16 acres.

To be fair, though, the landfill opened for this purpose in 1942, during WW2. They didn't pay much attention to leach bases and proper capping for landfills in those days.

GretaGroupie wrote:
He said it's like smoking. One cigarrete won't kill you but if you keep doing it then it can. I don't think one fart is going to destroy the planet but if we all keep farting it might get pretty stinky.

No. This argument is a false equivalence fallacy.

* Love Canal only concerns 16 acres
* The ozone hole is a natural phenomenon. Man has nothing to do with it.
* Sulfuric acid in the rain only affected localized areas and is no longer a problem with modern coal plants.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 15-04-2022 21:08
Page 1 of 4123>>>





Join the debate Is math that important? (for believers only, pleeease!):

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
I The Savior Return With Some Important Information Knowledge Wisdom317-03-2022 18:38
The Savior Return With Some Important Information013-03-2022 04:54
Math2418-04-2021 08:26
Which is more important?925-06-2020 01:33
Do I have the CO2 calamity math right? (help from an expert please)23024-02-2020 23:13
▲ 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