Remember me
▼ Content

Is this one good enough?



Page 1 of 212>
Is this one good enough?20-09-2016 15:15
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/


"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!
20-09-2016 16:36
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4936)
jwoodward48 wrote: Global Warming Hoax: the preferred conspiracy theory of those who suffer the worst of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Just a tip: Your signature doesn't read as you intended it. I know what you meant, but you are currently bashing those who are trying to defend Global Warming.

You might want to read it again.


.


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
20-09-2016 17:19
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4936)
jwoodward48 wrote:http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/

Perhaps I wasn't clear before.

If someone were to follow that link, there is nothing there that can be dropped into a spreadsheet and analyzed.


I have had MANY conversations with warmizombies that went like this:

Warmizombie: There's great data at http://abcd.efgh.ijkl.etc...
IB DaMann: There's no data there.
Warmizombie: Well, you have to look for it. I'm not going to do your homework for you.
IB DaMann: OK, let me know when something changes.
Warmizombie: Fine, the data is here: http://zyx.wvu.etc... All you had to do was to go down two levels from the "Sensors" page under the "Resources" tab.
IB DaMann: Why didn't you just give me that link in the first place?
Warmizombie: Why are you so lazy?
IB DaMann: Well, I went to THAT link and there is no data there either.
Warmizombie: What do you mean there's no data there? There are pages of links to many different data sets!
IB DaMann: ...then go to those many different links and compile the data into one, single, coherent table so EVERYONE can scrutinize the data.
Warmizombie: Wow! You ARE lazy. I'm not going to do your homework for you. You won't do it because you're scared of what the data will reveal.
IB DaMann: No one is stopping YOU from compiling the data, posting it all here in one straightforward compilation and just RUBBING IT IN MY FACE.
Warmizombie: No one is stopping YOU from doing it either.
IB DaMann: Are we done?

I have wasted too many hours of my life that I will never get back chasing bogus links to bogus "data" locations. The fact that no one will post the "Global Warming data file" tells me that none exists.


.


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
20-09-2016 19:02
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Would you like the "general relativity" file or the "quantum mechanics" file, too? How about the "thermodynamics" or the "chemistry" file?
20-09-2016 19:02
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Would you like the "general relativity" file or the "quantum mechanics" file, too? How about the "thermodynamics" or the "chemistry" file?
20-09-2016 21:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9602)
jwoodward48 wrote:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/


No. It is manufactured.

A satellite system is only capable of looking at a moving spot, like a thermometer moving at high speed across the surface of the Earth. It is not capable of measuring anything like a global temperature.


The Parrot Killer
20-09-2016 21:22
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Why not? It's taking a bunch of random samples.
20-09-2016 22:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9602)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Why not? It's taking a bunch of random samples.


No, it is not. It is taking a fast moving path over time, then trying to average that.

There are two sources of bias. One is by position, the other is by time.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 20-09-2016 22:57
20-09-2016 23:05
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/


No. It is manufactured.

A satellite system is only capable of looking at a moving spot, like a thermometer moving at high speed across the surface of the Earth. It is not capable of measuring anything like a global temperature.

It's not satellite data; it's data from surface stations. The fact that you write the data off as "manufactured" without even making the slightest effort to understand it speaks volumes about your credibility.
20-09-2016 23:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9602)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/


No. It is manufactured.

A satellite system is only capable of looking at a moving spot, like a thermometer moving at high speed across the surface of the Earth. It is not capable of measuring anything like a global temperature.

It's not satellite data; it's data from surface stations. The fact that you write the data off as "manufactured" without even making the slightest effort to understand it speaks volumes about your credibility.


It is both.

I have already described why the surface stations are useless to determine global temperature.


The Parrot Killer
20-09-2016 23:51
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/


No. It is manufactured.

A satellite system is only capable of looking at a moving spot, like a thermometer moving at high speed across the surface of the Earth. It is not capable of measuring anything like a global temperature.

It's not satellite data; it's data from surface stations. The fact that you write the data off as "manufactured" without even making the slightest effort to understand it speaks volumes about your credibility.


It is both.

I have already described why the surface stations are useless to determine global temperature.

No, it's not both. GISTEMP is based on surface data. You are obviously completely clueless about this.
21-09-2016 00:16
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4936)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Would you like the "general relativity" file or the "quantum mechanics" file, too? How about the "thermodynamics" or the "chemistry" file?

The above are science models. No data is needed.

Your religious claims are not science and don't even have evidentiary support.

If you'd like I can teach you the difference between religion and science. It really would be good for you to know.


.


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
21-09-2016 01:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9602)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/


No. It is manufactured.

A satellite system is only capable of looking at a moving spot, like a thermometer moving at high speed across the surface of the Earth. It is not capable of measuring anything like a global temperature.

It's not satellite data; it's data from surface stations. The fact that you write the data off as "manufactured" without even making the slightest effort to understand it speaks volumes about your credibility.


It is both.

I have already described why the surface stations are useless to determine global temperature.

No, it's not both. GISTEMP is based on surface data. You are obviously completely clueless about this.


Is NOT! Is TOO! Is NOT! Is TOO!

This is a useless quibble. The basic argument stays the same. There is no way to measure or calculate global temperature.


The Parrot Killer
21-09-2016 01:30
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/


No. It is manufactured.

A satellite system is only capable of looking at a moving spot, like a thermometer moving at high speed across the surface of the Earth. It is not capable of measuring anything like a global temperature.

It's not satellite data; it's data from surface stations. The fact that you write the data off as "manufactured" without even making the slightest effort to understand it speaks volumes about your credibility.


It is both.

I have already described why the surface stations are useless to determine global temperature.

No, it's not both. GISTEMP is based on surface data. You are obviously completely clueless about this.


Is NOT! Is TOO! Is NOT! Is TOO!

This is a useless quibble. The basic argument stays the same. There is no way to measure or calculate global temperature.

The source of the data is a useless quibble as far as you're concerned? Well, that would explain some of your bizarre opinions, I guess.
21-09-2016 01:56
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
No, he believes that data isn't important except as a way of sparking theories. Actual testing of a theory with observation is apparently a LIBERAL LIE placed in the scientific method itself. HOW FAR DOES THIS CONSPIRACY REACH?!
21-09-2016 02:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9602)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/


No. It is manufactured.

A satellite system is only capable of looking at a moving spot, like a thermometer moving at high speed across the surface of the Earth. It is not capable of measuring anything like a global temperature.

It's not satellite data; it's data from surface stations. The fact that you write the data off as "manufactured" without even making the slightest effort to understand it speaks volumes about your credibility.


It is both.

I have already described why the surface stations are useless to determine global temperature.

No, it's not both. GISTEMP is based on surface data. You are obviously completely clueless about this.


Is NOT! Is TOO! Is NOT! Is TOO!

This is a useless quibble. The basic argument stays the same. There is no way to measure or calculate global temperature.

The source of the data is a useless quibble as far as you're concerned? Well, that would explain some of your bizarre opinions, I guess.


The test of falsifiability of Global Warming is a warming globe. You have insufficient data to perform this test. You cannot gather sufficient data to perform this test. The test is not available. The theory of Global Warming is not a scientific theory.. It is not falsifiable.

The theory of Global Warming therefore remains a circular argument. It cannot be claimed as science.


The Parrot Killer
21-09-2016 04:08
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
You aren't even claiming that it's unfalsifiable! Only that with the data that we have at hand, and the tests that we can currently carry out, we cannot test the truth value of GW. (Except that we can, but that's moot for my point.) Are you seriously claiming that we cannot possibly measure with a decent margin of error the Earth's temperature?

Einstein's theory of general relativity was not testable the moment it came out. The main experiment that supported it (i.e., could have disproved it but did not), was the solar eclipse observation that noted a star's position appearing to change. (Ironically, they happened upon the right result by large errors cancelling out.) This does not mean that it was a circular argument. A circular argument, also known as begging the question, is when a logical argument contains within its assumptions its end result.

Objective observation is possible. You are claiming that it is not. Your claims would invalidate all of science, for if data changed depending on who was looking at it, objective science would be impossible.
21-09-2016 09:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9602)
jwoodward48 wrote:
You aren't even claiming that it's unfalsifiable!
Actually, I am.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Only that with the data that we have at hand, and the tests that we can currently carry out, we cannot test the truth value of GW. (Except that we can, but that's moot for my point.) Are you seriously claiming that we cannot possibly measure with a decent margin of error the Earth's temperature?

That is exactly what I am saying.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Einstein's theory of general relativity was not testable the moment it came out.
Actually it was, the moment he could conceive of a test of falsifiability for it. That was done almost as soon as the theory itself.
jwoodward48 wrote:
The main experiment that supported it (i.e., could have disproved it but did not), was the solar eclipse observation that noted a star's position appearing to change. (Ironically, they happened upon the right result by large errors cancelling out.)
This was not the test of falsifiability. That test was mathematical in nature. No observation was required to conduct the test at all.

jwoodward48 wrote:
This does not mean that it was a circular argument.
Like all theories, it starts out as one. Einstein was able to show it was more than just a circular argument quite easily.
jwoodward48 wrote:
A circular argument, also known as begging the question, is when a logical argument contains within its assumptions its end result.
Badly worded. The circular argument is when the attempt is made to prove a conclusion by itself as the predicate.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Objective observation is possible. You are claiming that it is not.
That is correct. It is not.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Your claims would invalidate all of science,
Not at all. Observation is not part of science.
jwoodward48 wrote:
for if data changed depending on who was looking at it, objective science would be impossible.

Observation is not part of science. It is not required for it.


The Parrot Killer
21-09-2016 10:39
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Observation is not part of science.

When you're reduced to writing absurdities like this, you really should accept that you've lost the argument.
21-09-2016 14:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4936)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Observation is not part of science.

When you're reduced to writing absurdities like this, you really should accept that you've lost the argument.


You are the one on a roll of making absurd statements.

Which science models contain observations? Gravity? Relativity? Which ones?

Observations do not exist in the body of science. Your petty attempt at an insult above is itself absurd.


.


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
21-09-2016 14:23
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
He thinks that science is the set of models that we get... Somehow? Not through science.
21-09-2016 15:12
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4936)
jwoodward48 wrote:He thinks that science is the set of models that we get... Somehow? Not through science.

I clarified that science models are produced through the science process. It's all there in the "Clarification" thread.

You are now officially an intentional liar.


.


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
21-09-2016 15:44
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
What the hell is the "scientific process"? Internet research turns up only references to the scientific method being called by a different name.

Science includes models. It includes data, theories, laws, and most importantly, the way we create and test these. This is a valid use of the word science - in fact, the predominant one.
11-10-2016 00:54
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Is this good enough?

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/
11-10-2016 00:58
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Einstein's theory of general relativity was not testable the moment it came out.
Actually it was, the moment he could conceive of a test of falsifiability for it. That was done almost as soon as the theory itself.


I can conceive of a test of falsifiability for GW. I bet you can too.

jwoodward48 wrote:
The main experiment that supported it (i.e., could have disproved it but did not), was the solar eclipse observation that noted a star's position appearing to change. (Ironically, they happened upon the right result by large errors cancelling out.)
This was not the test of falsifiability. That test was mathematical in nature. No observation was required to conduct the test at all.


Wait, what? They were testing whether the predictions of Relativity (the star will be visible in a different position) matched up with observation. You can't take out the observation part; it's the most important!

jwoodward48 wrote:
This does not mean that it was a circular argument.
Like all theories, it starts out as one. Einstein was able to show it was more than just a circular argument quite easily.


Theories do not start out as circular arguments. They start out as hypotheses unsupported by data. There is a difference.

jwoodward48 wrote:
A circular argument, also known as begging the question, is when a logical argument contains within its assumptions its end result.
Badly worded. The circular argument is when the attempt is made to prove a conclusion by itself as the predicate.


And no theory uses itself to prove itself. AGW certainly doesn't.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Objective observation is possible. You are claiming that it is not.
That is correct. It is not.


Then what is science? Useless?

jwoodward48 wrote:
Your claims would invalidate all of science,
Not at all. Observation is not part of science.


YKUTW. IDNTIMWYTIM.

jwoodward48 wrote:
for if data changed depending on who was looking at it, objective science would be impossible.

Observation is not part of science. It is not required for it.


Of course it is! Observation is what makes the difference between a theory and a wild guess. Both can be logically consistent - but only one is supported by data.


"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!
11-10-2016 01:18
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
How about this: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/climate-monitoring/land-and-atmosphere/surface-station-records
11-10-2016 03:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9602)
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Einstein's theory of general relativity was not testable the moment it came out.
Actually it was, the moment he could conceive of a test of falsifiability for it. That was done almost as soon as the theory itself.


I can conceive of a test of falsifiability for GW. I bet you can too.

The test for falsifiability requires the measurement of global temperature. We can't do that.
The test is not available. The theory is not falsifiable.

jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
The main experiment that supported it (i.e., could have disproved it but did not), was the solar eclipse observation that noted a star's position appearing to change. (Ironically, they happened upon the right result by large errors cancelling out.)
This was not the test of falsifiability. That test was mathematical in nature. No observation was required to conduct the test at all.


Wait, what? They were testing whether the predictions of Relativity (the star will be visible in a different position) matched up with observation. You can't take out the observation part; it's the most important!

The test was mathematical in nature. Supporting evidence such as the position of a star is not a test of falsifiability.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
This does not mean that it was a circular argument.
Like all theories, it starts out as one. Einstein was able to show it was more than just a circular argument quite easily.


Theories do not start out as circular arguments. They start out as hypotheses unsupported by data. There is a difference.

What? Please describe this difference in detail.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
A circular argument, also known as begging the question, is when a logical argument contains within its assumptions its end result.
Badly worded. The circular argument is when the attempt is made to prove a conclusion by itself as the predicate.


And no theory uses itself to prove itself. AGW certainly doesn't.

Yes, it does.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Objective observation is possible. You are claiming that it is not.
That is correct. It is not.


Then what is science? Useless?

Science is a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Your claims would invalidate all of science,
Not at all. Observation is not part of science.


YKUTW. IDNTIMWYTIM.
And what word would that be?
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
for if data changed depending on who was looking at it, objective science would be impossible.

Observation is not part of science. It is not required for it.


Of course it is!
No, it isn't.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Observation is what makes the difference between a theory and a wild guess.

No, it isn't. Internal and external consistency checks and the test for falsifiability do that.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Both can be logically consistent - but only one is supported by data.

Supporting data is not used in science.


The Parrot Killer
11-10-2016 03:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9602)
jwoodward48 wrote:
How about this: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/climate-monitoring/land-and-atmosphere/surface-station-records


What about them? Do you think the temperature in London is good enough to describe the middle of the Cascade range here in Washington?


The Parrot Killer
11-10-2016 04:22
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
...you didn't even read the link, did you. You saw the .uk at the end, and just assumed that it had to be Britain-specific.



Here. It's not quite the right one, but it's an older one. Notice how it covers more than the UK?
11-10-2016 11:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9602)
jwoodward48 wrote:
...you didn't even read the link, did you. You saw the .uk at the end, and just assumed that it had to be Britain-specific.



Here. It's not quite the right one, but it's an older one. Notice how it covers more than the UK?


Notice how it doesn't cover anything useful?


The Parrot Killer
11-10-2016 12:19
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
I'm fairly sure that HADCRUT is CRUT plus the oceans.
11-10-2016 21:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9602)
jwoodward48 wrote:
I'm fairly sure that HADCRUT is CRUT plus the oceans.


I'm sure this is useless for the statistics you need to perform.


The Parrot Killer
11-10-2016 23:55
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
How so?

Keep in mind: Mine is a statement that is not deduced from other statements, but rather collected directly from the Internets. Yours is a statement that needs clarification. I do not understand the logic by which you got that conclusion; the same could not be said about my statement, as I got it directly from the Internets.

Let's be clear: I am not saying that "I hail directly from the Internets" is equivalent to "I am definitely true." I am saying that "I hail directly from the Internets" cannot be given any more explanation. Your statement can.
12-10-2016 00:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9602)
jwoodward48 wrote:
How so?

You do not know the requirements of sampling of raw data in statistics. It is because you do not understand probability or random number generation.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Keep in mind: Mine is a statement that is not deduced from other statements, but rather collected directly from the Internets.

What is 'Internets'? Do you even know what the internet is?
jwoodward48 wrote:
Yours is a statement that needs clarification. I do not understand the logic by which you got that conclusion; the same could not be said about my statement, as I got it directly from the Internets.

Perhaps because it's not logic. It's mathematics. You suck at it. (You suck at logic too.)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Let's be clear: I am not saying that "I hail directly from the Internets" is equivalent to "I am definitely true." I am saying that "I hail directly from the Internets" cannot be given any more explanation. Your statement can.

Actually, you just denied your own statement here.

My statement is from the rules of statistics, probability, and random generation.

You might try learning mathematics. I hear it's a powerful system. Sure beats worshiping at the altar of the Church of Global Warming.


The Parrot Killer
12-10-2016 01:02
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
How so?

You do not know the requirements of sampling of raw data in statistics. It is because you do not understand probability or random number generation.

Sorry, Bulverism isn't an adequate explanation of why land+sea isn't enough. Try again.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Keep in mind: Mine is a statement that is not deduced from other statements, but rather collected directly from the Internets.

What is 'Internets'? Do you even know what the internet is?

It's a joke. I try to lighten up your arseholier-than-thou - OH UNHOLY ARMOK THAT IS THE BEST.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Yours is a statement that needs clarification. I do not understand the logic by which you got that conclusion; the same could not be said about my statement, as I got it directly from the Internets.

Perhaps because it's not logic. It's mathematics. You suck at it. (You suck at logic too.)

Bulverism.

Into, the logic by which you arrive at B from A is not mathematics. This is obvious.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Let's be clear: I am not saying that "I hail directly from the Internets" is equivalent to "I am definitely true." I am saying that "I hail directly from the Internets" cannot be given any more explanation. Your statement can.

Actually, you just denied your own statement here.


Into simulator: pull out a random fallacy, accuse the other side of using it.

Self-refuting or self-denying ideas are ideas or statements whose falsehood is a logical consequence of the act or situation of holding them to be true. Examples include "this statement is false."

How is my statement an example of this?

To answer this question, you must explain how the statement which I made, to be called Statement A, falls under the category of "statements which deny themselves." Bulverism does not achieve this goal. This includes statements of the form "you are illiterate in X," "you do not understand X," etc.

My statement is from the rules of statistics, probability, and random generation.


Show that it is so. Start with axioms from those rules, and logically derive your statement.

You can't? You're the one saying that it is derived from those rules. You have the burden of proof.

You might try learning mathematics. I hear it's a powerful system. Sure beats worshiping at the altar of the Church of Global Warming.


It's a hell of a powerful system. Calculus enabled us to study instantaneous rates of change, and from there - a world of possibilities! Much that we have today would be impossible without calculus.

Explain how "mathematics is cool" refutes me, again?


"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!
12-10-2016 01:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9602)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
How so?

You do not know the requirements of sampling of raw data in statistics. It is because you do not understand probability or random number generation.

Sorry, Bulverism isn't an adequate explanation of why land+sea isn't enough. Try again.

Sorry, you are making no sense in this statement.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Keep in mind: Mine is a statement that is not deduced from other statements, but rather collected directly from the Internets.

What is 'Internets'? Do you even know what the internet is?

It's a joke. I try to lighten up your arseholier-than-thou - OH UNHOLY ARMOK THAT IS THE BEST.
That's a joke?
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Yours is a statement that needs clarification. I do not understand the logic by which you got that conclusion; the same could not be said about my statement, as I got it directly from the Internets.

Perhaps because it's not logic. It's mathematics. You suck at it. (You suck at logic too.)

Bulverism.

Ignored. You don't know the meaning of the word.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into, the logic by which you arrive at B from A is not mathematics. This is obvious.

Yes, it is.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Let's be clear: I am not saying that "I hail directly from the Internets" is equivalent to "I am definitely true." I am saying that "I hail directly from the Internets" cannot be given any more explanation. Your statement can.

Actually, you just denied your own statement here.


Into simulator: pull out a random fallacy, accuse the other side of using it.

Self-refuting or self-denying ideas are ideas or statements whose falsehood is a logical consequence of the act or situation of holding them to be true. Examples include "this statement is false."

How is my statement an example of this?

It is self refuting.
jwoodward48 wrote:
To answer this question, you must explain how the statement which I made, to be called Statement A, falls under the category of "statements which deny themselves." Bulverism does not achieve this goal. This includes statements of the form "you are illiterate in X," "you do not understand X," etc.

Go ask Alice.
jwoodward48 wrote:
My statement is from the rules of statistics, probability, and random generation.


Show that it is so. Start with axioms from those rules, and logically derive your statement.

You can't? You're the one saying that it is derived from those rules. You have the burden of proof.

No, I do not. You can look this stuff up yourself. I'm not going to write a math book for you.
jwoodward48 wrote:
You might try learning mathematics. I hear it's a powerful system. Sure beats worshiping at the altar of the Church of Global Warming.


It's a hell of a powerful system. Calculus enabled us to study instantaneous rates of change, and from there - a world of possibilities! Much that we have today would be impossible without calculus.

Explain how "mathematics is cool" refutes me, again?

You might try using it sometime.


The Parrot Killer
12-10-2016 02:36
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
How so?

You do not know the requirements of sampling of raw data in statistics. It is because you do not understand probability or random number generation.

Sorry, Bulverism isn't an adequate explanation of why land+sea isn't enough. Try again.

Sorry, you are making no sense in this statement.

Perhaps not Bulverism, but what I meant was:

Explaining why I am wrong; that is, the reasons why I cannot comprehend the "Truth", is not the same as explaining how I am wrong; that is, the fallacy which I made, the data which I didn't know of, etc.

You are giving the former, but the latter is needed.

jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Keep in mind: Mine is a statement that is not deduced from other statements, but rather collected directly from the Internets.

What is 'Internets'? Do you even know what the internet is?

It's a joke. I try to lighten up your arseholier-than-thou - OH UNHOLY ARMOK THAT IS THE BEST.
That's a joke?

I never said I was good at humor.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Yours is a statement that needs clarification. I do not understand the logic by which you got that conclusion; the same could not be said about my statement, as I got it directly from the Internets.

Perhaps because it's not logic. It's mathematics. You suck at it. (You suck at logic too.)

Bulverism.

Ignored. You don't know the meaning of the word.

I'm fairly close. What I mean is:

You are explaining why (you think) that I am wrong: I was dropped on my head as a child, I am purposefully ignoring you, I am forced to by my dogma, I suck at everything. That is not equivalent to explaining how I am wrong: I made an error, this proof demonstrates how you are right, that model is outdated, that law doesn't work that way, etc. After saying, for instance, "you made an error," you would have to specify where I made an error. After saying "that law doesn't work that way," you would need to specify how the law actually works.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into, the logic by which you arrive at B from A is not mathematics. This is obvious.

Yes, it is.

Logic can be expressed mathematically. It might even fuzzily border mathematics, or maths might be a subset of logic. But the steps by which you derive one statement from another is logic. It might also be math, but it is logic. Show me the logical steps by which you came to your conclusion of "land+sea is insufficient."
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Let's be clear: I am not saying that "I hail directly from the Internets" is equivalent to "I am definitely true." I am saying that "I hail directly from the Internets" cannot be given any more explanation. Your statement can.

Actually, you just denied your own statement here.


Into simulator: pull out a random fallacy, accuse the other side of using it.

Self-refuting or self-denying ideas are ideas or statements whose falsehood is a logical consequence of the act or situation of holding them to be true. Examples include "this statement is false."

How is my statement an example of this?

It is self refuting.

That's not what I was asking. Which two parts or consequences of my post contradict each other?
jwoodward48 wrote:
To answer this question, you must explain how the statement which I made, to be called Statement A, falls under the category of "statements which deny themselves." Bulverism does not achieve this goal. This includes statements of the form "you are illiterate in X," "you do not understand X," etc.

Go ask Alice.

Even if I am not correctly using the word Bulverism, my point still stands:

When you describe why you think I am wrong, that is not the same as describing the way in which I am wrong. In this case, if you want to demonstrate how Statement A denies itself, describing how I do not understand logic does not do that.
jwoodward48 wrote:
My statement is from the rules of statistics, probability, and random generation.


Show that it is so. Start with axioms from those rules, and logically derive your statement.

You can't? You're the one saying that it is derived from those rules. You have the burden of proof.

No, I do not. You can look this stuff up yourself. I'm not going to write a math book for you.

If you claim something, and you are challenged, you should defend it. At least name the statistical principle that you are using.
jwoodward48 wrote:
You might try learning mathematics. I hear it's a powerful system. Sure beats worshiping at the altar of the Church of Global Warming.


It's a hell of a powerful system. Calculus enabled us to study instantaneous rates of change, and from there - a world of possibilities! Much that we have today would be impossible without calculus.

Explain how "mathematics is cool" refutes me, again?

You might try using it sometime.


That's not an explanation of how "you don't know math" or "math is useful" refutes me. Try again.


"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!
12-10-2016 09:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9602)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
How so?

You do not know the requirements of sampling of raw data in statistics. It is because you do not understand probability or random number generation.

Sorry, Bulverism isn't an adequate explanation of why land+sea isn't enough. Try again.

Sorry, you are making no sense in this statement.

Perhaps not Bulverism, but what I meant was:

Explaining why I am wrong; that is, the reasons why I cannot comprehend the "Truth", is not the same as explaining how I am wrong; that is, the fallacy which I made, the data which I didn't know of, etc.

You are giving the former, but the latter is needed.

I already have described statistics to you. Now you ask me to repeat myself for your entertainment purposes? Think again.

jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Keep in mind: Mine is a statement that is not deduced from other statements, but rather collected directly from the Internets.

What is 'Internets'? Do you even know what the internet is?

It's a joke. I try to lighten up your arseholier-than-thou - OH UNHOLY ARMOK THAT IS THE BEST.
That's a joke?

I never said I was good at humor.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Yours is a statement that needs clarification. I do not understand the logic by which you got that conclusion; the same could not be said about my statement, as I got it directly from the Internets.

Perhaps because it's not logic. It's mathematics. You suck at it. (You suck at logic too.)

Bulverism.

Ignored. You don't know the meaning of the word.

I'm fairly close. What I mean is:

Nowhere near it.
jwoodward48 wrote:
You are explaining why (you think) that I am wrong: I was dropped on my head as a child, I am purposefully ignoring you, I am forced to by my dogma, I suck at everything. That is not equivalent to explaining how I am wrong: I made an error, this proof demonstrates how you are right, that model is outdated, that law doesn't work that way, etc. After saying, for instance, "you made an error," you would have to specify where I made an error. After saying "that law doesn't work that way," you would need to specify how the law actually works.

I have.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into, the logic by which you arrive at B from A is not mathematics. This is obvious.

Yes, it is.

Logic can be expressed mathematically. It might even fuzzily border mathematics, or maths might be a subset of logic. But the steps by which you derive one statement from another is logic. It might also be math, but it is logic. Show me the logical steps by which you came to your conclusion of "land+sea is insufficient."

No, it's math. You don't know it. Learn it.

jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Let's be clear: I am not saying that "I hail directly from the Internets" is equivalent to "I am definitely true." I am saying that "I hail directly from the Internets" cannot be given any more explanation. Your statement can.

Actually, you just denied your own statement here.


Into simulator: pull out a random fallacy, accuse the other side of using it.

Self-refuting or self-denying ideas are ideas or statements whose falsehood is a logical consequence of the act or situation of holding them to be true. Examples include "this statement is false."

How is my statement an example of this?

It is self refuting.

That's not what I was asking. Which two parts or consequences of my post contradict each other?

Wrong question. The statement refuted itself.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
To answer this question, you must explain how the statement which I made, to be called Statement A, falls under the category of "statements which deny themselves." Bulverism does not achieve this goal. This includes statements of the form "you are illiterate in X," "you do not understand X," etc.

Go ask Alice.

Even if I am not correctly using the word Bulverism, my point still stands:

It never stood in the first place.
jwoodward48 wrote:
When you describe why you think I am wrong, that is not the same as describing the way in which I am wrong. In this case, if you want to demonstrate how Statement A denies itself, describing how I do not understand logic does not do that.
jwoodward48 wrote:
My statement is from the rules of statistics, probability, and random generation.


Show that it is so. Start with axioms from those rules, and logically derive your statement.

You can't? You're the one saying that it is derived from those rules. You have the burden of proof.

No, I do not. You can look this stuff up yourself. I'm not going to write a math book for you.

If you claim something, and you are challenged, you should defend it. At least name the statistical principle that you are using.
Go read a good book on statistics, and probability.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
You might try learning mathematics. I hear it's a powerful system. Sure beats worshiping at the altar of the Church of Global Warming.


It's a hell of a powerful system. Calculus enabled us to study instantaneous rates of change, and from there - a world of possibilities! Much that we have today would be impossible without calculus.

Explain how "mathematics is cool" refutes me, again?

You might try using it sometime.


That's not an explanation of how "you don't know math" or "math is useful" refutes me. Try again.


I am not going to write a math book here for you. Go read one.


The Parrot Killer
12-10-2016 10:44
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
How so?

You do not know the requirements of sampling of raw data in statistics. It is because you do not understand probability or random number generation.

Sorry, Bulverism isn't an adequate explanation of why land+sea isn't enough. Try again.

Sorry, you are making no sense in this statement.

Perhaps not Bulverism, but what I meant was:

Explaining why I am wrong; that is, the reasons why I cannot comprehend the "Truth", is not the same as explaining how I am wrong; that is, the fallacy which I made, the data which I didn't know of, etc.

You are giving the former, but the latter is needed.

I already have described statistics to you. Now you ask me to repeat myself for your entertainment purposes? Think again.

This is not entertaining.

It is not sufficient to "explain statistics." You need to show how Statistics leads to your statement, or you could stop asserting things. Either way works for me.

jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Keep in mind: Mine is a statement that is not deduced from other statements, but rather collected directly from the Internets.

What is 'Internets'? Do you even know what the internet is?

It's a joke. I try to lighten up your arseholier-than-thou - OH UNHOLY ARMOK THAT IS THE BEST.
That's a joke?

I never said I was good at humor.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Yours is a statement that needs clarification. I do not understand the logic by which you got that conclusion; the same could not be said about my statement, as I got it directly from the Internets.

Perhaps because it's not logic. It's mathematics. You suck at it. (You suck at logic too.)

Bulverism.

Ignored. You don't know the meaning of the word.

I'm fairly close. What I mean is:

Nowhere near it.

How am I wrong? Stop asserting.
jwoodward48 wrote:
You are explaining why (you think) that I am wrong: I was dropped on my head as a child, I am purposefully ignoring you, I am forced to by my dogma, I suck at everything. That is not equivalent to explaining how I am wrong: I made an error, this proof demonstrates how you are right, that model is outdated, that law doesn't work that way, etc. After saying, for instance, "you made an error," you would have to specify where I made an error. After saying "that law doesn't work that way," you would need to specify how the law actually works.

I have.

You have not specified my error.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into, the logic by which you arrive at B from A is not mathematics. This is obvious.

Yes, it is.

Logic can be expressed mathematically. It might even fuzzily border mathematics, or maths might be a subset of logic. But the steps by which you derive one statement from another is logic. It might also be math, but it is logic. Show me the logical steps by which you came to your conclusion of "land+sea is insufficient."

No, it's math. You don't know it. Learn it.

This is pointless. I write up an explanation of my side, and you... insult me and commit fallacies, then insist that you are right and that you are not fallacious. Hm.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Let's be clear: I am not saying that "I hail directly from the Internets" is equivalent to "I am definitely true." I am saying that "I hail directly from the Internets" cannot be given any more explanation. Your statement can.

Actually, you just denied your own statement here.


Into simulator: pull out a random fallacy, accuse the other side of using it.

Self-refuting or self-denying ideas are ideas or statements whose falsehood is a logical consequence of the act or situation of holding them to be true. Examples include "this statement is false."

How is my statement an example of this?

It is self refuting.

That's not what I was asking. Which two parts or consequences of my post contradict each other?

Wrong question. The statement refuted itself.

Let me demonstrate.

If I say "this sentence is false" (A, which is equivalent to "~A") then a logical consequence is that A is correct (tautology). Another logical consequence is that A is incorrect (as that is what A states). These two are incompatible with each other.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
To answer this question, you must explain how the statement which I made, to be called Statement A, falls under the category of "statements which deny themselves." Bulverism does not achieve this goal. This includes statements of the form "you are illiterate in X," "you do not understand X," etc.

Go ask Alice.

Even if I am not correctly using the word Bulverism, my point still stands:

It never stood in the first place.

Demonstrate or explain how.
jwoodward48 wrote:
When you describe why you think I am wrong, that is not the same as describing the way in which I am wrong. In this case, if you want to demonstrate how Statement A denies itself, describing how I do not understand logic does not do that.
jwoodward48 wrote:
My statement is from the rules of statistics, probability, and random generation.


Show that it is so. Start with axioms from those rules, and logically derive your statement.

You can't? You're the one saying that it is derived from those rules. You have the burden of proof.

No, I do not. You can look this stuff up yourself. I'm not going to write a math book for you.


I can look up things. I have read many books.

There are two ways to support your statement - take it directly from an accepted statement, or logically derive it from a combination of accepted statements.

If you were saying that "energy cannot be created," then asking for an explanation would be somewhat ridiculous - that's the way things work. It's the 1st LoT. But, if you were saying that "perpmotion machines cannot produce more energy than their input," then I could ask for an explanation or derivation, as this is not itself a law per se, but a logical consequence of one. Of course, in this case it'd be as simple as "it would violate the 1st LoT," but this in itself is an explanation, as it connects it to existing laws. If it was disputed whether it would violate the 1st LoT, then an explanation of how the 1st LoT works would be productive.

"Get gud" is not a valid response to my requests for explanation.
If you claim something, and you are challenged, you should defend it. At least name the statistical principle that you are using.
Go read a good book on statistics, and probability.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
You might try learning mathematics. I hear it's a powerful system. Sure beats worshiping at the altar of the Church of Global Warming.


It's a hell of a powerful system. Calculus enabled us to study instantaneous rates of change, and from there - a world of possibilities! Much that we have today would be impossible without calculus.

Explain how "mathematics is cool" refutes me, again?

You might try using it sometime.


That's not an explanation of how "you don't know math" or "math is useful" refutes me. Try again.


I am not going to write a math book here for you. Go read one.



"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!
12-10-2016 21:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9602)
jwoodward48 wrote:
This is not entertaining.

It is not sufficient to "explain statistics." You need to show how Statistics leads to your statement, or you could stop asserting things. Either way works for me.


I have explained statistics to you, sufficient to see why we have nowhere near enough instrumentation to measure anything like a global temperature.

I am not going to repeat myself to entertain you. You are just using the argument of the Stone. You have to go look it up for yourself now. I'm not going to write a math book for you.


The Parrot Killer
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Is this one good enough?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Good beginner book827-08-2019 00:51
This doesn't sound good...129-05-2019 06:22
Carbon tax killed auto industry in Ontario. Good thing for China. So who paid them?120-04-2019 00:00
What makes IPCC thinks N2, O2, O3 are not as good at capturing and retaining heat than CO2 can?218-04-2019 20:57
Wind Turbines Look good but not worth it!231-03-2019 19:09
▲ 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