Man-Made Causes

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Man-Made Causes > Page 5

Page 5 of 6

11-04-2017 04:35
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofed: Science is advanced by being wrong as much as by being right. Broken philosophy of "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up", deeming its error of 3 exponents a bulldozing success. The geocentric universe never advanced science. Even the heliocentric universe of Copernicus wasn't right. BBBUUUTTTTTT, Johannes Kepler's life long pursuit of excellence & accuracy showed that ellipical orbits really put the solar system together. Yeah, Kepler was two steps of accuracy ahead of everyone else, even with his personal, family, national & international tragedies in his live. Edited on 11-04-2017 04:51
11-04-2017 13:18
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	GasGuzzler wrote: i do not consider the requirement to be honest an imposition on the branch of human activity that relies on honesty more than anything else. You are in effect trying to legislate integrity. I am plumber. I am gas qualified. If I fit a gas cooker to a home and the gas fire goes on to poision somebody with carbon nomoxide I go to jail even if I did not go into the room with the fire. Integrity is legalised in lots of situations. Why should science not have some sort of legal requirement to be honest? Or at least not actively lie.
11-04-2017 16:57
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	Tim the plumber wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: i do not consider the requirement to be honest an imposition on the branch of human activity that relies on honesty more than anything else. You are in effect trying to legislate integrity. I am plumber. I am gas qualified. If I fit a gas cooker to a home and the gas fire goes on to poison somebody with carbon monoxide I go to jail even if I did not go into the room with the fire. Integrity is legalised in lots of situations. Why should science not have some sort of legal requirement to be honest? Or at least not actively lie. As I said, most of the problems are not from scientists but from them not saying anything when they THINK that all of this AGW is hogwash but they do not have sufficient information to prove it. And what do you say if the other shrinking percentage that believe in it are honestly saying what they believe? And again - the scientists aren't the problem. It's the people that misrepresent their findings. Look at the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse here on this site that are totally untrained but are screeching the end of the world.
11-04-2017 16:57
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	Tim the plumber wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: i do not consider the requirement to be honest an imposition on the branch of human activity that relies on honesty more than anything else. You are in effect trying to legislate integrity. I am plumber. I am gas qualified. If I fit a gas cooker to a home and the gas fire goes on to poison somebody with carbon monoxide I go to jail even if I did not go into the room with the fire. Integrity is legalised in lots of situations. Why should science not have some sort of legal requirement to be honest? Or at least not actively lie. As I said, most of the problems are not from scientists but from them not saying anything when they THINK that all of this AGW is hogwash but they do not have sufficient information to prove it. And what do you say if the other shrinking percentage that believe in it are honestly saying what they believe? And again - the scientists aren't the problem. It's the people that misrepresent their findings. Look at the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse here on this site that are totally untrained but are screeching the end of the world.
11-04-2017 17:26
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofed: ...the problems are.... from scientists.... not saying anything when they THINK that all of this AGW is hogwash.... More busted philosophy & lack of science from the "it" that said, "Science is advanced by being wrong as much as by being right." Tell that philosophy & empty "sigh-ants" to the engineers that do miracles of right science to bring astronauts (& cosmonauts, others) back home without killing them. Tell that to the engineers & their right science that has made present air travel so miraculously safe. Edited on 11-04-2017 18:07

12-04-2017 11:20
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	Wake wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: i do not consider the requirement to be honest an imposition on the branch of human activity that relies on honesty more than anything else. You are in effect trying to legislate integrity. I am plumber. I am gas qualified. If I fit a gas cooker to a home and the gas fire goes on to poison somebody with carbon monoxide I go to jail even if I did not go into the room with the fire. Integrity is legalised in lots of situations. Why should science not have some sort of legal requirement to be honest? Or at least not actively lie. As I said, most of the problems are not from scientists but from them not saying anything when they THINK that all of this AGW is hogwash but they do not have sufficient information to prove it. And what do you say if the other shrinking percentage that believe in it are honestly saying what they believe? And again - the scientists aren't the problem. It's the people that misrepresent their findings. Look at the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse here on this site that are totally untrained but are screeching the end of the world. Yes, my proposed law would fall most heavily on the journalists who take a "there may be a link between toast and cancer" and write "link between toast and cancer".
12-04-2017 21:35
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Tim the plumber wrote: Wake wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: i do not consider the requirement to be honest an imposition on the branch of human activity that relies on honesty more than anything else. You are in effect trying to legislate integrity. I am plumber. I am gas qualified. If I fit a gas cooker to a home and the gas fire goes on to poison somebody with carbon monoxide I go to jail even if I did not go into the room with the fire. Integrity is legalised in lots of situations. Why should science not have some sort of legal requirement to be honest? Or at least not actively lie. As I said, most of the problems are not from scientists but from them not saying anything when they THINK that all of this AGW is hogwash but they do not have sufficient information to prove it. And what do you say if the other shrinking percentage that believe in it are honestly saying what they believe? And again - the scientists aren't the problem. It's the people that misrepresent their findings. Look at the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse here on this site that are totally untrained but are screeching the end of the world. Yes, my proposed law would fall most heavily on the journalists who take a "there may be a link between toast and cancer" and write "link between toast and cancer". I think you are beginning to see the problems of gossip. Journalists are basically professional gossipers. 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
13-04-2017 09:21
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	Into the Night wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: Wake wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: i do not consider the requirement to be honest an imposition on the branch of human activity that relies on honesty more than anything else. You are in effect trying to legislate integrity. I am plumber. I am gas qualified. If I fit a gas cooker to a home and the gas fire goes on to poison somebody with carbon monoxide I go to jail even if I did not go into the room with the fire. Integrity is legalised in lots of situations. Why should science not have some sort of legal requirement to be honest? Or at least not actively lie. As I said, most of the problems are not from scientists but from them not saying anything when they THINK that all of this AGW is hogwash but they do not have sufficient information to prove it. And what do you say if the other shrinking percentage that believe in it are honestly saying what they believe? And again - the scientists aren't the problem. It's the people that misrepresent their findings. Look at the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse here on this site that are totally untrained but are screeching the end of the world. Yes, my proposed law would fall most heavily on the journalists who take a "there may be a link between toast and cancer" and write "link between toast and cancer". I think you are beginning to see the problems of gossip. Journalists are basically professional gossipers. Which is why, when we are dealing with the most powerful of means, science, that we must have strong levels of clarity and honesty.
13-04-2017 10:13
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Tim the plumber wrote: Into the Night wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: Wake wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: i do not consider the requirement to be honest an imposition on the branch of human activity that relies on honesty more than anything else. You are in effect trying to legislate integrity. I am plumber. I am gas qualified. If I fit a gas cooker to a home and the gas fire goes on to poison somebody with carbon monoxide I go to jail even if I did not go into the room with the fire. Integrity is legalised in lots of situations. Why should science not have some sort of legal requirement to be honest? Or at least not actively lie. As I said, most of the problems are not from scientists but from them not saying anything when they THINK that all of this AGW is hogwash but they do not have sufficient information to prove it. And what do you say if the other shrinking percentage that believe in it are honestly saying what they believe? And again - the scientists aren't the problem. It's the people that misrepresent their findings. Look at the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse here on this site that are totally untrained but are screeching the end of the world. Yes, my proposed law would fall most heavily on the journalists who take a "there may be a link between toast and cancer" and write "link between toast and cancer". I think you are beginning to see the problems of gossip. Journalists are basically professional gossipers. Which is why, when we are dealing with the most powerful of means, science, that we must have strong levels of clarity and honesty. Fortunately, science itself provides that clarity and honesty. Here's how: Science consists of falsifiable theories that describe nature. Most are formalized into the closed system of mathematics to give the theory power of prediction. What does this mean? Anything can inspire a theory. An observation, an old movie, tripping over your shoelace, anything. All theories start out as circular arguments. They have only themselves as the predicate. To take theory further, you test it for falsifiability. In other words, you use the model of the theory itself to generate a null hypothesis that can be practically tested and that produces a definitive result. The test is designed to break the model of the theory. If the theory survives the test, it is a scientific theory...automatically. A theory of science remains a theory of science until it is destroyed by conflicting evidence. No supporting evidence is used in science at all. No amount of supporting evidence can 'bless', 'sanctify', or otherwise make a theory more legitimate. A single piece of conflicting evidence destroys the theory, despite mountains of supporting evidence. Supporting evidence is used by religions. They are all based on an initial circular argument. Another word for the circular argument is 'faith'. In other words, a theory of science starts out as 'faith'. It takes faith in the theory long enough to develop tests for it. If it survives the test, the theory can stand on something else besides faith. A theory of science must also be externally consistent with the other theories of science. All theories must remain compatible with each other. If a new theory creates an incompatibility, it must show why the conflicting theory must be destroyed. This view of science came out of philosophy (the 'Ph' in 'PhD'). In particular, the philosophies of Karl Popper are the accepted view of science today. This man has done more for science than all but a very few scientists. Yet few have heard of him. My philosophies are based on Popper's with a few generalizations thrown in here and there. It is this basic philosophy and definition of science that makes it self supporting, clear, and honest. Take Global Warming Theory. This theory is not falsifiable. It depends on not only measuring the temperature of the Earth (we can't), but also a definition of a unit of change. Time is the problem here. While you have temperature as a unit, there is no time measurement that allows that unit to continue to be useful. Global Warming Theory uses an unspecified time for the 'warming' to occur. It therefore is not even definable. Greenhouse effect isn't even a theory. It contains a variety of fallacies as well as not being externally consistent with other theories of science. No theory, not even a non-scientific one, can be based on logical fallacies. ALL theories must be internally consistent. That is to say, compatible with logic. The problems it runs into with logic is a variety of paradoxes, which I have listed here from time to time. I realize these are areas that you may not be familiar with. That's OK. It can be learned if you continue to ask questions, do your own research among the many conflicting opinions, look up the relevant theories of science (such as the laws of thermodynamics, and the Stefan-Boltzmann equation), and start using the terminology of science such as the specific meaning of words like 'heat'. 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
13-04-2017 11:07
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	Into the Night, See, the thing is I do understand concepts like heat energy and temperature and enthalpy. I also understand rotational dynamics. I have used this to show that the poles are in fact gaining mass. That the rate of ice loss is less than the snowfall on the polar regions. I also have the knowledge that there are people, occaisionally scientists, mostly others, who lie and call it science and that this has a very powerful effect on our collective understanding of the world. I understand that NASA is claiming that they have data that says that Greenland is losing ice. It is not. It is clearly gaining ice. I have not seen any actual scientist's name on the claim that Greenland is gaining ice. My proposed law would stop this fraud. Edited on 13-04-2017 11:08
13-04-2017 20:00
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Tim the plumber wrote: Into the Night, See, the thing is I do understand concepts like heat energy and temperature and enthalpy. I also understand rotational dynamics. I have used this to show that the poles are in fact gaining mass. That the rate of ice loss is less than the snowfall on the polar regions. I also have the knowledge that there are people, occaisionally scientists, mostly others, who lie and call it science and that this has a very powerful effect on our collective understanding of the world. I understand that NASA is claiming that they have data that says that Greenland is losing ice. It is not. It is clearly gaining ice. I have not seen any actual scientist's name on the claim that Greenland is gaining ice. My proposed law would stop this fraud. There is no such thing as 'heat energy' in science. That is called 'thermal energy', while 'heat' has the specific meaning of the flow of thermal energy. Fortunately, science itself is just the theories and how they are tested. It isn't even people, much less scientists. The first thing to realize is that a scientist is not science. Like many people, a scientist will lie. The incentives are certainly there...fame, influence, money, etc. Also, any idiot can write a 'scientific' paper and even get it peer reviewed. That still is not science. A theory has a very specific type of testing it must undergo before it is considered a scientific theory. That testing is designed to destroy the theory. Science only looks at conflicting evidence. Supporting evidence is not used. Neither is consensus. This gives us a useful indicator of the validity of a claim made by a scientist. If the claim is based on supporting evidence, it has no weight at all. Statistical sampling is heavily misused in science as 'science'. It is not. It is math. It often is math full of errors. Many scientists have problems with math, especially in the area of statistical analysis, probability, and random number generation. This is a fault of the educational system they went through in many cases. What you should look for in any claim made by a scientist (whether a professional or not; whether degreed or not), is the use of tests for conflicting evidence and the results of those tests. This automatically wipes out the 'bacon may be bad for you - bacon may be good for you' type of garbage often claimed as 'science'. Now about the press: The Constitution of the United States is not a document that grants rights. Rights are inherent to you. What the Constitution does is define and structure the federal government, and describe limited powers of that government. Unless the Constitution specifically grants the federal government some authority, the federal government does not have that authority. This document was designed in this way because the colonies (and later the States) are sovereign entities unto themselves. They would never have ceded that sovereignty to another government. They just fought a war with Britain over that kind of thing. Among the powers not granted to the federal government (and specifically listed in the 1st amendment), is the power of free press and free speech. This document recognizes that it isn't practical to suppress opinion. You can't change minds that way, and you become a tyranny by trying. So what of the press that puts out rash statements? Guess what? It's OK. There will always be people that believe crap because it appeared in print somewhere. You see the same thing with the way people use link wars today. They do not recognize that an argument may be flawed regardless of its source. What your proposed law does is to put into place a type of government imposed Bulverism. By placing the government in control of the press, you create a State Press, like a Pravda, that only permits the official government line. That said, allowing anyone, including the press, to smear people through lies, or allowing them to foment a riot or dangerous situation (the 'fire in the theater' problem), is allowing specific damage to people. The question is where to draw that line. I do not think allowing the government to declare what is a perversion of what some scientist claimed to be a specific damage. No matter what you do, there will be people that believe anything just because it's in print or on a website. A better way is to educate people to be more discerning of what they read. This may sound impossible or impractical, but it can be done. Some will refuse, even on religious grounds. You can't change their opinion. They have the freedom of religion. No government can force one's mind to change, not even as a tyranny. All a tyrannical government can do is change what they say. What is in their mind doesn't change, and will be the seed of destruction for that government given a chance at all. I do not condone a government having say over what is an 'accurate statement'. It gives the government too much power and creates effectively a State Press. 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
13-04-2017 20:17
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	1, You still have not said what units your heat thing is measured in. We may be talking at cross purposes as I may be using a different name for the same thing or one of us is talking out of his arse. 2, My proposed law would be only that a scientist would face the penalties for lying. The state or whoever would have to show that the scientist was lying, not that he was wrong. Making a false statement and knowing that it was false. That is a very high bar. The journalist who published bacon is bad for you had better get the scientist to confirm that that was the result of the research because not doing so would be strong evidence that he was twisting the words of the scientist. Today there is a plague of obesity due to our diet being far too sugar heavy. This is the direct result of research in the 1950's which said that fat was bad for you. The research was a lie. Pure and simple. It would stop that. Edited on 13-04-2017 20:18
13-04-2017 20:25
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Tim the plumber wrote: 1, You still have not said what units your heat thing is measured in. We may be talking at cross purposes as I may be using a different name for the same thing or one of us is talking out of his arse. 2, My proposed law would be only that a scientist would face the penalties for lying. The state or whoever would have to show that the scientist was lying, not that he was wrong. Making a false statement and knowing that it was false. That is a very high bar. The journalist who published bacon is bad for you had better get the scientist to confirm that that was the result of the research because not doing so would be strong evidence that he was twisting the words of the scientist. Today there is a plague of obesity due to our diet being far too sugar heavy. This is the direct result of research in the 1950's which said that fat was bad for you. The research was a lie. Pure and simple. It would stop that. The unit of heat is the joule, which is equivalent to one watt per second. Putting the government in charge of whether a scientist is lying has a few problems: First, what is a scientist? Is it someone that happens to have a degree from some university? Several great scientists had no credentials whatsoever. Others have credentials, but they're idiots. Secondly, how is the State to determine if a scientist is lying? He may be just an idiot trying to support a claim of his improperly. Remember, the circular argument (or argument of faith) is not inherently a fallacy. It simply should be recognized for what it is. Failing to recognize the circular argument is the fallacy. Today the 'plague of obesity' comes from someone's idea of what your ideal weight 'should' be. Who is to say what your ideal weight should be? The government? Why? 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 13-04-2017 20:33
14-04-2017 04:39
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	Into the Night wrote: Journalists are basically professional gossipers.[/quote] The body of the first Muslim woman U.S. judge in New York, was found in the Hudson River. To make this report less of a hate crime examination (increased by "Don'T rumpism"?) & less gossipy, I will be the first to question why was she in the Hudson River without better swimming skills. Edited on 14-04-2017 04:41
14-04-2017 04:50
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2935)	litesong wrote: I will be the first to question why was she in the Hudson River without better swimming skills. Did you really just say that? Not funny. I would encourage you to seek professional help. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan

14-04-2017 05:08
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	GasGuzzler wrote: litesong wrote: I will be the first to question why was she in the Hudson River without better swimming skills. Did you really just say that? Not funny. I would encourage you to seek professional help. I am less gossipy, tho. I do understand why you deleted my first portion, "The body of the first Muslim woman U.S. judge in New York, was found in the Hudson River. To make this report less of a hate crime examination (increased by "Don'T rumpism"?)...." Edited on 14-04-2017 05:18
14-04-2017 09:28
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	litesong wrote: Into the Night wrote: Journalists are basically professional gossipers. ...deleted redirection attempt through strawman..[/quote] As usual you have no point to make. 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
14-04-2017 12:30
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	Into the Night wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: 1, You still have not said what units your heat thing is measured in. We may be talking at cross purposes as I may be using a different name for the same thing or one of us is talking out of his arse. 2, My proposed law would be only that a scientist would face the penalties for lying. The state or whoever would have to show that the scientist was lying, not that he was wrong. Making a false statement and knowing that it was false. That is a very high bar. The journalist who published bacon is bad for you had better get the scientist to confirm that that was the result of the research because not doing so would be strong evidence that he was twisting the words of the scientist. Today there is a plague of obesity due to our diet being far too sugar heavy. This is the direct result of research in the 1950's which said that fat was bad for you. The research was a lie. Pure and simple. It would stop that. The unit of heat is the joule, which is equivalent to one watt per second. 100% wrong. A Joule per second is a watt. You have it the wrong way around. You do not understand physics. This is plain to anybody who does. You also think that "heat" is about energy flow. Not if you are measuring it in just Joules it is not.
14-04-2017 15:24
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	"old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight bluffed: As usual you have no point to make. "badnight" makes no mention of the first women Muslim U.S. judge found dead in the Hudson River, because "badnight" knows the outrageous killing act was inspired by the hero of "badnight", the sexist, racist xenophobic "Don'T rump". Meanwhile: .....the Present High Arctic Berserker, PHAB, or FAB .......CONTINUES. As surmised (by me) months ago, FAB is over 200 STRAIGHT days of existence (now 215+ straight days) of High Arctic over-temperatures. If not for 1 questionable day, FAB would be 230+ straight days long of over-temperatures. This is stunning. Generally, regular weather can easily over-whelm & reduce the effects of AGW. Half a century ago (longer?), weather limited straight over-temperature days to 30 to 40+ days. But AGW has powered up over-temperature periods. Now in the High Arctic, during periods of low or no direct solar radiation, FAB s now reign over regular weather. These are NOT passing events, but will continue into the future.
14-04-2017 17:47
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	Tim the plumber wrote: Into the Night wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: 1, You still have not said what units your heat thing is measured in. We may be talking at cross purposes as I may be using a different name for the same thing or one of us is talking out of his arse. 2, My proposed law would be only that a scientist would face the penalties for lying. The state or whoever would have to show that the scientist was lying, not that he was wrong. Making a false statement and knowing that it was false. That is a very high bar. The journalist who published bacon is bad for you had better get the scientist to confirm that that was the result of the research because not doing so would be strong evidence that he was twisting the words of the scientist. Today there is a plague of obesity due to our diet being far too sugar heavy. This is the direct result of research in the 1950's which said that fat was bad for you. The research was a lie. Pure and simple. It would stop that. The unit of heat is the joule, which is equivalent to one watt per second. 100% wrong. A Joule per second is a watt. You have it the wrong way around. You do not understand physics. This is plain to anybody who does. You also think that "heat" is about energy flow. Not if you are measuring it in just Joules it is not. I particularly like the part where he tried to tell us that a watt second and a watt per second were different. I think we should save that one.
14-04-2017 18:51
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Too busy today to hang around here, but worth a quick look to see who understands basic units of measurement. Well done, Tim. Back to school, ITN and Wake.
14-04-2017 19:03
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2935)	Surface Detail wrote: Too busy today to hang around here Nursing a hangover? Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
14-04-2017 19:15
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	GasGuzzler wrote: Surface Detail wrote: Too busy today to hang around here Nursing a hangover? No, didn't drink that much. But I have to work (urgent job, desperate customer; Easter, I know, but well paid for it), organise an Easter egg hunt for the kids, view an apartment for a friend, prepare a physics tutorial and deliver some leaflets. Garden (backyard to US folk) also needs tidying and car could do with a service. No rest for the wicked it seems!
14-04-2017 19:20
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2935)	Surface Detail wrote: ....and deliver some leaflets. Oh, maybe Algore will take you up and you could do a drop? Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
14-04-2017 19:36
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	GasGuzzler wrote: Surface Detail wrote: Too busy today to hang around here Nursing a hangover? Can you imagine someone that doesn't know what a watt is telling us that we should look it up?
14-04-2017 19:37
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	GasGuzzler wrote: Surface Detail wrote: Too busy today to hang around here Nursing a hangover? Can you imagine someone that doesn't know what a watt is telling us that we should look it up?
14-04-2017 23:15
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	Wake wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Surface Detail wrote: Too busy today to hang around here Nursing a hangover? Can you imagine someone that doesn't know what a watt is telling us that we should look it up? The unit of heat is the joule, which is equivalent to one watt per second. You do not know what a watt is.
15-04-2017 01:03
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Tim the plumber wrote: Wake wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Surface Detail wrote: Too busy today to hang around here Nursing a hangover? Can you imagine someone that doesn't know what a watt is telling us that we should look it up? The unit of heat is the joule, which is equivalent to one watt per second. You do not know what a watt is. Yes, rather amusing, isn't it. ITN, the guy who claims to be an expert in a whole range of fields and disputes swathes of modern science, doesn't understand basic units of measurement. Then there's Wake, who appears to think that a watt second (aka joule) is the same as a watt per second. I disagree with you on a whole range of things, but at least you seem to have a reasonable understanding of scientific units.
15-04-2017 01:57
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Tim the plumber wrote: Into the Night wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: 1, You still have not said what units your heat thing is measured in. We may be talking at cross purposes as I may be using a different name for the same thing or one of us is talking out of his arse. 2, My proposed law would be only that a scientist would face the penalties for lying. The state or whoever would have to show that the scientist was lying, not that he was wrong. Making a false statement and knowing that it was false. That is a very high bar. The journalist who published bacon is bad for you had better get the scientist to confirm that that was the result of the research because not doing so would be strong evidence that he was twisting the words of the scientist. Today there is a plague of obesity due to our diet being far too sugar heavy. This is the direct result of research in the 1950's which said that fat was bad for you. The research was a lie. Pure and simple. It would stop that. The unit of heat is the joule, which is equivalent to one watt per second. 100% wrong. A Joule per second is a watt. You have it the wrong way around. You do not understand physics. This is plain to anybody who does. You also think that "heat" is about energy flow. Not if you are measuring it in just Joules it is not. Quite right. My mistake. The unit of heat is the watt. 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
15-04-2017 02:48
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Into the Night wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: Into the Night wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: 1, You still have not said what units your heat thing is measured in. We may be talking at cross purposes as I may be using a different name for the same thing or one of us is talking out of his arse. 2, My proposed law would be only that a scientist would face the penalties for lying. The state or whoever would have to show that the scientist was lying, not that he was wrong. Making a false statement and knowing that it was false. That is a very high bar. The journalist who published bacon is bad for you had better get the scientist to confirm that that was the result of the research because not doing so would be strong evidence that he was twisting the words of the scientist. Today there is a plague of obesity due to our diet being far too sugar heavy. This is the direct result of research in the 1950's which said that fat was bad for you. The research was a lie. Pure and simple. It would stop that. The unit of heat is the joule, which is equivalent to one watt per second. 100% wrong. A Joule per second is a watt. You have it the wrong way around. You do not understand physics. This is plain to anybody who does. You also think that "heat" is about energy flow. Not if you are measuring it in just Joules it is not. Quite right. My mistake. The unit of heat is the watt. No, that's still not right. Heat is a form of energy and is therefore measured in joules. The rate of change of energy, or flow of energy, is measured in watts. Watts is just another name for joules per second. The output of a light bulb, for example, is measured in watts: it's the amount of energy, in joules, that the bulb emits per second. The energy content of something, say, a lump of coal, would be measured in joules.

15-04-2017 03:03
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Surface Detail wrote: Into the Night wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: Into the Night wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: 1, You still have not said what units your heat thing is measured in. We may be talking at cross purposes as I may be using a different name for the same thing or one of us is talking out of his arse. 2, My proposed law would be only that a scientist would face the penalties for lying. The state or whoever would have to show that the scientist was lying, not that he was wrong. Making a false statement and knowing that it was false. That is a very high bar. The journalist who published bacon is bad for you had better get the scientist to confirm that that was the result of the research because not doing so would be strong evidence that he was twisting the words of the scientist. Today there is a plague of obesity due to our diet being far too sugar heavy. This is the direct result of research in the 1950's which said that fat was bad for you. The research was a lie. Pure and simple. It would stop that. The unit of heat is the joule, which is equivalent to one watt per second. 100% wrong. A Joule per second is a watt. You have it the wrong way around. You do not understand physics. This is plain to anybody who does. You also think that "heat" is about energy flow. Not if you are measuring it in just Joules it is not. Quite right. My mistake. The unit of heat is the watt. No, that's still not right. Heat is a form of energy Heat is not a form of energy. Surface Detail wrote: and is therefore measured in joules. No. It is measured in watts. Surface Detail wrote: The rate of change of energy, or flow of energy, is measured in watts. Watts is just another name for joules per second. Correct. 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
15-04-2017 04:01
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Into the Night wrote: Surface Detail wrote: Into the Night wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: Into the Night wrote: The unit of heat is the joule, which is equivalent to one watt per second. 100% wrong. A Joule per second is a watt. You have it the wrong way around. You do not understand physics. This is plain to anybody who does. You also think that "heat" is about energy flow. Not if you are measuring it in just Joules it is not. Quite right. My mistake. The unit of heat is the watt. No, that's still not right. Heat is a form of energy Heat is not a form of energy. Surface Detail wrote: and is therefore measured in joules. No. It is measured in watts. Surface Detail wrote: The rate of change of energy, or flow of energy, is measured in watts. Watts is just another name for joules per second. Correct. Heat is a form of energy. 1 kg coal, for example, contains about 29.3 MJ of chemical energy. If you completely burn it, it will release 29.3 MJ of heat energy. The rate at which energy is released is measured in watts. If you were to burn your 1 kg coal in, say, 10000 seconds, it would release heat at a rate of 2930 watts. The total amount of heat released would be 2930 x 10000 = 29.3 MJ.
15-04-2017 22:43
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Surface Detail wrote: Into the Night wrote: Surface Detail wrote: Into the Night wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: Into the Night wrote: The unit of heat is the joule, which is equivalent to one watt per second. 100% wrong. A Joule per second is a watt. You have it the wrong way around. You do not understand physics. This is plain to anybody who does. You also think that "heat" is about energy flow. Not if you are measuring it in just Joules it is not. Quite right. My mistake. The unit of heat is the watt. No, that's still not right. Heat is a form of energy Heat is not a form of energy. Surface Detail wrote: and is therefore measured in joules. No. It is measured in watts. Surface Detail wrote: The rate of change of energy, or flow of energy, is measured in watts. Watts is just another name for joules per second. Correct. Heat is a form of energy. Nope. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. It is not energy itself. Surface Detail wrote: 1 kg coal, for example, contains about 29.3 MJ of chemical energy. If you completely burn it, it will release 29.3 MJ of heat energy. No, you get 29.3 MJ of thermal energy. Surface Detail wrote: The rate at which energy is released is measured in watts. If you were to burn your 1 kg coal in, say, 10000 seconds, it would release heat at a rate of 2930 watts. That is heat. Surface Detail wrote: The total amount of heat released would be 2930 x 10000 = 29.3 MJ. That is thermal energy. Heat is not thermal energy. It is the flow of thermal energy. Why you can't seem to grasp this concept is beyond me. 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
15-04-2017 23:07
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	Into the Night wrote: Surface Detail wrote: Into the Night wrote: Surface Detail wrote: Into the Night wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: Into the Night wrote: The unit of heat is the joule, which is equivalent to one watt per second. 100% wrong. A Joule per second is a watt. You have it the wrong way around. You do not understand physics. This is plain to anybody who does. You also think that "heat" is about energy flow. Not if you are measuring it in just Joules it is not. Quite right. My mistake. The unit of heat is the watt. No, that's still not right. Heat is a form of energy Heat is not a form of energy. Surface Detail wrote: and is therefore measured in joules. No. It is measured in watts. Surface Detail wrote: The rate of change of energy, or flow of energy, is measured in watts. Watts is just another name for joules per second. Correct. Heat is a form of energy. Nope. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. It is not energy itself. Surface Detail wrote: 1 kg coal, for example, contains about 29.3 MJ of chemical energy. If you completely burn it, it will release 29.3 MJ of heat energy. No, you get 29.3 MJ of thermal energy. Surface Detail wrote: The rate at which energy is released is measured in watts. If you were to burn your 1 kg coal in, say, 10000 seconds, it would release heat at a rate of 2930 watts. That is heat. Surface Detail wrote: The total amount of heat released would be 2930 x 10000 = 29.3 MJ. That is thermal energy. Heat is not thermal energy. It is the flow of thermal energy. Why you can't seem to grasp this concept is beyond me. All around the globe this has been an especially hard winter. The summer is predicted to be cold. What do you want to bet that we don't hear from the True Believers that this isn't another "hottest year yet"?
16-04-2017 05:35
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racistwake-me-up" woofed: What do you want to bet that we don't hear from the True Believers that this isn't another "hottest year yet"? I betcha ever' month in 2017 wilt be ov'r da 20th centry aver'ge (some months already r), despite AGW denier liar whiners sayin' we done gone back to an ice age. Edited on 16-04-2017 05:47
16-04-2017 18:12
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	Into the Night wrote: Surface Detail wrote: Into the Night wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: Into the Night wrote: Tim the plumber wrote: 1, You still have not said what units your heat thing is measured in. We may be talking at cross purposes as I may be using a different name for the same thing or one of us is talking out of his arse. 2, My proposed law would be only that a scientist would face the penalties for lying. The state or whoever would have to show that the scientist was lying, not that he was wrong. Making a false statement and knowing that it was false. That is a very high bar. The journalist who published bacon is bad for you had better get the scientist to confirm that that was the result of the research because not doing so would be strong evidence that he was twisting the words of the scientist. Today there is a plague of obesity due to our diet being far too sugar heavy. This is the direct result of research in the 1950's which said that fat was bad for you. The research was a lie. Pure and simple. It would stop that. The unit of heat is the joule, which is equivalent to one watt per second. 100% wrong. A Joule per second is a watt. You have it the wrong way around. You do not understand physics. This is plain to anybody who does. You also think that "heat" is about energy flow. Not if you are measuring it in just Joules it is not. Quite right. My mistake. The unit of heat is the watt. No, that's still not right. Heat is a form of energy Heat is not a form of energy. Surface Detail wrote: and is therefore measured in joules. No. It is measured in watts. Surface Detail wrote: The rate of change of energy, or flow of energy, is measured in watts. Watts is just another name for joules per second. Correct. Perhaps Surface detail and I have been to different educational systems about heat and physics. How the hell is heat not a form of energy???? If you measure it in Watts, Joules per second, then it is dam well a form of energy. Or at least energy transfer. If you could actually define what it is you are talking about when you use the word heat we could perhaps make progress.
16-04-2017 21:07
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	Tim the plumber wrote: Perhaps Surface detail and I have been to different educational systems about heat and physics. How the hell is heat not a form of energy???? If you measure it in Watts, Joules per second, then it is dam well a form of energy. Or at least energy transfer. If you could actually define what it is you are talking about when you use the word heat we could perhaps make progress. Well I don't follow what he's trying to say either.
16-04-2017 21:15
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Into the Night wrote: Surface Detail wrote: Into the Night wrote: Surface Detail wrote: Into the Night wrote: Quite right. My mistake. The unit of heat is the watt. No, that's still not right. Heat is a form of energy Heat is not a form of energy. Surface Detail wrote: and is therefore measured in joules. No. It is measured in watts. Surface Detail wrote: The rate of change of energy, or flow of energy, is measured in watts. Watts is just another name for joules per second. Correct. Heat is a form of energy. Nope. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. It is not energy itself. Surface Detail wrote: 1 kg coal, for example, contains about 29.3 MJ of chemical energy. If you completely burn it, it will release 29.3 MJ of heat energy. No, you get 29.3 MJ of thermal energy. Surface Detail wrote: The rate at which energy is released is measured in watts. If you were to burn your 1 kg coal in, say, 10000 seconds, it would release heat at a rate of 2930 watts. That is heat. Surface Detail wrote: The total amount of heat released would be 2930 x 10000 = 29.3 MJ. That is thermal energy. Heat is not thermal energy. It is the flow of thermal energy. Why you can't seem to grasp this concept is beyond me. In every single reference I can find, the unit of heat is defined to be the same as the unit of energy, i.e. a joule, calorie, BTU, etc. The terms heat, heat energy, and thermal energy are synonymous. Heat is a form of energy. See, for example: https://www.britannica.com/science/heat It makes sense, for example, to ask how much heat 1 kg of coal would release if burned, and the answer would be given in joules. The rate at which the heat is released would depend on how fast the coal burns; that would be given in joules per second or, equivalently, watts.
16-04-2017 21:42
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	Surface Detail wrote: Into the Night wrote: Surface Detail wrote: Into the Night wrote: Surface Detail wrote: Into the Night wrote: Quite right. My mistake. The unit of heat is the watt. No, that's still not right. Heat is a form of energy Heat is not a form of energy. Surface Detail wrote: and is therefore measured in joules. No. It is measured in watts. Surface Detail wrote: The rate of change of energy, or flow of energy, is measured in watts. Watts is just another name for joules per second. Correct. Heat is a form of energy. Nope. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. It is not energy itself. Surface Detail wrote: 1 kg coal, for example, contains about 29.3 MJ of chemical energy. If you completely burn it, it will release 29.3 MJ of heat energy. No, you get 29.3 MJ of thermal energy. Surface Detail wrote: The rate at which energy is released is measured in watts. If you were to burn your 1 kg coal in, say, 10000 seconds, it would release heat at a rate of 2930 watts. That is heat. Surface Detail wrote: The total amount of heat released would be 2930 x 10000 = 29.3 MJ. That is thermal energy. Heat is not thermal energy. It is the flow of thermal energy. Why you can't seem to grasp this concept is beyond me. In every single reference I can find, the unit of heat is defined to be the same as the unit of energy, i.e. a joule, calorie, BTU, etc. The terms heat, heat energy, and thermal energy are synonymous. Heat is a form of energy. See, for example: https://www.britannica.com/science/heat It makes sense, for example, to ask how much heat 1 kg of coal would release if burned, and the answer would be given in joules. The rate at which the heat is released would depend on how fast the coal burns; that would be given in joules per second or, equivalently, watts. Well you just proved "Into The Night's" point. Heat, per se, is not energy but the flow of energy from one energy source to another sink of lower energy. Thanks for making that clear.
16-04-2017 21:46
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Wake wrote: Surface Detail wrote: Into the Night wrote: Surface Detail wrote: Into the Night wrote: Surface Detail wrote: Into the Night wrote: Quite right. My mistake. The unit of heat is the watt. No, that's still not right. Heat is a form of energy Heat is not a form of energy. Surface Detail wrote: and is therefore measured in joules. No. It is measured in watts. Surface Detail wrote: The rate of change of energy, or flow of energy, is measured in watts. Watts is just another name for joules per second. Correct. Heat is a form of energy. Nope. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. It is not energy itself. Surface Detail wrote: 1 kg coal, for example, contains about 29.3 MJ of chemical energy. If you completely burn it, it will release 29.3 MJ of heat energy. No, you get 29.3 MJ of thermal energy. Surface Detail wrote: The rate at which energy is released is measured in watts. If you were to burn your 1 kg coal in, say, 10000 seconds, it would release heat at a rate of 2930 watts. That is heat. Surface Detail wrote: The total amount of heat released would be 2930 x 10000 = 29.3 MJ. That is thermal energy. Heat is not thermal energy. It is the flow of thermal energy. Why you can't seem to grasp this concept is beyond me. In every single reference I can find, the unit of heat is defined to be the same as the unit of energy, i.e. a joule, calorie, BTU, etc. The terms heat, heat energy, and thermal energy are synonymous. Heat is a form of energy. See, for example: https://www.britannica.com/science/heat It makes sense, for example, to ask how much heat 1 kg of coal would release if burned, and the answer would be given in joules. The rate at which the heat is released would depend on how fast the coal burns; that would be given in joules per second or, equivalently, watts. Well you just proved "Into The Night's" point. Heat, per se, is not energy but the flow of energy from one energy source to another sink of lower energy. Thanks for making that clear. I'm not sure how you read that from my post. The S.I. unit of heat is the joule, which is a unit of energy, not the watt, which a unit of rate of flow of energy.

Page 5 of 6

Join the debate Man-Made Causes:

Threads	Replies	Last post
22 Reasons to be Skeptical of Man-Made Global Warming	48	26-04-2024 11:06
Pro-Palestinian protester arrested in death of Jewish man Paul Kessler. Told you so.	0	16-11-2023 21:56
BREAKING NEWS- Woody Harrelson voted in as new Worlds smartest man	0	03-03-2023 15:29
Man freed from jail for committing a crime that never even happened. LOL they tried that with me too	3	16-02-2023 19:01
Man's energy use actually does explain climate change	18	09-02-2023 03:27