man made or natural

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > man made or natural > Page 5

Page 5 of 8

16-01-2020 17:46
MarcusR★☆☆☆☆ (111)	IBdaMann wrote: How do you believe the earth's average global temperature increases because of greenhouse gas or any other substance that is not additional energy? . Who have said anything about "additional" energy ? That is not and have never been the case with the green house effect. Read my comments on the third equation and it wil become clearer. Still, what has SB to do with it? I am seriously curious what you mean - no offence intended.
16-01-2020 17:46
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	MarcusR wrote: [quote]IBdaMann wrote: From a science perspective, however, the article describes the standard violation of Stefan-Boltzmann . Exactly WHAT do you mean by that statement ? Stefan-Boltzmann law: r=Cet^4 Standard violations of that law: r=Ce1/(t^4) <--- this is wrong. MarcusR wrote: If you could describe that I could look it up and try to clearify it. No need. It's presented above. MarcusR wrote: But don't go into 2nd law argument because that is answered in the Third equation I posted above. No, you are just simply denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics. 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
16-01-2020 17:50
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	MarcusR wrote: IBdaMann wrote: How do you believe the earth's average global temperature increases because of greenhouse gas or any other substance that is not additional energy? . Who have said anything about "additional" energy ? It requires additional energy to increase the temperature of Earth. MarcusR wrote: That is not and have never been the case with the green house effect. Yes it is. There is no other way to increase the temperature of Earth. MarcusR wrote: Read my comments on the third equation and it wil become clearer. Ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics won't work either. MarcusR wrote: Still, what has SB to do with it? Everything. You can't just ignore it. MarcusR wrote: I am seriously curious what you mean - no offence intended. Already explained to you. Repetitious Question Already Answered (RQAA). 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
16-01-2020 18:50
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	MarcusR wrote: Harry C wrote: If they can model climate, surely they can model what the carbon dioxide molecule does, and I'm not talking about an animation. I want to see that. This page is a good start http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/infrared.htm Remember some of the links I pm'd to you? That's actually how IR would stay in our atmosphere. And if IR isn't absorbed then it passes through molecules just as incoming solar IR passes through oxygen and nitrogen. Not all gas molecules are able to absorb IR radiation. For example, nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2), which make up more than 90% of Earth's atmosphere, do not absorb infrared photons. CO2 molecules can vibrate in ways that simpler nitrogen and oxygen molecules cannot, which allows CO2 molecules to capture the IR photons. https://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation And when CO2 molecules collide with either oxygen or nitrogen molecules, if it releases any IR, does either nitrogen or oxygen have the ability to absorb it? If not then about all we could say about CO2 emitted IR is that it's path through our atmosphere has changed. Although H2O can absorb a lot of the emitted IR from CO2. With myself, I'm doing what I can to learn calculus because I have my own model I want to pursue.
16-01-2020 19:02
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14403)	MarcusR wrote: Who have said anything about "additional" energy ? Here's a basic physics lesson for you. Nothing spontaneously increases in temperature. Additional energy is required for temperature to increase. If temperature increases, there is additional energy. If someone claims an increase in temperature, he is required to explain from where the additional energy is coming. One more time, because it is absolutely critical to physics and to this topic: If someone claims an increase in temperature, then he is required to explain from where the additional energy is coming. You claim that the earth's average global temperature is increasing. You need to explain from where the additional energy is coming. Your initial reaction is to claim that greenhouse gas produces the additional energy ... until someone points out to you that you are violating thermodynamics because energy cannot be created or destroyed. This is where you shift to violating Stefan-Boltzmann by claiming that greenhouse gas decreases earth's radiance while increasing earth's temperature. Stefan-Boltzmann says that radiance and temperature necessarily move in the same direction, not in opposite directions. At that point you shift to denying science altogether, and start claiming that physics doesn't apply to the earth. You'll come up with lot's of lame excuses. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles 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

16-01-2020 22:02
MarcusR★☆☆☆☆ (111)	IBdaMann wrote: Nothing spontaneously increases in temperature. Agreed, increased levels of CO2 alone has increased the RF with 1.95 W/m2. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL071930 Add CH4 (0.62 W/m2) and N2O (0,18 W/m2) and you will get 2.75 W/m2. And no, the SB-law has nothing to do with that - read my other post what the SB-law is, and more importantly, what it isn't.
16-01-2020 22:37
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	MarcusR wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Nothing spontaneously increases in temperature. Agreed, increased levels of CO2 alone has increased the RF with 1.95 W/m2. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL071930 Add CH4 (0.62 W/m2) and N2O (0,18 W/m2) and you will get 2.75 W/m2. And no, the SB-law has nothing to do with that - read my other post what the SB-law is, and more importantly, what it isn't. And if we say that 700 w/m^2 warms our planet to 290º kelvin then 2.75 w/m^2 = 0.004% of the heat in our atmosphere. And CO2 is 0.04% of our atmosphere. This is why I think depletion of the ozone layer is more meaningful but it's dismissed by the IPCC and those who support them. Who knows, maybe something else influences the heat in our atmosphere as well but has been overlooked because it's not a gas. It's probably best for me to continue with what I've been working on. Bon Chance !
16-01-2020 23:34
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	MarcusR wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Nothing spontaneously increases in temperature. Agreed, increased levels of CO2 alone has increased the RF with 1.95 W/m2. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL071930 Add CH4 (0.62 W/m2) and N2O (0,18 W/m2) and you will get 2.75 W/m2. And no, the SB-law has nothing to do with that - read my other post what the SB-law is, and more importantly, what it isn't. You can't create energy out of nothing. You can't heat the surface using a colder gas. You can't reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time. The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law apply everywhere, all the time, in every case. 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
16-01-2020 23:47
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics ... ITN could you recommend a text book or reference that teaches the laws of thermodynamics? Also what is "Fact"? I've been curious about that and you said you could define what a "Fact" is?
16-01-2020 23:49
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics ... ITN could you recommend a text book or reference that teaches the laws of thermodynamics? Also what is "Fact"? I've been curious about that and you said you could define what a "Fact" is? RQAA 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
16-01-2020 23:51
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: RQAA Liar
17-01-2020 00:04
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14403)	tmiddles wrote:Also what is "Fact"? I've been curious about that and you said you could define what a "Fact" is? Oh pick me! Pick me! A fact is an argument on which the parties engaged in a discussion/conversation agree. Everything else is "disputed." For example, in a court of law, the DA opens with "these are the facts of the case" which means these are the things which neither party involved disputes, or that the defense does not contest. Everything else is therefore to be "argued" in court. A "fact" is an agreement thing. Nothing more. If in a debate someone claims that something that is disputed is actually a "fact" then that person clearly doesn't know what a "fact" is and should probably be dispatched to an adult learning facility for rememdial English tutoring. What may be a "fact" between two people in a conversation can quickly cease to be a fact once someone else joins the conversation. For example, between two warmizombies posting on Climate_Panic_Now! it might be a "fact" that Global Warming is "observed" and absolutely true ... but then when they both wander into reality and venture into conversations with humans who think for themselves, suddenly their WACKY belief is nothing more than an "argument." [find-WHATISAFACT] . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit* A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-01-2020 00:11
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14403)	MarcusR wrote: Agreed, increased levels of CO2 alone has increased the RF with 1.95 W/m2. That is the direct violation of thermodynamics that I mentioned. If you don't understand how that is a violation then you should probably brush up on the matter. MarcusR wrote: And no, the SB-law has nothing to do with that - Exactly. The above is the violation of thermodynamics, not of Stefan-Boltzmann. You still have to post the obligatory "No one is talking about CO2 producing additional energy ..." before pivoting to explaining how CO2 increases earth's temperature becasue it "slows" earth's thermal radiation from escaping into space ... at which point you will be violating Stefan-Boltzmann. Let me know when you make that pivot and we'll reengage. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-01-2020 00:26
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: A fact is an argument .... Hmmmm. Let's see just how revolutionary IBD's thinking is: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fact?s=t 5 definitions, let's look for that. noun 1- something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact. 2- something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact. 3- a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth. 4- something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable. 5- Law. Often facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence. Compare question of fact, question of law. No I don't see it there. Are you saying that in science a Fact is an argument IBD? Your definition appears to be quite revolutionary. Maybe you should go on the road and try to get everyone to go along with your new meaning. But thank you truly, for yet another gem: IBdaMann wrote: A "fact" is an agreement thing...What may be a "fact" between two people in a conversation can quickly cease to be a fact once someone else joins the conversation. Love it! I'm going to start making T-shirts with ITN/IBD quotes. I'm curious IBD, what word do you use for "something that actually exists; reality; truth:" ? IBdaMann wrote:...thermodynamics ....you should probably brush up on the matter. What would you recommend we read IBD? Are there in fact any books that exist that don't lie about thermodynamics?
17-01-2020 00:50
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14403)	tmiddles wrote: Hmmmm. Let's see just how revolutionary IBD's thinking is: ... or we can just dispatch you to remedial English tutoring. What a Bozo. tmiddles believes that in a court of law that any facts of the case are somehow being disputed. Somebody messed with tmiddles big time. tmiddles wrote: I'm curious IBD, what word do you use for "something that actually exists; reality; truth:" ? "empirical." It's great to not need remedial English tutoring. tmiddles wrote: What would you recommend we read IBD? I answered this in another post. There are no silver bullets and there is no hope for those such as yourself who take pride in remaining scientifically illiterate. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

17-01-2020 00:54
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: A fact is an argument .... Hmmmm. Let's see just how revolutionary IBD's thinking is: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fact?s=t 5 definitions, let's look for that. No dictionary defines any word. False authority fallacy. tmiddles wrote: noun 1- something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact. Nope. 'Fact' is not a reality, truth, or proof. tmiddles wrote: 2- something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact. Nope. That is a proof, not a fact. It is the Proof of Identity. tmiddles wrote: 3- a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Nope. All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. No observation is automatically a fact. tmiddles wrote: Scientists gather facts about plant growth. Data is not automatically a fact. Data is the result of observations, subject to the problems of phenomenology. tmiddles wrote: 4- something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable. Then they are no longer facts. They have become arguments. tmiddles wrote: 5- Law. Often facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence. Compare question of fact, question of law. Already explained to you. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: No I don't see it there. Are you saying that in science a Fact is an argument IBD? 'Fact' is not defined by science. It is defined by logic. It is simply an assumed predicate. Nothing more. tmiddles wrote: Your definition appears to be quite revolutionary. Nope. It's as old as logic. tmiddles wrote: Maybe you should go on the road and try to get everyone to go along with your new meaning. No need. Learn logic. tmiddles wrote: I'm curious IBD, what word do you use for "something that actually exists; reality; truth:" ? How about 'exists', 'reality', 'truth'? tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:...thermodynamics ....you should probably brush up on the matter. What would you recommend we read IBD? Are there in fact any books that exist that don't lie about thermodynamics? RQAA. False authority fallacy. 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
17-01-2020 01:05
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote:[/b [b]tmiddles wrote: What would you recommend we read IBD? I answered this in another post. No you didn't.
17-01-2020 01:09
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	One of my college professors said that a fact is an interpretation (wow, that was a long time ago). Matter of fact he made it a test question. It's not perfect but it's worked pretty well for a long time. Try it on for size in this discussion of the meaning of "Fact".
17-01-2020 01:49
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	keepit wrote:...my college professors said... Words are used to communicate meaning. When "Fact " is used in a scientific context it means the actual/real truth. You might get the facts wrong, have a defective interpretation in some way, or nail it, but it doesn't change what the facts are, only what you say they are. If I say it's a fact that Trump is the 48th president of the US it doesn't create three extra presidents until I get it right. It just means I was mistaken about the actual fact that he's the 45th. Oh and I think IBD wanted to use empirical. Nope. First of all that's an adjective and secondly facts exists before they are found or measured. The facts about Jimmy Hoffa's death are still unknown to the public. If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, it's still a fact it fell. Edited on 17-01-2020 01:53
17-01-2020 02:22
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	It's true that the things that go on in this universe and our interpretation of what goes on aren't always the same. Considering facts to be interpretations just puts everyone on equal ground.
17-01-2020 02:32
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	keepit wrote: Considering facts to be interpretations just puts everyone on equal ground. No it redefines "fact" to mean "interpretation" Interpretation works really well a as a word. So does fact.
17-01-2020 02:33
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:[/b [b]tmiddles wrote: What would you recommend we read IBD? I answered this in another post. No you didn't. Lie. RQAA. 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
17-01-2020 02:36
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	If both parties consider their "facts" to be interpretations, then no one can claim their facts are better facts without proving it. They just have to make their case that their interpretation is better. Claiming one's facts are better is almost like claiming one race is better. Just prove your case. Noone has the right to claim their facts are better without proof.
17-01-2020 02:41
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	tmiddles wrote: keepit wrote:...my college professors said... Words are used to communicate meaning. But not for you. tmiddles wrote: When "Fact " is used in a scientific context it means the actual/real truth. The meaning of 'fact' does not change with science. There is no 'scientific' version of the meaning of 'fact'. 'Fact' is not a truth. It is not 'reality'. It is simply an assumed predicate. tmiddles wrote: You might get the facts wrong, Not possible. There is no right or wrong with any fact. tmiddles wrote: have a defective interpretation in some way, There is not interpretation of any fact. tmiddles wrote: or nail it, but it doesn't change what the facts are, only what you say they are. You still don't get what facts are. tmiddles wrote: If I say it's a fact that Trump is the 48th president of the US it doesn't create three extra presidents until I get it right. It just means I was mistaken about the actual fact that he's the 45th. Irrelevant. tmiddles wrote: Oh and I think IBD wanted to use empirical. A good word for 'exists', 'real', or 'truth'. tmiddles wrote: Nope. First of all that's an adjective and secondly facts exists before they are found or measured. Nope. No fact exists before it exists. Facts are not 'found' or 'measured'. tmiddles wrote: The facts about Jimmy Hoffa's death are still unknown to the public. Then they are not facts. They are voids. tmiddles wrote: If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, it's still a fact it fell. No, it isn't. A proof by definition. 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
17-01-2020 02:42
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	keepit wrote: It's true that the things that go on in this universe and our interpretation of what goes on aren't always the same. Considering facts to be interpretations just puts everyone on equal ground. Nope. Facts aren't interpretations. They are assumed predicates. 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
17-01-2020 02:43
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	tmiddles wrote: keepit wrote: Considering facts to be interpretations just puts everyone on equal ground. No it redefines "fact" to mean "interpretation" Interpretation works really well a as a word. So does fact. You understand neither. 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
17-01-2020 02:43
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	keepit wrote: If both parties consider their "facts" to be interpretations, then no one can claim their facts are better facts without proving it. They just have to make their case that their interpretation is better. Claiming one's facts are better is almost like claiming one race is better. Just prove your case. Noone has the right to claim their facts are better without proof. False dichotomy fallacy. No fact is 'better'. It either exists, or it doesn't. 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
17-01-2020 02:44
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	Tmid, Redefining facts to be interpretations seems like a good idea to me.
17-01-2020 02:45
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	keepit wrote: Tmid, Redefining facts to be interpretations seems like a good idea to me. Nope. No interpretation is necessary for any fact. 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
17-01-2020 02:48
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Into the Night wrote: keepit wrote: It's true that the things that go on in this universe and our interpretation of what goes on aren't always the same. Considering facts to be interpretations just puts everyone on equal ground. Nope. Facts aren't interpretations. They are assumed predicates. Nope, uh-uh. Assumed predicates are inferred as facts, Jack!

17-01-2020 03:35
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	James, Assumptions (assumed predicates) are facts?
17-01-2020 03:53
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	keepit wrote: If both parties consider their "facts" to be interpretations, Keepit you are using the words separately and then finish by convoluting their meaning. A "fact" is not an "interpretation". That's why those words are different words. The dictionary really does a great job of identifying the common meaning of a word. Why do you have a problem with the word "interpretation" to mean "interpretation"? An "Interpretation of the facts" is someone's effort/perspective at describing and ascertaining the facts, which are quite independent of them. Edited on 17-01-2020 03:55
17-01-2020 04:14
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	Oh well, "interpretation" has worked for me when someone uses the word "fact". I just don't like someone claiming their "facts " are better than other "facts" without any indication that they are better. True, a respected scientific journal is almost proof that their facts are better than some other facts claimed by someone else in many cases.
17-01-2020 04:27
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14403)	tmiddles wrote: Keepit you are using the words separately and then finish by convoluting their meaning. You should be the last person to complain about spomeone doing that. tmiddles wrote: A "fact" is not an "interpretation". That's why those words are different words. A temperature is not a "range" but that never stopped you from conflating those words. In fact, I can't think of an opportunity to conflate words that you would pass up if you thought you could kill a thread with it. tmiddles wrote: The dictionary really does a great job of identifying the common meaning of a word. Not really. Dictionaries simply convey some common usages, whether they are correct or not. No dictionary establishes any meanings because no dictionary owns English. tmiddles wrote: Why do you have a problem with the word "interpretation" to mean "interpretation"? Maybe he is more comfortable with the word "fact." Why do you insist on being mistaken? Why do you insist on being scientifically illiterate and mathematically incompetent? These are all questions best left to philosophers, . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-01-2020 04:35
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	keepit wrote: James, Assumptions (assumed predicates) are facts? While I was making fun of itn, that's actually true. Watch an NFL play get reviewed. How people perceive things will vary. In order for something to be a fact, it needs to be accepted as that. This might be why itn always says "is". Any definition can be challenged, why there are lawyers. In court they argue the facts. And in criminal cases it comes down to reasonable doubt. If facts were definitive then there would be no doubt.
17-01-2020 04:42
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14403)	keepit wrote:True, a respected scientific journal is almost proof that their facts are better than some other facts claimed by someone else in many cases. Not at all. All it means is that YOU consider their arguments as facts,i.e. that YOU agree with them. Others might not agree with their arguments and thus they are not facts to them. By the way, what is required for a journal to be a "scientific" journal? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-01-2020 04:54
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	keepit wrote: Oh well, "interpretation" has worked for me .... Just so you know when I say "Fact" it's the dictionary definition of what is actually true. Don't redefine my wording for me. James___ wrote:In order for something to be a fact, it needs to be accepted as that. No that's totally false James. A fact may or may not be accepted but it remains. Once again gents the Dictionary: FACT noun something that actually exists; reality; truth: If you'd like it to mean something else you're welcome to start a grass roots campaign. But when I say fact that's what I mean along with the majority of it's usage.
17-01-2020 05:15
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	OK
17-01-2020 05:47
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	tmiddles wrote: keepit wrote: Oh well, "interpretation" has worked for me .... Just so you know when I say "Fact" it's the dictionary definition of what is actually true. Don't redefine my wording for me. James___ wrote:In order for something to be a fact, it needs to be accepted as that. No that's totally false James. A fact may or may not be accepted but it remains. Once again gents the Dictionary: FACT noun something that actually exists; reality; truth: If you'd like it to mean something else you're welcome to start a grass roots campaign. But when I say fact that's what I mean along with the majority of it's usage. I think you've already started the grassroots movement yourself. I guess you didn't get what I was saying. Without application, they are only words in a book. And the truth is, that is reality. It's when you use something that you give it meaning. Kind of why itn can't define climate. He doesn't do anything where that matters so to him it means nothing. Unless he was seen near Snowflake, Az. Then he'd know that maintaining the right climate matters. It all depends on what he wants to grow.
17-01-2020 05:55
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	James___ wrote:...when you use something that you give it meaning.... Yes and we are always free to elaborate and clarify what we mean. Taking away the conventional meaning of a word without having a substitute word for the original meaning is simply an attempt to shut someone up (i.e. the classic ITN/IBD refrain of "define climate" ect.). Words are tools of communication. They only work when a speaker has an intended meaning known by the listener. My interpretation and understanding of the true facts related to global warming is evolving. I'm often wrong about the facts and misunderstand them. I hope to get closer to understanding the real facts but grasping reality can be a challenge so this is a process. But there is a truth to be known, there is a real right answer to what the facts are and to what is going on. Without a doubt no human has a complete understanding of those facts but they are there. If anyone wants to call what is really true something other than a fact please let me know so I'll realize that when I read your writing. Edited on 17-01-2020 05:56

Page 5 of 8

Join the debate man made or natural:

Threads	Replies	Last post
22 Reasons to be Skeptical of Man-Made Global Warming	47	24-04-2024 10:37
Burn Gasoline and Natural Gas To Fight Against Climate Change	25	04-01-2024 06:33
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