Nils-Axel Mörner

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Nils-Axel Mörner > Page 10

Page 10 of 10

24-05-2020 07:49
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	duncan61 wrote: Why do I believe this person?? If this is true the whole warming theory has gone up in smoke.Pun intended It's not really clear if you're quoting anyone there duncan. I think I gather you're implying that if someone is full of it then the cause they are attempting to advance is automatically false as well? I think Joseph McCarthy was a liar and a disgrace for pulling BS out of his own ass and ruining lives in the name of combating Russian interference in our democracy. I do not doubt that there was and is such interference though (I particularly like the show the The Americans on FX and don't doubt that there were similar event in real life). I also think there is a great deal of credible skepticism of and out right debunking of much of what is Climate Change gospel in our popular culture. That ITN and IBD are such crackpots does not change that at all. There is a phrase "don't blame the messenger", maybe this is "don't put the lawyer on trial".
24-05-2020 10:58
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Lindsay Little did her own research and found the temps where they were taken have gone slightly down her issue is the people stating hottest on record It was on the link you provided.Do you just disagree with ITN and IBDM for personal reasons.You can its a public forum
24-05-2020 12:50
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	duncan61 wrote:...found the temps ...have gone slightly down... Well as Pat Franks has you can can analyze the methods used and be critical of the level of confidence or conclusions. duncan61 wrote:Do you just disagree with ITN and IBDM for personal reasons. Not sure what you mean as none of us know each other. I don't think ITN or IBD are stupid or crazy. They know they are being dishonest and I find that repellent and extremely dangerous. I would say the exact same of Alex Jones, Qanon folks and all the conspiracy theorists who play this dangerous game (it's done on the left as well but nothing comes to mind). Covid-19, Climate Change or any issue where public confidence in and understanding of science is at issue is really important because it will impact not just what happens now but with the future as well. Sowing the seeds of doubt based on total crap is a disservice to human progress and sanity. Most of all it's a disservice to science. We should be skeptical of all science using the scientific method. It's how we learn it in school and how it's practiced every day. There is a lot of quality work done in this area of skepticism of AGW and none of it get's discussed on this board. Pat Franks work is one example of many. But maybe we can change that we'll see.
24-05-2020 22:05
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: duncan61 wrote: Why do I believe this person?? If this is true the whole warming theory has gone up in smoke.Pun intended It's not really clear if you're quoting anyone there duncan. I think I gather you're implying that if someone is full of it then the cause they are attempting to advance is automatically false as well? I think Joseph McCarthy was a liar and a disgrace for pulling BS out of his own ass and ruining lives in the name of combating Russian interference in our democracy. Joe McCarthy was not a liar, and he was not pulling BS out of is his own ass. He was not combating Russian interference in the United States. He was combating socialism in the United States. The United States is not a democracy and never was. The Democrats were 'combating Russian interference in the United States' by making shit up about Republicans (especially Trump), ruining a lot of lives with their false accusations. Inversion fallacy. History revisionism. Mantras 17...21. tmiddles wrote: I do not doubt that there was and is such interference though (I particularly like the show the The Americans on FX and don't doubt that there were similar event in real life). TV is not real life. Mantra 4b. tmiddles wrote: I also think there is a great deal of credible skepticism of and out right debunking of much of what is Climate Change gospel in our popular culture. Define 'climate change'. Mantra 22b. tmiddles wrote: That ITN and IBD are such crackpots does not change that at all. Bulverism fallacy. Mantra 5. tmiddles wrote: There is a phrase "don't blame the messenger", maybe this is "don't put the lawyer on trial". You are not the "messenger". You are simply denying science, history, and mathematics. Mantra 3. No argument presented. Wandering off topic (again). Bulverism. Attempt to change history. Inversion fallacy. RQAA. Conflation of unrelated topics. 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
24-05-2020 22:17
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: duncan61 wrote:...found the temps ...have gone slightly down... Well as Pat Franks has you can can analyze the methods used and be critical of the level of confidence or conclusions. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Mantra 25c. tmiddles wrote: duncan61 wrote:Do you just disagree with ITN and IBDM for personal reasons. Not sure what you mean as none of us know each other. Your bulverism is obvious. Mantra 5. tmiddles wrote: I don't think ITN or IBD are stupid or crazy. You have said just the opposite. Paradox. Mantra 1. tmiddles wrote: They know they are being dishonest Inversion fallacy. Mantra 17. It is YOU that is conflating topic, making shit up, denying science, denying mathematics, denying history, insulting people, and trying to preach your religion as 'science'. tmiddles wrote: and I find that repellent and extremely dangerous. Define 'global warming'. Pascal's Wager fallacy. Mantra 19. tmiddles wrote: I would say the exact same of Alex Jones, Qanon folks and all the conspiracy theorists who play this dangerous game (it's done on the left as well but nothing comes to mind). Mantras 5...19... tmiddles wrote: Covid-19, Climate Change or any issue where public confidence in and understanding of science is at issue is really important because it will impact not just what happens now but with the future as well. Mantra 19. tmiddles wrote: Sowing the seeds of doubt based on total crap is a disservice to human progress and sanity. Most of all it's a disservice to science. Mantra 17. You are describing yourself again. tmiddles wrote: We should be skeptical of all science using the scientific method. There is no such thing as 'the scientific method'. Science is not a 'method' or a 'procedure'. tmiddles wrote: It's how we learn it in school and how it's practiced every day. You learned nothing in school except how to read and write on a low level. School is not a definition of 'science' either. tmiddles wrote: There is a lot of quality work done in this area of skepticism of AGW and none of it get's discussed on this board. Define 'global warming'. tmiddles wrote: Pat Franks work is one example of many. But maybe we can change that we'll see. Mantra 3. Your religion is false. No argument presented. Mantra 10 (science<->religion). Buzzword fallacies. Pascal's Wager fallacies. Bulverism fallacies. 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

25-05-2020 01:40
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: Joe McCarthy was not a liar, ... In February 1950 he claimed he had a list, he actually said he had 205 names, of "members of the Communist Party and members of a spy ring" who were employed in the State Department. It's been a few years. Freedom of information act is the law. Where is the list? You accept it on faith? Into the Night wrote: Define 'climate change'... Define 'global warming'. Increase in the mean ground level temp on Earth. Into the Night wrote:It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. And gfm7175 wrote: I have no clue what the temperature of my house is. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: No one can know the temperature of Denver. He's absolutely correct.... Dishonest response ITN. You don't think temperature can be known for anything. So say that. Not: " It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth." but rather "It is not possible to measure the temperature of anything" "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN Edited on 25-05-2020 01:46
25-05-2020 04:39
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: Joe McCarthy was not a liar, ... In February 1950 he claimed he had a list, he actually said he had 205 names, of "members of the Communist Party and members of a spy ring" who were employed in the State Department. It's been a few years. Freedom of information act is the law. Where is the list? You accept it on faith? The Communist Party is not Russia, dumbass. Many on the list were communists. Many in government today are communists. I guess you forgot about Bernie already. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: Define 'climate change'... Define 'global warming'. Increase in the mean ground level temp on Earth. Circular definition. You can't define a word with itself. Mantras 10e...39n...39g... tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Dishonest response ITN. You don't think temperature can be known for anything. You don't get to speak for me. You only get to speak for yourself. I have already given several examples of knowing the temperature of a thing. Mantras 9a...29...39k... tmiddles wrote: So say that. Not: " It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth." but rather "It is not possible to measure the temperature of anything" Mantra 9a...29...39k... No argument presented. 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
25-05-2020 11:23
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: In February 1950 he claimed he had a list, ... ...Many on the list were communists. What list?? There WAS NO LIST ITN. He was full of it. He was a liar. So what are you talking about? Alex Jones claim to have the list? Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:... Define 'global warming'. Increase in the mean ground level temp on Earth. Circular definition. OK you define "body temperature" for a human and then explain to me how your definition is not circular. Then you can give me a definition for the tasty treat the Hot Pocket and see how you manage to avoid a circular definition there. Repeated Question Already Avoided Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Dishonest response ITN. You don't think temperature can be known for anything. ...I have already given several examples of knowing the temperature of a thing. LIAR! You always play this game "I told you that one time". You are full of it. You never did. Hey ITN, how about just one name from Joe's list you're willing to share
25-05-2020 20:41
JackFou ★☆☆☆☆ (114)	IBdaMann wrote: JackFou wrote: Can electromagnetic energy emitted by CO2 in the atmosphere be absorbed and converted into thermal energy by the surface of the earth, yes or no? It can. Yes. Okay, great! So maybe we can figure this whole thing out together: Without any IR active gases in the atmosphere, the surface of the earth just emits exactly as much radiance into space as it receives from the sun, right? I hope there is no disagreement there. So what happens when we add IR active gases to the atmosphere? Some of the blackbody radiation emitted by the surface of the earth gets absorbed by those gases while the rest makes it into space. What happens to the energy that got absorbed by the IR active gases? Some of it is just converted to thermal energy through collisions with other air molecules. Some other portion is sent out as radiation, in all directions, including down towards the surface of the earth. The radiation emitted by the IR active gas molecules that reaches the surface of the earth is absorbed and converted to thermal energy by the surface as we just agreed. So where does this lead us? In the situation with the IR active gases, the surface of the earth receives more incoming radiance than in the situation without the gases in the atmosphere. We can actually measure this effect as an increase in intensity of IR radiation from the atmosphere towards earth over time due to increasing concentrations of IR active gases in the atmosphere. This has been demonstrated both in the field and in the lab. More incoming radiance must mean more outgoing radiance. More outgoing radiance means a higher temperature according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Does this mean that global warming is real? I don't know... do you think a temperature increase leads to increased temperatures? IBdaMann wrote: But you are wasting time, which is the reason you are being avoided. It's not your question, it's you. You are wasting time and bandwidth. Your entire question is predicated on subdividing the atomic unit and is denying blackbody science, which puts you in the category of science denier. I'm not quite sure what you mean with either "subdividing the atomic unit" or "blackbody science". The atom, despite its name, is indeed made up if smaller parts such as electrons, protons and neutrons, some of which are themselves again made up of even smaller parts. If you want to understand physical processes on the atomic level, you need to deal with these subdivisions. "Blackbody science" is not a term I can really place anywhere. Do you just mean "thermodynamics"? Or are you referring to the laws of blackbody radiation like the Stefan-Boltzmann law? The thing is, there might be something deeper to understand in physics than just the face-value behaviour of macroscopic objects. Those objects, including blackbodies, are made up of atoms which dictate their properties. Properties such as colour, volume or temperature are emergent properties of large ensembles of individual atoms interacting with each other. The behaviour of atoms and subatomic particles like electrons are governed by the laws of quantum mechanics. These particles dictate the behaviour of large scale objects, including blackbodies. For macroscopic objects, we can approximate their properties to a very good degree by looking at averages just like newtonian mechanics works just fine on a macroscopic scale. Nonetheless, the quantum mechanical behaviour of atoms and molecules dictates everything, even "blackbody science". IBdaMann wrote: So I'll tell you what. I won't ignore your questions if you won't ignore mine? Deal? Works for me. I'm not actively trying to ignore any of your questions but due to the length of some of the comments I can't always respond to everything. Snarky remarks and insults and the like are also generally ignored. Furthermore, I'd prefer if you were asking good-faith questions as I'm not going to engage with strawman arguments. IBdaMann wrote: In fact, I will tell you up front, you are arguing for Global Warming, ergo you are arguing that an increase in temperature occurs. Ergo, my two question are these: 1) exactly when does the increase in temperature occur? 2) from where does this NEW energy come that is needed to increase the temperature? 1) I'm not sure about what you mean by "when". Which process exactly do you want me to time for you? The best answer I can give you is "whenever you're adding IR active gases to the atmosphere". 2) First of all, you don't need "new" energy per se to increase temperature. Temperature is not a conserved quantity. Different materials have different heat capacities and if I bring two bodies of different temperature in contact, their equilibrium temperature is not necessarily the arithmetic mean of the two starting temperatures. I could also point out that planet earth is not an isolated system but an open system. The sun plus earth plus space is an isolated system (as far as anyone can tell anyway). So while the total energy in the whole universe must stay constant, the amount of that energy located within the open system "earth" does not need to stay constant. However, to actually answer the question: Any energy that heats the surface of the earth comes from the sun, one way or another.
26-05-2020 00:45
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: In February 1950 he claimed he had a list, ... ...Many on the list were communists. What list?? There WAS NO LIST ITN. He was full of it. He was a liar. So what are you talking about? Alex Jones claim to have the list? There was a list. I don't give a shit about Alex Jones. Mantra 21. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:... Define 'global warming'. Increase in the mean ground level temp on Earth. Circular definition. OK you define "body temperature" for a human and then explain to me how your definition is not circular. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: Then you can give me a definition for the tasty treat the Hot Pocket and see how you manage to avoid a circular definition there. Never had one or saw one. Can't describe one. I assume it's some sort of snack. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Dishonest response ITN. You don't think temperature can be known for anything. ...I have already given several examples of knowing the temperature of a thing. LIAR! You always play this game "I told you that one time". You are full of it. You never did. Lie. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: Hey ITN, how about just one name from Joe's list you're willing to share I don't have the list. RQAA. A modern list? Nancy Pelosi (not declared). Bernie Sanders (declared). You (not declared). This happens to be part of my list. 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
26-05-2020 01:20
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	JackFou wrote: IBdaMann wrote: JackFou wrote: Can electromagnetic energy emitted by CO2 in the atmosphere be absorbed and converted into thermal energy by the surface of the earth, yes or no? It can. Yes. Okay, great! So maybe we can figure this whole thing out together: Mantra 6. JackFou wrote: Without any IR active gases in the atmosphere, the surface of the earth just emits exactly as much radiance into space as it receives from the sun, right? I hope there is no disagreement there. Gasses that absorb IR make no difference. False conditional. Strawman fallacy. Mantra 20b1... JackFou wrote: So what happens when we add IR active gases to the atmosphere? Nothing. No gas or vapor can create energy out of nothing. Mantra 20a1. JackFou wrote: Some of the blackbody radiation emitted by the surface of the earth gets absorbed by those gases while the rest makes it into space. They radiate too. Mantra 20b5. JackFou wrote: What happens to the energy that got absorbed by the IR active gases? They radiate out in to space just like the surface. Mantra 20b5. JackFou wrote: Some of it is just converted to thermal energy through collisions with other air molecules. Which also radiate out into space, just like the surface. Mantra 20b5. JackFou wrote: Some other portion is sent out as radiation, in all directions, including down towards the surface of the earth. The radiation emitted by the IR active gas molecules that reaches the surface of the earth is absorbed and converted to thermal energy by the surface as we just agreed. You cannot heat a warmer object with a colder one. Light is not heat. Mantras 20a2...20q...20q2...20g... JackFou wrote: So where does this lead us? The same place it always leaves you: denying science. * you cannot trap heat. * you cannot trap light. * you cannot trap thermal energy. JackFou wrote: In the situation with the IR active gases, the surface of the earth receives more incoming radiance than in the situation without the gases in the atmosphere. That is creating energy out of nothing again. Mantra 20a1. No gas can create more energy then what was absorbed. JackFou wrote: We can actually measure this effect as an increase in intensity of IR radiation from the atmosphere towards earth over time due to increasing concentrations of IR active gases in the atmosphere. Light is not heat. Mantra 20g...20q1...20q2... JackFou wrote: This has been demonstrated both in the field and in the lab. So you fall for this parlor trick as well. Absorption does not create energy. Mantra 20a1. JackFou wrote: More incoming radiance must mean more outgoing radiance. More outgoing radiance means a higher temperature according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. There is no sequence. Mantra 20b3. JackFou wrote: Does this mean that global warming is real? I don't know... do you think a temperature increase leads to increased temperatures? Define 'global warming'. Mantra 22a. JackFou wrote: IBdaMann wrote: But you are wasting time, which is the reason you are being avoided. It's not your question, it's you. You are wasting time and bandwidth. Your entire question is predicated on subdividing the atomic unit and is denying blackbody science, which puts you in the category of science denier. I'm not quite sure what you mean with either "subdividing the atomic unit" or "blackbody science". Because you deny science. JackFou wrote: The atom, despite its name, is indeed made up if smaller parts such as electrons, protons and neutrons, some of which are themselves again made up of even smaller parts. If you want to understand physical processes on the atomic level, you need to deal with these subdivisions. Strawman fallacy. The macro world, as you put it, is made up of atoms, including their protons, neutrons, and electrons. JackFou wrote: "Blackbody science" is not a term I can really place anywhere. Do you just mean "thermodynamics"? Or are you referring to the laws of blackbody radiation like the Stefan-Boltzmann law? Both. JackFou wrote: The thing is, there might be something deeper to understand in physics than just the face-value behaviour of macroscopic objects. Those objects, including blackbodies, are made up of atoms which dictate their properties. Properties such as colour, volume or temperature are emergent properties of large ensembles of individual atoms interacting with each other. The behaviour of atoms and subatomic particles like electrons are governed by the laws of quantum mechanics. These particles dictate the behaviour of large scale objects, including blackbodies. For macroscopic objects, we can approximate their properties to a very good degree by looking at averages just like newtonian mechanics works just fine on a macroscopic scale. Nonetheless, the quantum mechanical behaviour of atoms and molecules dictates everything, even "blackbody science". You deny quantum mechanics. You also deny the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. JackFou wrote: IBdaMann wrote: So I'll tell you what. I won't ignore your questions if you won't ignore mine? Deal? Works for me. I'm not actively trying to ignore any of your questions but due to the length of some of the comments I can't always respond to everything. Snarky remarks and insults and the like are also generally ignored. Furthermore, I'd prefer if you were asking good-faith questions as I'm not going to engage with strawman arguments. Lie. You are making a strawman argument right now. You've made several in this post of yours alone. JackFou wrote: IBdaMann wrote: In fact, I will tell you up front, you are arguing for Global Warming, ergo you are arguing that an increase in temperature occurs. Ergo, my two question are these: 1) exactly when does the increase in temperature occur? 2) from where does this NEW energy come that is needed to increase the temperature? 1) I'm not sure about what you mean by "when". Describe two points in time for this 'change' to occur. Describe why those two points in time are significant, and describe why any other two points in time are not significant. JackFou wrote: Which process exactly do you want me to time for you? Define 'global warming. Mantra 22a. JackFou wrote: The best answer I can give you is "whenever you're adding IR active gases to the atmosphere". Not a point in time or a time reference. Strawman fallacy. Try again. JackFou wrote: 2) First of all, you don't need "new" energy per se to increase temperature. Yes you do. Mantra 20a1. JackFou wrote: Temperature is not a conserved quantity. Energy is a conserved quantity. Mantra 20a1. JackFou wrote: Different materials have different heat capacities and if I bring two bodies of different temperature in contact, their equilibrium temperature is not necessarily the arithmetic mean of the two starting temperatures. At equilibrium, the combined total energy stays the same. JackFou wrote: I could also point out that planet earth is not an isolated system but an open system. It is one isolated system. It is closed. You cannot consider any energy source or sink from outside that system. JackFou wrote: The sun plus earth plus space is an isolated system (as far as anyone can tell anyway). The Sun-Earth-space system is isolated. It is closed. You cannot consider any energy source or sink from outside that system. JackFou wrote: So while the total energy in the whole universe must stay constant, the amount of that energy located within the open system "earth" does not need to stay constant. The observable universe is an isolated system. It is closed. You cannot consider any energy source or sink from outside that system. JackFou wrote: However, to actually answer the question: Any energy that heats the surface of the earth comes from the sun, one way or another. Again attempting to compare two different systems as the same system. Mantra 20h...20i... Sorry, dude. If you are going to use Earth as the isolated system, you cannot consider the Sun or space. Again, no gas or vapor in Earth's atmosphere is capable of creating energy. Mantra 20a1. Your entire argument is based on trying to declare a closed system as open, and by comparing two different systems as if they are the same system. You are trying to create energy in a system. No possible. You are also trying to decrease entropy in a system. Not possible. 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
26-05-2020 01:25
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	JackFou wrote: Okay, great! So maybe we can figure this whole thing out together: It's looking like you won't be able. You still seem determined to waste everyone's time as a means to mask the fact that you cannot reasonably explain why any rational person should believe your religious dogma. JackFou wrote: Without any IR active gases in the atmosphere, the surface of the earth just emits blah, blah, blah .... [discussion on electromagnetic radiation deleted in the hopes of focusing on thermal energy] JackFou wrote: More incoming radiance must mean more outgoing radiance. More outgoing radiance means a higher temperature according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. This is a true statement that omits the key component (in this order): 1) more incoming power means ... 2) more thermal energy which means ... 3) higher temperature which means ... 4) more outgoing radiance. JackFou wrote: Does this mean that global warming is real? It supports neither Global Warming nor Greenhouse Effect which both violate physics by claiming: 1) Greenhouse Gas doesn't affect the amount of incoming power 2) nonetheless there is somehow more thermal energy (violation of 1st LoT) 3) thus there is a higher temperature 4) because there is less outgoing radiance escaping to space (violation of Stefan-Boltzmann). JackFou wrote: I'm not quite sure what you mean with either "subdividing the atomic unit" or "blackbody science". Which is why you have no business in this conversation. You are wasting time. Learn these models in this order: Plack's Law Kirchoff's Law of Thermal Radiation Stefan-Boltzmann Wein's Law Then review the laws of thermodynamics because you seriously need to brush up on those. When you can adhere to all of the above models, you can adhere to science and you won't be wasting time insisting that physics works in ways contrary to these models. JackFou wrote: The thing is, there might be something deeper to understand in physics than just the face-value behaviour of macroscopic objects. Nope. There is no deep religious message to be found. Classical physics thoroughly covers these topics and does a great job of explaining why your religion is a sham that targets gullible, scientifically illiterate losers who are desperate to become members of the Justice League and save the planet from the impending doom imposed by their arch-nemeses, i.e. conservatives and libertarians. What? You didn't realize that psychology falls under classical physics? You're right. it doesn't. JackFou wrote: The behaviour of atoms and subatomic particles like electrons are governed by the laws of quantum mechanics. You mean the mathematical equations of quantum mechanics. There is only one "law," if you can call it that, of quantum mechanics, i.e. the more you know about a particle's position, the less you know about its momentum, and vice-versa. Everything else is just statistical mathematics and probability calculations. JackFou wrote: Works for me. I'm not actively trying to ignore any of your questions but due to the length of some of the comments I can't always respond to everything. You are not answering my questions. I'm extending to you the courtesy of pin-pointing the exact violations of physics in your religious beliefs. You can do with that what you will but if you don't help me then I can't help you. JackFou wrote: Furthermore, I'd prefer if you were asking good-faith questions as I'm not going to engage with strawman arguments. Answer all of my questions or stop wasting my time. You do not get to judge my questions. It will be your responsibility to remember in all of this that nowhere in the universe does temperature spontaneously increase without additional energy, i.e. additional energy is required for temperature to increase. Ergo, if you or anyone indicates that a temperature has increased then it is equivalent to having stated that the amount of energy increased. Do not forget this. So, your belief entails an increase in the earth's average global temperature. I want you to explain to me how the temperature increases, specifically how the increased amount of thermal energy comes to exist in order to have that increased temperature. I will grant you that electromagnetic energy is emitting from every particle in all directions and that the earth has photons galore of all types flying in all different directions. You do not need to cover any of this, it is all granted. Stay focused on the temperature increase, the when and where. JackFou wrote: 1) I'm not sure about what you mean by "when". Of course not. It's only one of the most basic words in the English language. [find-DEBUNKGREENHOUSEEFFECT1]. 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
26-05-2020 04:49
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: In February 1950 he claimed he had a list, ... ...Many on the list were communists. What list?? There WAS NO LIST ITN. He was full of it. He was a liar. So what are you talking about? Alex Jones claim to have the list? There was a list. OK what happened to it? Pretty important list so I would have had copies and kept it safe. Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote:OK you define "body temperature" f RQAA. BS and i will prove it: link Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:Define 'global warming'. 'global warming' is an increase in the mean annual temperature of Earth at the bottom of the atmosphere. Circular definition. You cannot define a word with itself. So "Core Body Temperature" is the temperature of a bodies internal organs. Is that also a circular definition? Mantra 15...16b... Neither Mantra 15 nor 16b are definitions for "core body temperature" which you have never responded to ITN. 15) Pivot Fallacy or Non-sequitur Statement 16) Contextomy Fallacy b) off topic wanderings So you have yet to answer ITN. As usual. Edited on 26-05-2020 04:58
26-05-2020 13:58
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	I am going to Fremantle tomorrow.I shall have a look at the sea levels and let you all know how we are going
27-05-2020 02:48
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: In February 1950 he claimed he had a list, ... ...Many on the list were communists. What list?? There WAS NO LIST ITN. He was full of it. He was a liar. So what are you talking about? Alex Jones claim to have the list? There was a list. OK what happened to it? Who cares? I assume if it exists as a written list at all, it might be part of his personal papers. tmiddles wrote: Pretty important list so I would have had copies and kept it safe. It's not important. Mantra 26. tmiddles wrote: Neither Mantra 15 nor 16b are definitions for "core body temperature" which you have never responded to ITN. Lie. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: 15) Pivot Fallacy or Non-sequitur Statement 16) Contextomy Fallacy b) off topic wanderings So you have yet to answer ITN. As usual. Lie. RQAA. No argument presented. Off topic wanderings. 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

27-05-2020 10:23
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: ...He was full of it. He was a liar. ... Who cares? I assume if it exists as a written list at all, it might be part of his personal papers. A lot of people care about McCarthyism. The BS of pretending he had a list is one of the most infamous lies in our country's history. It was the kind of Alex Jones style conspiracy theory that's reminicent of the Salem Witch trials. He was called out on it directly and had a very strong motive to produce the evidence he claimed to have. You simply pretend something highly unlikely is a fact because you like it?
27-05-2020 20:49
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: ...He was full of it. He was a liar. ... Who cares? I assume if it exists as a written list at all, it might be part of his personal papers. A lot of people care about McCarthyism. You don't get to speak for 'a lot of people'. You only get to speak for you. Irrelevance fallacy. tmiddles wrote: The BS of pretending he had a list is one of the most infamous lies in our country's history. He had a list. Just like my list. tmiddles wrote: It was the kind of Alex Jones style conspiracy theory that's reminicent of the Salem Witch trials. You are a witch. You're on my list. tmiddles wrote: He was called out on it directly and had a very strong motive to produce the evidence he claimed to have. Evidence is not a list. A list is not evidence. Redefinition fallacy. Mantra 10. tmiddles wrote: You simply pretend something highly unlikely is a fact because you like it? Irrelevance fallacy. You do like to chase down irrelevant things, don'cha? 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
27-05-2020 22:47
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: He had a list. Just like my list. McCarthy was very specific about what he supposedly had on a list. Why do you believe him?
28-05-2020 00:30
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: He had a list. Just like my list. McCarthy was very specific about what he supposedly had on a list. Why do you believe him? For the same reason I am very specific about what I have on my list. 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
29-05-2020 06:50
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: He had a list. Just like my list. McCarthy was very specific about what he supposedly had on a list. Why do you believe him? For the same reason I am very specific about what I have on my list. Why do you have faith that McCarthy was honest?
29-05-2020 06:54
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: He had a list. Just like my list. McCarthy was very specific about what he supposedly had on a list. Why do you believe him? For the same reason I am very specific about what I have on my list. Why do you have faith that McCarthy was honest? Mantra 26. 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

Page 10 of 10

Join the debate Nils-Axel Mörner: