No one cares even if 97% of climate scientists think more CO2 causes warmer weather. Because of Galileo.

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > No one cares even if 97% of climate scientists think more CO2 causes warmer weather. Because of Galileo.

No one cares even if 97% of climate scientists think more CO2 causes warmer weather. Because of Galileo.24-02-2016 01:25
Tai Hai Chen ★★★★☆ (1085)	Science is not a democracy. Science is about objective observation. All laws and theories can only be formed from observation. If took one man to disprove thousands of years of scientific consensus that heavier things fall faster than lighter things. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sKX20WhKS4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Kv-U5tjNCY Edited on 24-02-2016 01:28
24-02-2016 02:19
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Actually, heavy things do tend to fall faster than light things. Try it. Drop a brick and a feather. What Galileo actually did was to apply the scientific method to falling objects for the first time and thus explain why heavy objects are usually observed to fall faster than light objects.
24-02-2016 03:17
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	Surface Detail wrote: Actually, heavy things do tend to fall faster than light things. Try it. Drop a brick and a feather. What Galileo actually did was to apply the scientific method to falling objects for the first time and thus explain why heavy objects are usually observed to fall faster than light objects. Try it. Drop a brick and the same sized and shaped chunk of lead. Feathers are aerodynamically quite different than bricks. That's why bricks fly and birds don't. .......um. 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
24-02-2016 05:17
Tai Hai Chen ★★★★☆ (1085)	Surface Detail wrote: Actually, heavy things do tend to fall faster than light things. Try it. Drop a brick and a feather. What Galileo actually did was to apply the scientific method to falling objects for the first time and thus explain why heavy objects are usually observed to fall faster than light objects. A feather falls slower than a brick due to air resistance and the materials the objects are made of. Two objects made of the same material will fall at the same rate even if one is heavier than the other. Back then people didn't know there is air.
24-02-2016 10:41
Surface Detail ★★★★☆ (1673)	Tai Hai Chen wrote: A feather falls slower than a brick due to air resistance and the materials the objects are made of. Not really. The important factors are their masses and and shapes. Two objects will fall through air at the same rate if they have the same mass and shape, even if they are made of different materials. Two objects made of the same material will fall at the same rate even if one is heavier than the other. Wrong. Razor blades and hammers are both made of steel. They won't fall through air at the same speed due to their different masses and shapes. Back then people didn't know there is air. No, course they didn't. That must be why they didn't invent sailing ships. Oh, wait...

24-02-2016 14:32
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14388)	Surface Detail wrote: Not really. The important factors are their masses and and shapes. You're certainly correct for the most part, but mere "shape" is not the right word. A heavy adult male parachuting airborne ranger who, while parachuting, drops a small lead figurine of an adult male parachuting airborne ranger of the exact same shape, will find that the small lead figurine does, in fact, plummet to the ground faster than the rate at which he floats to the ground. Mass per incident surface area for drag needs to be considered. Small quibble. Your main point is correct. . 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
19-04-2016 08:20
wmiddlemas ☆☆☆☆☆ (2)	Surface Detail wrote: Actually, heavy things do tend to fall faster than light things. Try it. Drop a brick and a feather. What Galileo actually did was to apply the scientific method to falling objects for the first time and thus explain why heavy objects are usually observed to fall faster than light objects. Wrong ! Drop a bowling ball and a marble and they will both fall at the same rate. Differences in the rate of fall are caused by air resistence not weight !
14-09-2016 00:59
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	Nooooo... Drop a feather made of titanium, and one made of spider silk. Which will fall faster?
14-09-2016 02:05
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	jwoodward48 wrote: Nooooo... Drop a feather made of titanium, and one made of spider silk. Which will fall faster? In a vacuum, neither. I like the idea of a titanium feather. Think how fireproof THAT bird would be! Spider silk feathers would suck. They would snag up and not rotate and slide across each other like they're supposed to. The poor bird couldn't zip them up from the usual damage either. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
14-09-2016 02:56
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	Sure. In a vacuum, everything falls at the same rate. The force of gravity increases with mass, as does inertia, so they cancel out, assuming that only the force of gravity acts on the object. Air resistance force is solely dependent on shape, etc., but the inertia of objects vary, and inertia is resistance to forces, including air resistance. You can imagine it sort of like this. A light object is like two people pulling lightly on a string. If a toddler comes along and yanks it, he'll probably win. But a heavy object is like a hundred grown men playing tug-of-war. Increased forces and increased resistance. The same toddler will have almost no effect.
14-09-2016 03:33
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	jwoodward48 wrote: Sure. In a vacuum, everything falls at the same rate. The force of gravity increases with mass, Glad we got this part straightened out. jwoodward48 wrote: as does inertia, Gravity does not increase with inertia. Inertia isn't even a force. It is just the effect of mass without acceleration. jwoodward48 wrote: so they cancel out, They do not cancel out. Inertia remains the same. It's just another way of saying mass. The speed of the falling object continues to build without restraint (until something stops it from falling). Inertia is the resistance of an object to change its motion. That is solely dependent on mass and mass alone. Inertia is the same whether an object is sitting still (relative to you), or moving at 100 miles an hour. jwoodward48 wrote: assuming that only the force of gravity acts on the object. Air resistance force is solely dependent on shape, etc. No, air resistance is dependent on quite a few factors. The density of the air (and it's temperature and humidity as a result). The profile of the shape presented to the oncoming airflow (which can change if the shape is rotating as it falls, as in a feather), the speed at which something is traveling through it, the texture of the shape (producing either laminar or nonlaminar airflow), the flexibility of the material (causing it to change its shape AND profile as it moves through the air), the center of mass and the center of resistance (which will cause the shape to tumble in a predictable way). It turns out air resistance is a complicated subject. That doesn't even include the temporary sideways force put on an object due to wind. jwoodward48 wrote: but the inertia of objects vary, and inertia is resistance to forces, Inertia is not a force. It is just mass without acceleration (hence force is zero). jwoodward48 wrote: including air resistance. Air resistance is, but as you can see, calculating the drag of an object is not such a simple thing. 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
14-09-2016 04:12
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	I may have been a bit unclear. Into the Night wrote: jwoodward48 wrote: Sure. In a vacuum, everything falls at the same rate. The force of gravity increases with mass, Glad we got this part straightened out. jwoodward48 wrote: as does inertia, Gravity does not increase with inertia. Inertia isn't even a force. It is just the effect of mass without acceleration. I never said that gravity increases with inertia. I said that gravity increases with mass, as does inertia. That is, inertia also increases with mass. jwoodward48 wrote: so they cancel out, They do not cancel out. Inertia remains the same. It's just another way of saying mass. The speed of the falling object continues to build without restraint (until something stops it from falling). Inertia is the resistance of an object to change its motion. That is solely dependent on mass and mass alone. Inertia is the same whether an object is sitting still (relative to you), or moving at 100 miles an hour. I meant that the inertia and the force of gravity cancel out when calculating the acceleration, resulting a flat 9.8 m/s2 if you ignore air resistance. jwoodward48 wrote: assuming that only the force of gravity acts on the object. Air resistance force is solely dependent on shape, etc. No, air resistance is dependent on quite a few factors. The density of the air (and it's temperature and humidity as a result). The profile of the shape presented to the oncoming airflow (which can change if the shape is rotating as it falls, as in a feather), the speed at which something is traveling through it, the texture of the shape (producing either laminar or nonlaminar airflow), the flexibility of the material (causing it to change its shape AND profile as it moves through the air), the center of mass and the center of resistance (which will cause the shape to tumble in a predictable way). It turns out air resistance is a complicated subject. That doesn't even include the temporary sideways force put on an object due to wind. ...of the considered variables, only shape affects the force of air resistance. I was assuming that air density, temperature, and humidity would be controlled for, since I'm used to science. Yes, air resistance is in fact incredibly complex, but I didn't think that the person I was arguing against could appreciate a dozen paragraphs on turbulence and such. I simplified the situation without actually stating that I had simplified it, which was indeed a mistake, but in a more complete argument I would recognize these factors. One-minute breaks from RL don't allow for that. jwoodward48 wrote: but the inertia of objects vary, and inertia is resistance to forces, Inertia is not a force. It is just mass without acceleration (hence force is zero). I never said that inertia was a force. I said that it was the property of resisting acceleration. It also happens to be entirely proportional to mass, and thus the latter is often used in its place, but to be truly pedantic, inertia is technically the word for "how hard it is to change its velocity". What I meant was that as the inertia of an object increases, a given force will have less effect on its velocity, thus having a lesser acceleration. This effect is proportional to the mass of the object. jwoodward48 wrote: including air resistance. Air resistance is, but as you can see, calculating the drag of an object is not such a simple thing. Indeed, my simplified argument was incorrect. I was merely less wrong, and in the right direction for such a short post and such a complex issue. I do not believe that you are opposed to me, though. We appear to agree, and to additionally share a liking for knowledge. Call it a misunderstanding or miscommunication? Edited on 14-09-2016 04:18
14-09-2016 05:52
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	Edit of last paragraph for clarity (why can't I still edit it?): "I don't think you're arguing against me in this thread, though. It also seems like we share some scientific interests. Can we call this a misunderstanding or miscommunication?"
14-09-2016 21:32
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	jwoodward48 wrote: I may have been a bit unclear. Into the Night wrote: jwoodward48 wrote: Sure. In a vacuum, everything falls at the same rate. The force of gravity increases with mass, Glad we got this part straightened out. jwoodward48 wrote: as does inertia, Gravity does not increase with inertia. Inertia isn't even a force. It is just the effect of mass without acceleration. I never said that gravity increases with inertia. I said that gravity increases with mass, as does inertia. That is, inertia also increases with mass. Fine. Then we understand each other. jwoodward48 wrote: jwoodward48 wrote: so they cancel out, They do not cancel out. Inertia remains the same. It's just another way of saying mass. The speed of the falling object continues to build without restraint (until something stops it from falling). Inertia is the resistance of an object to change its motion. That is solely dependent on mass and mass alone. Inertia is the same whether an object is sitting still (relative to you), or moving at 100 miles an hour. I meant that the inertia and the force of gravity cancel out when calculating the acceleration, resulting a flat 9.8 m/s2 if you ignore air resistance. No, it does not cancel out at all. Gravity is just gravity. It is always there, always pulling. As the two masses get closer, gravity between them increases. Gravity is a force that is constantly increasing the closer the two masses get. That force induces an acceleration that is also increasing. The speed of the falling mass continuously goes faster and faster. (Actually the other mass, the Earth itself would 'fall' upward toward the falling object as well, if our object were the only object falling. The movement would be so slight you can consider the Earth 'stationary' for practical purposes.) jwoodward48 wrote: jwoodward48 wrote: assuming that only the force of gravity acts on the object. Air resistance force is solely dependent on shape, etc. No, air resistance is dependent on quite a few factors. The density of the air (and it's temperature and humidity as a result). The profile of the shape presented to the oncoming airflow (which can change if the shape is rotating as it falls, as in a feather), the speed at which something is traveling through it, the texture of the shape (producing either laminar or nonlaminar airflow), the flexibility of the material (causing it to change its shape AND profile as it moves through the air), the center of mass and the center of resistance (which will cause the shape to tumble in a predictable way). It turns out air resistance is a complicated subject. That doesn't even include the temporary sideways force put on an object due to wind. ...of the considered variables, only shape affects the force of air resistance. I was assuming that air density, temperature, and humidity would be controlled for, since I'm used to science. Yes, air resistance is in fact incredibly complex, but I didn't think that the person I was arguing against could appreciate a dozen paragraphs on turbulence and such. I simplified the situation without actually stating that I had simplified it, which was indeed a mistake, but in a more complete argument I would recognize these factors. One-minute breaks from RL don't allow for that. First, air itself is not uniform. Controlling these factors is incredibly difficult. Second, no such imposition was placed on the experiment until now. Mostly, attempting to control all these variables is incredibly difficult. Some cannot be controlled at all. It's like being able to predict the dice roll on a craps table for hours on end. If you can do that, why would anyone mess around with falling objects in the lab? They should be at the casino! jwoodward48 wrote: jwoodward48 wrote: but the inertia of objects vary, and inertia is resistance to forces, Inertia is not a force. It is just mass without acceleration (hence force is zero). I never said that inertia was a force. I said that it was the property of resisting acceleration. It also happens to be entirely proportional to mass, and thus the latter is often used in its place, but to be truly pedantic, inertia is technically the word for "how hard it is to change its velocity". What I meant was that as the inertia of an object increases, a given force will have less effect on its velocity, thus having a lesser acceleration. This effect is proportional to the mass of the object. Here you hit on something that Lorentz and Einstein determined. Does mass change? They found out it does. Effective mass is dependent on the relative speed of an object. The faster the speed, the more mass the object has. Acceleration still occurs, just at a slower rate. The mass gets still faster...up to a point. That point is the speed of light. At that point, the mass is effectively infinite, and the force to make it go faster simply results in zero acceleration. No matter how hard you push (or pull), the object will not go any faster. Of course all this is relative. We are only talking about speed relative to you. If you were to ride that mass, or were to ride on a mass going at one half the speed of light, things would look quite different. This seeming paradox can only be properly viewed by using time as another dimension of movement. For practical distances of acceleration and viewpoints of falling objects, this effect can be ignored. jwoodward48 wrote: jwoodward48 wrote: including air resistance. Air resistance is, but as you can see, calculating the drag of an object is not such a simple thing. Indeed, my simplified argument was incorrect. I was merely less wrong, and in the right direction for such a short post and such a complex issue. I do not believe that you are opposed to me, though. We appear to agree, and to additionally share a liking for knowledge. Call it a misunderstanding or miscommunication? There are a few things we still disagree on, but we are communicating. That's the good part! 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
14-09-2016 23:25
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	jwoodward48 wrote: jwoodward48 wrote: so they cancel out, They do not cancel out. Inertia remains the same. It's just another way of saying mass. The speed of the falling object continues to build without restraint (until something stops it from falling). Inertia is the resistance of an object to change its motion. That is solely dependent on mass and mass alone. Inertia is the same whether an object is sitting still (relative to you), or moving at 100 miles an hour. I meant that the inertia and the force of gravity cancel out when calculating the acceleration, resulting a flat 9.8 m/s2 if you ignore air resistance. No, it does not cancel out at all. Gravity is just gravity. It is always there, always pulling. As the two masses get closer, gravity between them increases. Gravity is a force that is constantly increasing the closer the two masses get. That force induces an acceleration that is also increasing. The speed of the falling mass continuously goes faster and faster. (Actually the other mass, the Earth itself would 'fall' upward toward the falling object as well, if our object were the only object falling. The movement would be so slight you can consider the Earth 'stationary' for practical purposes.) It seems that I forgot to include the height from the Earth in my statement. At sea level, I meant, inertia and gravity are proportional, since they are both proportional to mass. Gravity does of course vary depending on distance (the inverse square of distance, in fact). jwoodward48 wrote: jwoodward48 wrote: assuming that only the force of gravity acts on the object. Air resistance force is solely dependent on shape, etc. No, air resistance is dependent on quite a few factors. The density of the air (and it's temperature and humidity as a result). The profile of the shape presented to the oncoming airflow (which can change if the shape is rotating as it falls, as in a feather), the speed at which something is traveling through it, the texture of the shape (producing either laminar or nonlaminar airflow), the flexibility of the material (causing it to change its shape AND profile as it moves through the air), the center of mass and the center of resistance (which will cause the shape to tumble in a predictable way). It turns out air resistance is a complicated subject. That doesn't even include the temporary sideways force put on an object due to wind. ...of the considered variables, only shape affects the force of air resistance. I was assuming that air density, temperature, and humidity would be controlled for, since I'm used to science. Yes, air resistance is in fact incredibly complex, but I didn't think that the person I was arguing against could appreciate a dozen paragraphs on turbulence and such. I simplified the situation without actually stating that I had simplified it, which was indeed a mistake, but in a more complete argument I would recognize these factors. One-minute breaks from RL don't allow for that. First, air itself is not uniform. Controlling these factors is incredibly difficult. Second, no such imposition was placed on the experiment until now. Mostly, attempting to control all these variables is incredibly difficult. Some cannot be controlled at all. It's like being able to predict the dice roll on a craps table for hours on end. If you can do that, why would anyone mess around with falling objects in the lab? They should be at the casino! This is hypothetical. Of course it's impossible to control air that well, but errors and uncontrolled other variables aren't part of what the person I was responding to was arguing. jwoodward48 wrote: jwoodward48 wrote: but the inertia of objects vary, and inertia is resistance to forces, Inertia is not a force. It is just mass without acceleration (hence force is zero). I never said that inertia was a force. I said that it was the property of resisting acceleration. It also happens to be entirely proportional to mass, and thus the latter is often used in its place, but to be truly pedantic, inertia is technically the word for "how hard it is to change its velocity". What I meant was that as the inertia of an object increases, a given force will have less effect on its velocity, thus having a lesser acceleration. This effect is proportional to the mass of the object. Here you hit on something that Lorentz and Einstein determined. Does mass change? They found out it does. Effective mass is dependent on the relative speed of an object. The faster the speed, the more mass the object has. Acceleration still occurs, just at a slower rate. The mass gets still faster...up to a point. That point is the speed of light. At that point, the mass is effectively infinite, and the force to make it go faster simply results in zero acceleration. No matter how hard you push (or pull), the object will not go any faster. Of course all this is relative. We are only talking about speed relative to you. If you were to ride that mass, or were to ride on a mass going at one half the speed of light, things would look quite different. This seeming paradox can only be properly viewed by using time as another dimension of movement. For practical distances of acceleration and viewpoints of falling objects, this effect can be ignored. I know I am not an expert on anything, not having completed college yet, but I have a good grasp of the basics of relativity. I was assuming, along with "no air turbulence" and "no significant macroscopic air movement," the simplification of "Euclidean space, Newtonian mechanics." jwoodward48 wrote: jwoodward48 wrote: including air resistance. Air resistance is, but as you can see, calculating the drag of an object is not such a simple thing. Indeed, my simplified argument was incorrect. I was merely less wrong, and in the right direction for such a short post and such a complex issue. I do not believe that you are opposed to me, though. We appear to agree, and to additionally share a liking for knowledge. Call it a misunderstanding or miscommunication? There are a few things we still disagree on, but we are communicating. That's the good part! Indeed! Also, as per my correction (no-edit is annoying), I meant "we appear to largely agree." Edited on 14-09-2016 23:36

15-09-2016 14:58
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14388)	jwoodward48 wrote:I know I am not an expert on anything, not having completed college yet, ... That reminded me of this ... . 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
15-09-2016 15:23
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	Oh, you're a self-important, nasty, positively vitriolic individual who revels in putting down other people? You must know everything.
15-09-2016 15:56
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14388)	jwoodward48 wrote: Oh, you're a self-important, nasty, positively vitriolic individual who revels in putting down other people? Was that a question? I believe you omitted quite a few standard science denier adjectives for those who understand science. jwoodward48 wrote:You must know everything. You should be taking notes instead of religiously denying science. What's your favorite prayer to "Climate"? What's your favorite "forcing" miracle? . 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
15-09-2016 23:19
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	I think that I am right and that science is on my side. You think that you are right and that science is on your side. Explain to me how I am religiously denying science.
15-09-2016 23:59
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14388)	jwoodward48 wrote: I think that I am right and that science is on my side. You think that you are right and that science is on your side. Explain to me how I am religiously denying science. Stefan-Boltzmann explains how temperature drives emission. You insist "greenhouse gas" has the magic superpower to control emission which then drives temperature AND that emission drives temperature in the wrong direction, i.e. a reduction in emission somehow causes increased temperature... ...and you deny the science because your religion demands it of you. Science, on the other hand, states that any decreased emission is the RESULT of decreased temperature. You assert increased temperature with decreased emission, despite staring at Stefan-Boltzmann telling you that's not possible. NOT POSSIBLE. You MUST deny the science because "greenhouse effect" depends on your mistaken understanding of decreased emission with increased temperature, ...and the "greenhouse effect" dogma is far more important to you than any science. It's science that you choose to kick to the curb. . 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
16-09-2016 00:44
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	So you're claiming that I'm biased? You are biased! Wow, look, your argument just went poof! One of us is biased, and engaging in mudslinging. The other one could be either biased (and also mudslinging) or unbiased. Since we're both doing that, peer from the veil of ignorance - how can you tell who is who? Therefore, arguments like that do not work. (Probably because they're a variation on ad hominem.) Let our hypotheses fight it out; let us not get to fisticuffs. That proves nothing. Edited on 16-09-2016 01:10
16-09-2016 01:10
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14388)	jwoodward48 wrote: So you're claiming that I'm biased? You wish. You're not merely "biased, " you are downright religiously indoctrinated. . 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
16-09-2016 01:10
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14388)	jwoodward48 wrote: So you're claiming that I'm biased? You wish. You're not merely "biased, " you are downright religiously indoctrinated. . 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
16-09-2016 01:14
jwoodward48 ★★★★☆ (1537)	No, you are. (Read my edit, btw, in case you haven't already.) This comes down to a schoolyard competition of speed-posting. Whoever can say "ur biased" first obviously has the better argument. No! That is not true. Whichever argument is better will win. This is nothing but an arms race of stealth ad hominems.
21-03-2017 16:40
litesong ★★★★★ (2297)	Into the Night wrote:Feathers are aerodynamically quite different than bricks. That's why bricks fly and birds don't. .......um. Astronauts, while on the moon, demonstrated that feathers & hammers DID fall at the same rate.... altho at the rate of the moon's surface gravity, not the Earth's surface gravity. As far as bricks flying, the standard 1960's joke was: the military squat F-4 fighter plane was proof that even a brick will fly if you give it enough power. Edited on 21-03-2017 16:47

Join the debate No one cares even if 97% of climate scientists think more CO2 causes warmer weather. Because of Galileo.:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Previous Panics by Scientists	0	27-03-2024 20:35
weather	27	27-02-2024 22:55
Fossil Fuel Substitution for reduced emission of CO2, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium..	392	01-12-2023 21:58
Proof That Too Much CO2 Is An Existential Threat	326	07-11-2023 19:16
Biden is starting WW3 by sending 3000 troops to Poland/Belarus border and no American media cares	11	17-08-2023 20:14