Read this and think

jwoodward48 wrote:
This refutes the most common arguments against AGW, including the LoT argument:

https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/15/co2-cant-have-that-effect-because/

jwoodward48 wrote: Back radiation is what causes Earth to not obey Planck's Law in aggregate. This "violation", as the article shows, is well supported by observation.

jwoodward48 wrote:
SB does not apply to aggregates. Planck does not apply to gases. You have not shown that they do.

jwoodward48 wrote: Yooooouuuuu have no prooooooof

jwoodward48 wrote: If you wrote a paper, you'd probably leave all the data and analysis out, with a note that says "Do your own science!"

jwoodward48 wrote: Refusing to give me any sources does not support your position. It weakens it.

jwoodward48 wrote: I also claim that I am using science. For us to move on, we need something other than "argument from assertion".

jwoodward48 wrote:
Yooooouuuuu have no prooooooof

Yoooouuuu are unfalsifiable

jwoodward48 wrote:
I also claim that I am using science. For us to move on, we need something other than "argument from assertion".

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Yooooouuuuu have no prooooooof

Yoooouuuu are unfalsifiable

This statement now officially puts you into a Strange Loop.

You are denying multiple levels of definitions of science, proof, falsifiability, and the requirements of falsifiability of scientific theories, what IBDaMann and I have told you (that you agreed to at one point), and the Turing test, that actually result in a denial of your statement here.

Congratulations. Few people get as far as the Strange Loop.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Yooooouuuuu have no prooooooof

Yoooouuuu are unfalsifiable

This statement now officially puts you into a Strange Loop.

You are denying multiple levels of definitions of science, proof, falsifiability, and the requirements of falsifiability of scientific theories, what IBDaMann and I have told you (that you agreed to at one point), and the Turing test, that actually result in a denial of your statement here.

Congratulations. Few people get as far as the Strange Loop.

I am denying your definition of science. I say it is wrong. Internet research stress with me.

I am denying your proofs - they are based on an incorrect assumption. They have also been falsified.

I am denying your statement that GW theory is unfalsifiable. It is falsifiable - we can measure the average global temperature to within a fraction of a degree of accuracy.

I am saying that you are wrong. Yes. I established this by saying that you are wrong. This is not an unscientific thing - dispute and consensus are the yin and yang of science.

What the hell does the Turing test have to do with anything? I'm not a computer. (At least, that's what you THINK!!)

A strange loop is a hierarchy that "loops around" from the top to the bottom. How am I a strange loop?

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Yooooouuuuu have no prooooooof

Yoooouuuu are unfalsifiable

This statement now officially puts you into a Strange Loop.

You are denying multiple levels of definitions of science, proof, falsifiability, and the requirements of falsifiability of scientific theories, what IBDaMann and I have told you (that you agreed to at one point), and the Turing test, that actually result in a denial of your statement here.

Congratulations. Few people get as far as the Strange Loop.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Yooooouuuuu have no prooooooof

Yoooouuuu are unfalsifiable

This statement now officially puts you into a Strange Loop.

You are denying multiple levels of definitions of science, proof, falsifiability, and the requirements of falsifiability of scientific theories, what IBDaMann and I have told you (that you agreed to at one point), and the Turing test, that actually result in a denial of your statement here.

Congratulations. Few people get as far as the Strange Loop.

Blimey, ITN, even by your standards that's quite some gobbledegook. You're in danger of failing the Turing test yourself. Time for a reboot!

Into the Night wrote:*snicker*

You obviously have no idea what is going on. But I knew that was the case already. You have now quite adequately demonstrated quite a few things:

You do not know what science is or how the scientific methods comes out of it. You also do not know where this definition comes from.

You do not know how probability, random number generation, or statistics work. In brief, you are quite illiterate in math.

You do not what data is or how to validate it.

You do not recognize the presence of a circular argument. Indeed, are illiterate of both formal and informal logic.

You do not know how the Turing test applies to your earlier statements.

You do not know what a Strange Loop is.

Your are arrogant. You do not know what you do not know.

You do not know several basic laws of physics. You apply them inconsistently or not at all and when you do apply them it is in a vague way.

Your own arrogance and the Church of Global Warming as done this to you.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:*snicker*

Snicker all you like, I don't mind.

You obviously have no idea what is going on. But I knew that was the case already. You have now quite adequately demonstrated quite a few things:

Really? Let's see.

You do not know what science is or how the scientific methods comes out of it. You also do not know where this definition comes from.

I do know what science is. The definition of science is more linguistic than scientific, though it is certainly relevant to science - and as a dabbling linguist, I can tell you this: the meaning of a word is what a number of people call it. Language can vary, language can change. Look up the origin of the word "quiz". That's one person making an entirely new word out of whole cloth.

Perhaps science once solely meant "the body of models," but it certainly doesn't just mean that anymore. I am using a perfectly valid definition of science. I even looked in some old textbooks - science is always defined as either a process or as a process plus the knowledge thus obtained.

jwoodward48 wrote:
[quoteYou do not know what a proof is. You also do not know what falsifiability is.

jwoodward48 wrote:

You do not know how probability, random number generation, or statistics work. In brief, you are quite illiterate in math.

I do know probability and statistics. Maybe not as well as calculus, but I do. (Seriously, man? You're telling the dude who passed Linear Algebra with flying As before high school that he's mathematically illiterate?)

jwoodward48 wrote:
(True RNG involve using chaotic natural phenomena like lightning, while deterministic RNGs apply a very lengthy but constant chain of transformations to a number that makes it almost random. This is irrelevant.)

jwoodward48 wrote:

You do not what data is or how to validate it.

How would I not know what data is? It's either qualitative or quantitative observation. Data validation... I've only ever heard of it in computer science, but I think you mean "making sure that the data accurately represents reality." I don't understand that part of science quite as well as other parts, but I still know it better than you do. Claiming that "geographically biased data can never be used" is utter nonsense. It just increases the error of the measurements relative to the true value.

jwoodward48 wrote:

You do not recognize the presence of a circular argument. Indeed, are illiterate of both formal and informal logic.

No, I'm being pedantic. Bias is not the same as a circular argument, but it is similar.

jwoodward48 wrote:

You do not know how the Turing test applies to your earlier statements.

We've never discussed AI at all. How would the Turing test apply?

jwoodward48 wrote:

You do not know what a Strange Loop is.

You know those Escher paintings where you walk up, but end up below where you started? That's a representation of a strange loop.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Your are arrogant. You do not know what you do not know.

1. That'd be "you are" or "you're". Not "you're".
2. Right back at you, bro. Dunning-Kruger.

jwoodward48 wrote:

You do not know several basic laws of physics. You apply them inconsistently or not at all and when you do apply them it is in a vague way.

I wouldn't call Planck's Law basic, and I'm still learning about it. Changing my statements based on new knowledge isn't being "inconsistent", it's intelligent.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Your own arrogance and the Church of Global Warming as done this to you.

1. That'd be "has", not "as".
2. That'd be "have," not "has".
3. Right back at you, bro, except that you are religiously following the conspiracy theories that support your ignoring science.

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:*snicker*

Snicker all you like, I don't mind.

You obviously have no idea what is going on. But I knew that was the case already. You have now quite adequately demonstrated quite a few things:

Really? Let's see.

You do not know what science is or how the scientific methods comes out of it. You also do not know where this definition comes from.

I do know what science is. The definition of science is more linguistic than scientific, though it is certainly relevant to science - and as a dabbling linguist, I can tell you this: the meaning of a word is what a number of people call it. Language can vary, language can change. Look up the origin of the word "quiz". That's one person making an entirely new word out of whole cloth.

Perhaps science once solely meant "the body of models," but it certainly doesn't just mean that anymore. I am using a perfectly valid definition of science. I even looked in some old textbooks - science is always defined as either a process or as a process plus the knowledge thus obtained.

As I said. You don't know what science is.

jwoodward48 wrote:

You do not know what a proof is. You also do not know what falsifiability is.

In science, there is no proof per se, just falsified or not falsified. However, for a theory to be accepted, it needs to be tested - and the existence of supporting data means that it could have been falsified but was not. This is the importance of supporting data.

The instant you start using supporting evidence to justify a theory, you are trying to prove that theory with supporting evidence.

jwoodward48 wrote:

You do not know how probability, random number generation, or statistics work. In brief, you are quite illiterate in math.

I do know probability and statistics. Maybe not as well as calculus, but I do. (Seriously, man? You're telling the dude who passed Linear Algebra with flying As before high school that he's mathematically illiterate?)

Yes. I am telling THAT dude. You are mathematically illiterate.

jwoodward48 wrote:
(True RNG involve using chaotic natural phenomena like lightning, while deterministic RNGs apply a very lengthy but constant chain of transformations to a number that makes it almost random. This is irrelevant.)

Further evidence you do not know what a random number actually is, or how they are generated.

jwoodward48 wrote:

You do not what data is or how to validate it.

How would I not know what data is? It's either qualitative or quantitative observation. Data validation... I've only ever heard of it in computer science, but I think you mean "making sure that the data accurately represents reality." I don't understand that part of science quite as well as other parts, but I still know it better than you do. Claiming that "geographically biased data can never be used" is utter nonsense. It just increases the error of the measurements relative to the true value.

Further evidence you don't know what data is. or how to validate it. Also further evidence you are illiterate in statistics, probability, and random numbers and their generation.

jwoodward48 wrote:

You do not recognize the presence of a circular argument. Indeed, are illiterate of both formal and informal logic.

No, I'm being pedantic. Bias is not the same as a circular argument, but it is similar.

Further evidence you have no idea what a circular argument is. Pedantic arguments and bias have nothing to do with them.

jwoodward48 wrote:

You do not know how the Turing test applies to your earlier statements.

We've never discussed AI at all. How would the Turing test apply?

By failing to recognize that you are talking to a human being on the other end of a post.

jwoodward48 wrote:

You do not know what a Strange Loop is.

You know those Escher paintings where you walk up, but end up below where you started? That's a representation of a strange loop.

That was the way Escher tried to represent them, but you don't realize you've effectively done the same thing. You are walking Escher's stair.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Your are arrogant. You do not know what you do not know.

1. That'd be "you are" or "you're". Not "you're".
2. Right back at you, bro. Dunning-Kruger.

Typo is irrelevant. If you want to play that game, we can play that game.

jwoodward48 wrote:

You do not know several basic laws of physics. You apply them inconsistently or not at all and when you do apply them it is in a vague way.

I wouldn't call Planck's Law basic, and I'm still learning about it. Changing my statements based on new knowledge isn't being "inconsistent", it's intelligent.

It's pretty basic, even if its derivation wasn't. I am referring to all laws, not just Planck's law.
You typically don't even acknowledge the laws of thermodynamics at all. You try to overrule them by using Planck's law or the S-B law.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Your own arrogance and the Church of Global Warming as done this to you.

1. That'd be "has", not "as".
2. That'd be "have," not "has".
3. Right back at you, bro, except that you are religiously following the conspiracy theories that support your ignoring science.

Again, the typo is irrelevant. Your tu quoque fallacy noted. Nothing changes my statement.

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:*snicker*

Snicker all you like, I don't mind.

You obviously have no idea what is going on. But I knew that was the case already. You have now quite adequately demonstrated quite a few things:

Really? Let's see.

You do not know what science is or how the scientific methods comes out of it. You also do not know where this definition comes from.

I do know what science is. The definition of science is more linguistic than scientific, though it is certainly relevant to science - and as a dabbling linguist, I can tell you this: the meaning of a word is what a number of people call it. Language can vary, language can change. Look up the origin of the word "quiz". That's one person making an entirely new word out of whole cloth.

Perhaps science once solely meant "the body of models," but it certainly doesn't just mean that anymore. I am using a perfectly valid definition of science. I even looked in some old textbooks - science is always defined as either a process or as a process plus the knowledge thus obtained.

As I said. You don't know what science is.[/quote

As you asserted, yes. Your assertion is noted. (And immediately thrown out because it has neither an explanation nor a justification, but... technically noted.)

jwoodward48 wrote:
[quoteYou do not know what a proof is. You also do not know what falsifiability is.

In science, there is no proof per se, just falsified or not falsified. However, for a theory to be accepted, it needs to be tested - and the existence of supporting data means that it could have been falsified but was not. This is the importance of supporting data.

The instant you start using supporting evidence to justify a theory, you are trying to prove that theory with supporting evidence.

...no? I'm not trying to prove it, I'm trying to show that it is very likely. Supporting data (i.e., testing that doesn't produce falsification) is crucial to a theory. If there's no data, it's unfalsifiable at the moment. If there's falsifying data, it's wrong. What's the only other case? Right, supporting data, which corresponds to a theory supported by current data.

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

You do not know how probability, random number generation, or statistics work. In brief, you are quite illiterate in math.

I do know probability and statistics. Maybe not as well as calculus, but I do. (Seriously, man? You're telling the dude who passed Linear Algebra with flying As before high school that he's mathematically illiterate?)

Yes. I am telling THAT dude. You are mathematically illiterate.

Against considerable evidence, you bravely assert my idiocy, only managing to prove your own.

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
(True RNG involve using chaotic natural phenomena like lightning, while deterministic RNGs apply a very lengthy but constant chain of transformations to a number that makes it almost random. This is irrelevant.)

Further evidence you do not know what a random number actually is, or how they are generated.

1. True RNGs cannot be constructed from within code, as computers are deterministic; they must take an outside source of chaotic data.
2. PseudoRNGs apply an algorithm to a constantly-changing value, commonly the system time, to produce a deterministic but nearly-random value.

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

You do not what data is or how to validate it.

How would I not know what data is? It's either qualitative or quantitative observation. Data validation... I've only ever heard of it in computer science, but I think you mean "making sure that the data accurately represents reality." I don't understand that part of science quite as well as other parts, but I still know it better than you do. Claiming that "geographically biased data can never be used" is utter nonsense. It just increases the error of the measurements relative to the true value.

Further evidence you don't know what data is. or how to validate it. Also further evidence you are illiterate in statistics, probability, and random numbers and their generation.

Further assertions that go against observation. (that'd be a comma, not a period) Further assertions with no explanation or justification.

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

You do not recognize the presence of a circular argument. Indeed, are illiterate of both formal and informal logic.

No, I'm being pedantic. Bias is not the same as a circular argument, but it is similar.

Further evidence you have no idea what a circular argument is. Pedantic arguments and bias have nothing to do with them.

What? You were saying that climate science is a circular argument. It isn't. That would be if, at the beginning of the analysis, the authors wrote "let us assume that GW is happening," never stopped assuming it, and concluded that GW is happening.

That's exactly what it is.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Now, a biased analysis, though? That's entirely possible... or it would be if scientists still eyeballed their lines of best fit.

Many of them do.

You do so yourself every time you try to justify a theory using supporting evidence.

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
[quote]You do not know how the Turing test applies to your earlier statements.

We've never discussed AI at all. How would the Turing test apply?

By failing to recognize that you are talking to a human being on the other end of a post.

I see that you are a human being, not an AI. How is this relevant? Is this a jab at how I'm socially incompetent? That I will admit.

But the Turing test is a way of testing whether an AI can appear human. Still irrelevant.

It is a jab at your social incompetence and the way you discard arguments out of hand.

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

You do not know what a Strange Loop is.

You know those Escher paintings where you walk up, but end up below where you started? That's a representation of a strange loop.

That was the way Escher tried to represent them, but you don't realize you've effectively done the same thing. You are walking Escher's stair.

How so? Assertions are just assertions until they have explanation and justification.

I am not going to write book of your problem here. It is in the posts you've already made.

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Your are arrogant. You do not know what you do not know.

1. That'd be "you are" or "you're". Not "you're".
2. Right back at you, bro. Dunning-Kruger.

Typo is irrelevant. If you want to play that game, we can play that game.

The grammar-pedant game? Sure. I love that game.

The game is a fallacy of redirection. It is often used with building strawman arguments as well.

The game is pointless.

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

You do not know several basic laws of physics. You apply them inconsistently or not at all and when you do apply them it is in a vague way.

I wouldn't call Planck's Law basic, and I'm still learning about it. Changing my statements based on new knowledge isn't being "inconsistent", it's intelligent.

It's pretty basic, even if its derivation wasn't. I am referring to all laws, not just Planck's law.
You typically don't even acknowledge the laws of thermodynamics at all. You try to overrule them by using Planck's law or the S-B law.

...you smoking something? I note how my explanations account for the LoT in almost every explanation I give that's longer than a paragraph. And I'm not the one fixated on how Planck's Law will solve every problem ever, that's IB.

You ignore them, violate them, and then say you are not violating them. That doesn't fly.

jwoodward48 wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:

Your own arrogance and the Church of Global Warming as done this to you.

1. That'd be "has", not "as".
2. That'd be "have," not "has".
3. Right back at you, bro, except that you are religiously following the conspiracy theories that support your ignoring science.

Again, the typo is irrelevant. Your tu quoque fallacy noted. Nothing changes my statement.

It's not a tu quoque fallacy to call someone a hypocrite.

No, stupid, you know nothing about [subject of discussion]. You are using the [random fallacy from random fallacy picker].

The Parrot Killer.

Surface Detail wrote:Blimey, ITN, even by your standards that's quite some gobbledegook. You're in danger of failing the Turing test yourself. Time for a reboot

Surface Detail wrote:It you don't understand the difference between the emission spectrum of a gas and blackbody emission, then you really need to do some reading. I'm afraid I don't have the time or inclination to educate you in basic physics. In the UK, this is taught at school science level to 15-year-olds. I suggest you kick off by googling "line spectrum".

Surface Detail wrote: ITN, I have a post template for you:

Surface Detail wrote: You don't understand. I'm from the UK and we're all frigging geniuses by age 15 and that means that you know nothing. Go do some basic reading and aspire to reach the level of a UK ten-year-old. Did I mention that here in the UK we're all frigging geniuses? You probably don't even understand what I'm writing.

Surface Detail wrote: So did you learn the difference between the emission spectrum of a gas and blackbody emission, then? Shall I test you?

jwoodward48 wrote:
STOP EVADING

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote: So did you learn the difference between the emission spectrum of a gas and blackbody emission, then? Shall I test you?

No. I'm just a regular American so I only received a mere mortal's education.

I'm a dummy.

We're going to have to go slowly and start from the beginning with the base Global Warming science model.

Please post it.

Surface Detail wrote:This is the beginning. You need to understand the basics of radiative physics in order to properly understand the greenhouse effect. It's like learning maths: you need to understand basic arithmetic before you can learn how to solve equations.

By the way, having met some very smart Americans, I don't think you can blame your ignorance on the American education system. Maybe you just weren't paying attention in class.

jwoodward48 wrote: There is no quantum mechanics equation.

jwoodward48 wrote: There is no chemistry equation.

jwoodward48 wrote:Why would you expect a climate science equation?

jwoodward48 wrote: I can give you AN equation, but not THE equation, as there is no THE equation.

jwoodward48 wrote:
As I JUST SAID, there is no single equation that describes chemistry! Stop being obtuse.

jwoodward48 wrote: As I JUST SAID, there is no single equation that describes chemistry! Stop being obtuse.