Remember me
▼ Content

Read this and think



Page 1 of 212>
Read this and think21-09-2016 06:19
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/07/24/the-amazing-case-of-back-radiation-part-two/

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.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
Edited on 21-09-2016 06:26
21-09-2016 07:10
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
This refutes the most common arguments against AGW, including the LoT argument:

https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/15/co2-cant-have-that-effect-because/
21-09-2016 14:11
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3877)
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/

Nope. No amount of convolution can transform a violation of physics into science.

What on earth made you post this? What in it convinced you it was of any value?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
21-09-2016 14:16
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3877)
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.

This article suffers from the same problems. Stefan-Boltzmann blows this out of the water as well.

Do you somehow fear the authors of these articles? Why don't you contact them and throw Stefan-Boltzmann at them? Websites cannot be cross-examined. Just one error is enough for them to be dismissed.

Your websites are dismissed.

Bring the authors to this discussion. I'll be happy to pick them apart for you.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
21-09-2016 14:22
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
SB does not apply to aggregates. Planck does not apply to gases. You have not shown that they do.
21-09-2016 14:24
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3877)
jwoodward48 wrote:
SB does not apply to aggregates. Planck does not apply to gases. You have not shown that they do.

I have no intention of validating any science for you. I am content to let you deny science all day and all night. You are apparently content to allow your religion to remain an unsupported, unfalsifiable religion, all day and all night.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
21-09-2016 14:30
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Yooooouuuuu have no prooooooof

Yoooouuuu are unfalsifiable
21-09-2016 14:40
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3877)
jwoodward48 wrote: Yooooouuuuu have no prooooooof


So we agree that neither Global Warming nor the Christian "God" can be proven true nor proven false.

Can we close this one out?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
21-09-2016 14:48
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
No.

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

Refusing to give me any sources does not support your position. It weakens it.
21-09-2016 14:55
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3877)
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!"

This is absurd. If I were to write a paper, I would include all the information.

If I were to develop a science model, there would be no observations/data captured.

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

My position is science. Refusing to validate it for you does not weaken it.

Shall we discuss Stefan-Boltzmann? You are welcome to bring your egregious denial to the discussion.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
21-09-2016 15:41
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
I also claim that I am using science. For us to move on, we need something other than "argument from assertion".
21-09-2016 20:20
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3877)
jwoodward48 wrote: I also claim that I am using science. For us to move on, we need something other than "argument from assertion".

No, not at all. Your assertions, which are standard regurgitations from warmizombie websites, are amusing and worth the price of admission. I don't want them disappearing.

Regarding the science I present, you could otherwise learn it were you not summarily dismissing any and all science that runs counter to your religious beliefs. Your denial is truly legendary.

I say we take a moment to reflect on where we are. There's no Global Warming science. There's no "Climate" science. Stefan-Boltzmann shoots down most versions of "greenhouse effect" (including yours).


Where shall we go from here?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
21-09-2016 20:27
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Hypocrite. You're using argument from assertion as much as I am.

SB does not apply to aggregates. You have only ASSERTED that it does. I have linked to sources showing that it does not. You are misusing it, like if you tried to use the IGL on liquids.
Edited on 21-09-2016 20:29
21-09-2016 21:01
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8166)
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.


The Parrot Killer
21-09-2016 21:08
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8166)
jwoodward48 wrote:
I also claim that I am using science. For us to move on, we need something other than "argument from assertion".


Another denial of your own argument. Also now an argument of the Stone (since you already have denied what you once agreed to, and you now reject it out of hand from any source).

As far as your argument of assertion, you are the only one making it. IBDaMann is very clearly explained what science and the scientific method is that we use today. Since, you're a Google fan, you might try Googling the explanation that IBDaMann has given you. His is not just an argument of assertion.

Yours is.


The Parrot Killer
21-09-2016 21:20
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
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?


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
21-09-2016 23:41
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8166)
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?


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

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.


The Parrot Killer
21-09-2016 23:53
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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!
22-09-2016 00:21
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8166)
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!


Just a demonstration that you know almost as little as any other faithful member of the Church of Global Warming.

Are you volunteering your boot to my head?



The Parrot Killer
22-09-2016 00:30
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
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.

[quoteYou do not know what a proof is. You also do not know what falsifiability is.[/quote]

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.

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?)

(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.)

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
22-09-2016 01:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8166)
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:
[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.[/quote]
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.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 22-09-2016 01:13
22-09-2016 01:33
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
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.


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:
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.


...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:
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:
(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:
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:
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.

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

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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
Edited on 22-09-2016 02:21
22-09-2016 02:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8166)
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.

Attempting to increase the legitimacy of a theory that way is an attempt to prove it.

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.

What evidence? You have shown you have no understanding of probability, statistics, or random numbers.

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.

I am not talking about code or even computer systems. You simply do not know what a random number actually is or how to generate one.

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.

Okay, since you want to play Typo Cop:
"that'd" should be capitalized. It is beginning a new sentence.
There should be a period after the word 'period'. You are ending a sentence.
Both 'Further assertions' sentences should be combined into one sentence.

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.

Tu quoque again.


The Parrot Killer
22-09-2016 14:19
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
ITN, I have a post template for you:

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

The Parrot Killer.

That will do just fine. Don't feel obliged to post anything relevant or informative.
22-09-2016 17:12
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3877)
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, 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.


That's all you need to post. You don't need to support anything. You certainly don't have to ever get to any "climate" science. It's up to those deniers to prove that "The Science" is false.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
22-09-2016 17:35
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
So did you learn the difference between the emission spectrum of a gas and blackbody emission, then? Shall I test you?
22-09-2016 17:50
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3877)
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.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
22-09-2016 17:57
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
STOP EVADING
22-09-2016 18:00
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3877)
jwoodward48 wrote:
STOP EVADING

Would you please stop being cryptic?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
22-09-2016 18:05
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.

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.
22-09-2016 18:50
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3877)
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.


Yes, my wise British mentor. Tell me what I need to know.

Oh, I took your advice and brushed up on the basics of radiative physics. I know it now. I read from British websites and I feel so much smarter now.

So, professor, I'm ready for the Global Warming equation. Give it to me!


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
22-09-2016 18:55
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
There is no quantum mechanics equation. There is no chemistry equation. Why would you expect a climate science equation?
22-09-2016 19:00
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3877)
jwoodward48 wrote: There is no quantum mechanics equation.

There are quite a few.

jwoodward48 wrote: There is no chemistry equation.

There are quite a few.

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

I don't. It's a religion.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
22-09-2016 19:23
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Evasion. You asked for a single equation. I can give you AN equation, but not THE equation, as there is no THE equation.
22-09-2016 19:28
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3877)
jwoodward48 wrote: I can give you AN equation, but not THE equation, as there is no THE equation.


Thank you. That's my point. There would be were there science.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
22-09-2016 19:44
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
As I JUST SAID, there is no single equation that describes chemistry! Stop being obtuse.
22-09-2016 21:27
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8166)
jwoodward48 wrote:
As I JUST SAID, there is no single equation that describes chemistry! Stop being obtuse.


There are many equations for chemistry.

Can you give ONE equation for climate science?


The Parrot Killer
22-09-2016 21:37
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
I just said that I could. Stop being stupid and actually read my post.
22-09-2016 21:45
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3877)
jwoodward48 wrote: As I JUST SAID, there is no single equation that describes chemistry! Stop being obtuse.

You babble lots of gibberish. We can slow down for you and wait for you to catch up if necessary.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
22-09-2016 22:11
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Personal insult. Ignored. This is unproductive. Let's, say, agree to hate each other, but move on and actually discuss things.
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Read this and think:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Must read letter7309-05-2019 03:32
Our leaders should read this204-12-2018 23:19
New Global Warming Newsletter-Must READ!!904-02-2015 02:38
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact