Remember me
▼ Content

The counterproductive and neurotic omnipresence of IBDaMann in this forum



Page 1 of 212>
The counterproductive and neurotic omnipresence of IBDaMann in this forum07-12-2019 19:47
Third world guy
★☆☆☆☆
(67)
This forum allows us all to propose theories, refute them, understand and learn about what is understood as Climate Change, its possible consequences, and political, social and economic interactions.

Unfortunately, IBDaMann always appears to distort any opinion.

I wonder what his motivations are. Show us his intelligence? Show us his knowledge? Impose a way of thinking? Solve some kind of neurosis?

I agree with him in almost everything about the climate, but not in the neurotic attitude with which IBDaMann tries to impose his way of thinking.

Imagine being a few days without his presence in this forum. What would happen? Would we lose ourselves in ignorance? Would we become believers of what he calls a religion?

I invite IBDaMann to take a few days off to meditate on his attitude, and allow others to enjoy his absence.


There are three kinds of climate change: that generated by natural factors; that generated by man; and that generated by economic interests.
07-12-2019 19:54
spot
★★★★☆
(1286)
Brain tumour?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
07-12-2019 20:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11013)
Third world guy wrote:
This forum allows us all to propose theories, refute them, understand and learn about what is understood as Climate Change, its possible consequences, and political, social and economic interactions.

Yes it does. Therefore:
Present your theory of 'greenhouse effect' in a way that doesn't violate the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Go ahead.
Third world guy wrote:
Unfortunately, IBDaMann always appears to distort any opinion.

No, opinions here are already distorted by the Church of Global Warming.
Third world guy wrote:
I wonder what his motivations are. Show us his intelligence? Show us his knowledge? Impose a way of thinking? Solve some kind of neurosis?

I cannot speak for him. My motivations are to show how science disagrees with the Church of Global Warming, that the panic this religion tries to induce upon people is not necessary, and that it's not necessary to destroy the economy, establish a State religion, or destroy the Constitution of the United States to implement socialism in the name of 'saving the planet'.
Third world guy wrote:
I agree with him in almost everything about the climate, but not in the neurotic attitude with which IBDaMann tries to impose his way of thinking.

Too bad. Ever think that the neurotic attitude comes from the Church of Global Warming instead?
Third world guy wrote:
Imagine being a few days without his presence in this forum. What would happen?

The same thing the last time it happened. You would be condemning me as the Great Satan of your religion. I assure you, I still am.
Third world guy wrote:
Would we lose ourselves in ignorance? Would we become believers of what he calls a religion?

If you believe in the Church of Global Warming, you already did before you came here. If you are ignorant, you already were before you came here.
Third world guy wrote:
I invite IBDaMann to take a few days off to meditate on his attitude, and allow others to enjoy his absence.

He already has. You don't get to decide who gets to post here.


The Parrot Killer
08-12-2019 01:29
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2038)
Third world guy wrote:
I wonder what his motivations are.
If you can't win an argument with a counter argument, another options is to not have a counter argument at all. Then you can proceed to simply raise reasonable doubt about the argument you want to defeat. It's not about seeking truth it's about destroying your enemy.(See also)

I've actually run into this most in my life from a group I would dismiss as "stupid hippys". Example: A friend of mine knew someone in an organization committed to end the incarceration of criminals. I assumed, naturally, they must have a fairly elaborate plan for what to do instead. Nope. They just said it was inhuman, racist or some other BS with no suggestion as to what to do instead.

I call it the "boxer without a body" because it's the lazy, cowardly effort to attack an explanation with literally nothing as a null hypothesis.

So for example we do KNOW that the Earth is warmer that is should be. We KNOW that Venus is also FAR FAR warmer than it should be. (should be if atmospheres have no influence, the Moon being about as warm as it should be). The ITN/IBD response to this is not an alternative explanation as to why, but the unsubstantiated claim that we don't know at all. The reason is because if they had to explain why they would lose the debate.

Into the Night wrote:My motivations are to show how science disagrees with the Church of Global Warming, ...
Note that ITN even admits that it is not his goal to show how there is a coherent explanation for the way things work that is superior to those presented by others.

Also it has been clearly shown by yours truly that ITN has completely manufactured his own private 2nd LTD as well as his definition for science and just about everything he claims has been established (in my sig).

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
Edited on 08-12-2019 01:35
08-12-2019 11:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11013)
tmiddles wrote:
Third world guy wrote:
I wonder what his motivations are.
If you can't win an argument with a counter argument, another options is to not have a counter argument at all.

Maybe you should actually provide counter arguments instead of spending your time insulting people be asking repetitive questions that have already been answered.
tmiddles wrote:
Then you can proceed to simply raise reasonable doubt about the argument you want to defeat.

You have not presented any arguments other than the usual preaching for the Church of Global Warming.
...deleted irrelevant material...
tmiddles wrote:
So for example we do KNOW that the Earth is warmer that is should be.

There is no 'should be'. Earth is as warm as it is...period.
tmiddles wrote:
We KNOW that Venus is also FAR FAR warmer than it should be.

There is no 'should be'.
tmiddles wrote:
(should be if atmospheres have no influence, the Moon being about as warm as it should be).

There is no 'should be'. The temperature of Venus, the Moon, and the Earth are unknown.
tmiddles wrote:
The ITN/IBD response to this is not an alternative explanation as to why,

Why what? Void argument fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
but the unsubstantiated claim that we don't know at all.

You don't. We have already shown you why. RQAA. RDCF.
tmiddles wrote:
The reason is because if they had to explain why they would lose the debate.

What debate. You are here to preach, not debate.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:My motivations are to show how science disagrees with the Church of Global Warming, ...
Note that ITN even admits that it is not his goal to show how there is a coherent explanation for the way things work that is superior to those presented by others.

You have not provided ANY explanation for how anything works.
tmiddles wrote:
Also it has been clearly shown by yours truly that ITN has completely manufactured his own private 2nd LTD as well as his definition for science and just about everything he claims has been established (in my sig).

I didn't write the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You just want to deny it along with any other science.


The Parrot Killer
08-12-2019 12:17
spot
★★★★☆
(1286)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Third world guy wrote:
I wonder what his motivations are.
If you can't win an argument with a counter argument, another options is to not have a counter argument at all.

Maybe you should actually provide counter arguments instead of spending your time insulting people be asking repetitive questions that have already been answered.
tmiddles wrote:
Then you can proceed to simply raise reasonable doubt about the argument you want to defeat.

You have not presented any arguments other than the usual preaching for the Church of Global Warming.
...deleted irrelevant material...
tmiddles wrote:
So for example we do KNOW that the Earth is warmer that is should be.

There is no 'should be'. Earth is as warm as it is...period.
tmiddles wrote:
We KNOW that Venus is also FAR FAR warmer than it should be.

There is no 'should be'.
tmiddles wrote:
(should be if atmospheres have no influence, the Moon being about as warm as it should be).

There is no 'should be'. The temperature of Venus, the Moon, and the Earth are unknown.
tmiddles wrote:
The ITN/IBD response to this is not an alternative explanation as to why,

Why what? Void argument fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
but the unsubstantiated claim that we don't know at all.

You don't. We have already shown you why. RQAA. RDCF.
tmiddles wrote:
The reason is because if they had to explain why they would lose the debate.

What debate. You are here to preach, not debate.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:My motivations are to show how science disagrees with the Church of Global Warming, ...
Note that ITN even admits that it is not his goal to show how there is a coherent explanation for the way things work that is superior to those presented by others.

You have not provided ANY explanation for how anything works.
tmiddles wrote:
Also it has been clearly shown by yours truly that ITN has completely manufactured his own private 2nd LTD as well as his definition for science and just about everything he claims has been established (in my sig).

I didn't write the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You just want to deny it along with any other science.


You have far too much time on your hands.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
08-12-2019 12:29
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2038)
Into the Night wrote:
Maybe you should actually provide counter arguments
I should provide counter arguments to my own argument because you won't? So I say that atmospheres do have a dramatic effect on ground level temperature as with Venus, you claim they don't without offering an explanation and where exactly am I not doing my part?

Into the Night wrote:
There is no 'should be'. Earth is as warm as it is...period.
It's called the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. That's the "should be" here.

Into the Night wrote:The temperature of Venus, the Moon, and the Earth are unknown.
Uh you left out Denver (just in case any one of consequence ever reads this, see what a joke these guys are):
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: No one can know the temperature of Denver.
He's absolutely correct....

Into the Night wrote:
You have not provided ANY explanation for how anything works.
Here: Do I have the CO2 calamity math right? Oh and don't forget the one you'll always run from: NET THERMAL RADIATION : You in a room as a reference.

Into the Night wrote:
I didn't write the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
And in the ITN/IBD commitment to bookless learning you can't say one place where it is written as you claim!12 references that show ITN/IBD are full of it

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
08-12-2019 16:36
Third world guy
★☆☆☆☆
(67)
Into the Night:

When I say that I practically agree with everything IBDaMann exposes, it is because I do, including what he refers to as the Church or Religion of Global Warming.

In what I differ is in his attitude of systematically destroying the issues with interventions that could be considered hostile, also denying freedom of belief and expression.

I don't dislike reading what people who think differently from me. Everyone can learn and it is a matter of respect.


There are three kinds of climate change: that generated by natural factors; that generated by man; and that generated by economic interests.
08-12-2019 17:19
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1602)
Some people argue, because they enjoy arguing. The arguments keep going in around in endless circles. I tend to stay out of these, since I don't really enjoy arguing. The only reason to complain about an argument, you've been enjoy, would be you ran out of material, or are getting tired/bored, running around in circles. I get bored easy, so I seldom make it through the second lap, around the track.

The religion/cult analogy works, because there is really only one data set/historic temperature readings. Only one sample to analyze. It does't go back all that far, nor is it complete, accurate, or consistent. It's far from perfect, but it's absolutely the best we can ever get, until we can travel through time. Consider that keeping an official temperature record started in 1886, not sure how many hundreds of monitoring stations or where they were placed around the world. Now, we have hundreds of thousands of monitoring stations. The original intent of the monitoring stations were to aid in weather forecasting, and stations were placed mainly where weather conditions were of the greatest concern. Collecting data to track global warming, didn't come until much later in the game. Hurricanes were always a huge, seasonal concern, so there was, and still is a focus on measuring temperature and weather in the tropics. More monitoring stations added in tropical locations, would of course, raise the global average temperature. There is no independent data set, just the one 'bible', to work with.

Those that 'believe' are treated with respect, and rewarded (grants/subsidies). Those that don't are ridiculed and punished. The believers are the saviors of the world, deniers are planet killers. You follow the IPCC, and are rewarded with a clean, green, planet, 'heaven', or you deny, and we all are going to die a fiery, horrible death, 'hell'. It's faith based, it's fear based, it's a cult. They have a set of signs of the approaching Apocalypse, any form of ice melting, heat waves, severe storms, wildfire, and many other things too horrible to mention. Unfortunately, these signs, have be going on, basically forever, least long before we burned the evil black goo. Some of those were actually much worse in the past. Many of those signs were used in ancient religions/cults as well, to compel mass suicide. Which is similar to the economic ruin we face, by completely ending the use of fossil fuels, in a few decades.
08-12-2019 17:56
James___
★★★★★
(2179)
Third world guy wrote:


When I say that I practically agree with everything IBDaMann exposes, it is because I do, including what he refers to as the Church or Religion of Global Warming.
.


Ever hear of the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age? ibdm is right, the Earth's climate does not change. I am glad that ibdm cleared that up
08-12-2019 20:54
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5682)
James___ wrote:Ever hear of the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age? ibdm is right, the Earth's climate does not change. I am glad that ibdm cleared that up

Please don't pull a tmiddles and start assigning to me positions that I don't have. I am not a Christian; I don't believe in the human "soul" ... and I am not a warmizombie; I don't believe in Climate.

It's not that I don't believe Climate changes so much as I don't worship Climate in the first place.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
08-12-2019 20:59
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5682)
Third world guy wrote:Everyone can learn and it is a matter of respect.

Pick something I wrote and tell how it would have been better worded. I'm open to suggestions.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
09-12-2019 03:46
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2038)
IBdaMann wrote:
... how it would have been better worded. .


I would beg everyone to make their posts no longer than needed. This is independent of your agenda and a lot of people do it. Quoting half a page just to say two words is a forum killer.

A shorter sig IBD?
Edited on 09-12-2019 03:47
09-12-2019 15:58
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5682)
tmiddles wrote:A shorter sig IBD?

... better yet, you have the power to make it truly worthwhile. Read my signature block each and every time. You'll learn something.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
09-12-2019 16:40
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1623)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
... how it would have been better worded. .


I would beg everyone to make their posts no longer than needed.

I will be brief. Unbelievable what some of you clowns whine about. Maybe Branner will send you a gift card or something to compensate for your losses on this FREE forum.


gasguzzler, calling the jet stream the "Norwegian jet stream" is a bigoted statement. -James-
Edited on 09-12-2019 16:41
09-12-2019 18:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11013)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Maybe you should actually provide counter arguments
I should provide counter arguments to my own argument because you won't?

You aren't making any arguments. RDCF.
tmiddles wrote:
So I say that atmospheres do have a dramatic effect on ground level temperature as with Venus, you claim they don't without offering an explanation and where exactly am I not doing my part?

Explaining why in a way that does not violate the laws of thermodynamics.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
There is no 'should be'. Earth is as warm as it is...period.
It's called the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. That's the "should be" here.

The emissivity of Earth is unknown. There is no 'should be' here.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:The temperature of Venus, the Moon, and the Earth are unknown.
Uh you left out Denver

No, YOU left out Denver. Inversion fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You have not provided ANY explanation for how anything works.
Here: Do I have the CO2 calamity math right? Oh and don't forget the one you'll always run from: NET THERMAL RADIATION : You in a room as a reference.

This is not an explanation. It is your own repetitious distortions and contextomy fallacies. RDCF.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
I didn't write the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
And in the ITN/IBD commitment to bookless learning you can't say one place where it is written as you claim!

No book created the 2nd law of thermodynamics either. False authority fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
09-12-2019 18:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11013)
Third world guy wrote:
Into the Night:

When I say that I practically agree with everything IBDaMann exposes, it is because I do, including what he refers to as the Church or Religion of Global Warming.

In what I differ is in his attitude of systematically destroying the issues with interventions that could be considered hostile, also denying freedom of belief and expression.
IBDaMann is not denying either your freedom of belief or your expression of it. Your belief is yours. No one can take that away.
Third world guy wrote:
I don't dislike reading what people who think differently from me. Everyone can learn and it is a matter of respect.

This is a paradox. Which is it, dude?


The Parrot Killer
09-12-2019 18:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11013)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Some people argue, because they enjoy arguing. The arguments keep going in around in endless circles. I tend to stay out of these, since I don't really enjoy arguing. The only reason to complain about an argument, you've been enjoy, would be you ran out of material, or are getting tired/bored, running around in circles. I get bored easy, so I seldom make it through the second lap, around the track.

The religion/cult analogy works, because there is really only one data set/historic temperature readings. Only one sample to analyze. It does't go back all that far, nor is it complete, accurate, or consistent. It's far from perfect, but it's absolutely the best we can ever get, until we can travel through time. Consider that keeping an official temperature record started in 1886, not sure how many hundreds of monitoring stations or where they were placed around the world. Now, we have hundreds of thousands of monitoring stations. The original intent of the monitoring stations were to aid in weather forecasting, and stations were placed mainly where weather conditions were of the greatest concern. Collecting data to track global warming, didn't come until much later in the game. Hurricanes were always a huge, seasonal concern, so there was, and still is a focus on measuring temperature and weather in the tropics. More monitoring stations added in tropical locations, would of course, raise the global average temperature. There is no independent data set, just the one 'bible', to work with.

Those that 'believe' are treated with respect, and rewarded (grants/subsidies). Those that don't are ridiculed and punished. The believers are the saviors of the world, deniers are planet killers. You follow the IPCC, and are rewarded with a clean, green, planet, 'heaven', or you deny, and we all are going to die a fiery, horrible death, 'hell'. It's faith based, it's fear based, it's a cult. They have a set of signs of the approaching Apocalypse, any form of ice melting, heat waves, severe storms, wildfire, and many other things too horrible to mention. Unfortunately, these signs, have be going on, basically forever, least long before we burned the evil black goo. Some of those were actually much worse in the past. Many of those signs were used in ancient religions/cults as well, to compel mass suicide. Which is similar to the economic ruin we face, by completely ending the use of fossil fuels, in a few decades.


It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, even today. There never was such a dataset at all.

We just don't have anywhere near enough thermometers.


The Parrot Killer
09-12-2019 19:13
spot
★★★★☆
(1286)
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Some people argue, because they enjoy arguing. The arguments keep going in around in endless circles. I tend to stay out of these, since I don't really enjoy arguing. The only reason to complain about an argument, you've been enjoy, would be you ran out of material, or are getting tired/bored, running around in circles. I get bored easy, so I seldom make it through the second lap, around the track.

The religion/cult analogy works, because there is really only one data set/historic temperature readings. Only one sample to analyze. It does't go back all that far, nor is it complete, accurate, or consistent. It's far from perfect, but it's absolutely the best we can ever get, until we can travel through time. Consider that keeping an official temperature record started in 1886, not sure how many hundreds of monitoring stations or where they were placed around the world. Now, we have hundreds of thousands of monitoring stations. The original intent of the monitoring stations were to aid in weather forecasting, and stations were placed mainly where weather conditions were of the greatest concern. Collecting data to track global warming, didn't come until much later in the game. Hurricanes were always a huge, seasonal concern, so there was, and still is a focus on measuring temperature and weather in the tropics. More monitoring stations added in tropical locations, would of course, raise the global average temperature. There is no independent data set, just the one 'bible', to work with.

Those that 'believe' are treated with respect, and rewarded (grants/subsidies). Those that don't are ridiculed and punished. The believers are the saviors of the world, deniers are planet killers. You follow the IPCC, and are rewarded with a clean, green, planet, 'heaven', or you deny, and we all are going to die a fiery, horrible death, 'hell'. It's faith based, it's fear based, it's a cult. They have a set of signs of the approaching Apocalypse, any form of ice melting, heat waves, severe storms, wildfire, and many other things too horrible to mention. Unfortunately, these signs, have be going on, basically forever, least long before we burned the evil black goo. Some of those were actually much worse in the past. Many of those signs were used in ancient religions/cults as well, to compel mass suicide. Which is similar to the economic ruin we face, by completely ending the use of fossil fuels, in a few decades.


It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, even today. There never was such a dataset at all.

We just don't have anywhere near enough thermometers.


Nor is it possible to measure your exact hight its constantly changing but it's very possible to get a useful number.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
09-12-2019 19:20
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1623)
Into the Night wrote:
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, even today. There never was such a dataset at all.

We just don't have anywhere near enough thermometers.


There you go shutting down the debate again.


OK guys, instead of accusing ITN and IBN of whacky shit, why don't you discuss this?

I happen to agree that there are issues prohibiting a valid data set.

1. Number of thermometers.

2. Spacing of thermometers.

3. Time and frequency of thermometer reading.

4. Location of thermometers.

Can we get a rough idea? Maybe...margin of error?
09-12-2019 19:55
spot
★★★★☆
(1286)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, even today. There never was such a dataset at all.

We just don't have anywhere near enough thermometers.


There you go shutting down the debate again.


OK guys, instead of accusing ITN and IBN of whacky shit, why don't you discuss this?

I happen to agree that there are issues prohibiting a valid data set.

1. Number of thermometers.

2. Spacing of thermometers.

3. Time and frequency of thermometer reading.

4. Location of thermometers.

Can we get a rough idea? Maybe...margin of error?


They think Denver is hotter then Venus, thats pretty whacky.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
09-12-2019 20:38
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1623)
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, even today. There never was such a dataset at all.

We just don't have anywhere near enough thermometers.


There you go shutting down the debate again.


OK guys, instead of accusing ITN and IBN of whacky shit, why don't you discuss this?

I happen to agree that there are issues prohibiting a valid data set.

1. Number of thermometers.

2. Spacing of thermometers.

3. Time and frequency of thermometer reading.

4. Location of thermometers.

Can we get a rough idea? Maybe...margin of error?


They think Denver is hotter then Venus, thats pretty whacky.


I don't remember either of them saying that. Can you get a quote please?


gasguzzler, calling the jet stream the "Norwegian jet stream" is a bigoted statement. -James-
09-12-2019 20:51
spot
★★★★☆
(1286)
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, even today. There never was such a dataset at all.

We just don't have anywhere near enough thermometers.


There you go shutting down the debate again.


OK guys, instead of accusing ITN and IBN of whacky shit, why don't you discuss this?

I happen to agree that there are issues prohibiting a valid data set.

1. Number of thermometers.

2. Spacing of thermometers.

3. Time and frequency of thermometer reading.

4. Location of thermometers.

Can we get a rough idea? Maybe...margin of error?


They think Denver is hotter then Venus, thats pretty whacky.


I don't remember either of them saying that. Can you get a quote please?


Can you quote them denying it can you quote them giving a coherent alternative explanation for anything they are challenged on.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
09-12-2019 21:00
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1623)
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, even today. There never was such a dataset at all.

We just don't have anywhere near enough thermometers.


There you go shutting down the debate again.


OK guys, instead of accusing ITN and IBN of whacky shit, why don't you discuss this?

I happen to agree that there are issues prohibiting a valid data set.

1. Number of thermometers.

2. Spacing of thermometers.

3. Time and frequency of thermometer reading.

4. Location of thermometers.

Can we get a rough idea? Maybe...margin of error?


They think Denver is hotter then Venus, thats pretty whacky.


I don't remember either of them saying that. Can you get a quote please?


Can you quote them denying it can you quote them giving a coherent alternative explanation for anything they are challenged on.


So you can't do it? Duly noted.


gasguzzler, calling the jet stream the "Norwegian jet stream" is a bigoted statement. -James-
09-12-2019 21:16
spot
★★★★☆
(1286)
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, even today. There never was such a dataset at all.

We just don't have anywhere near enough thermometers.


There you go shutting down the debate again.


OK guys, instead of accusing ITN and IBN of whacky shit, why don't you discuss this?

I happen to agree that there are issues prohibiting a valid data set.

1. Number of thermometers.

2. Spacing of thermometers.

3. Time and frequency of thermometer reading.

4. Location of thermometers.

Can we get a rough idea? Maybe...margin of error?


They think Denver is hotter then Venus, thats pretty whacky.


I don't remember either of them saying that. Can you get a quote please?


Can you quote them denying it can you quote them giving a coherent alternative explanation for anything they are challenged on.


So you can't do it? Duly noted.


You can remember them ever claiming that you can't measure temperature?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
09-12-2019 21:20
spot
★★★★☆
(1286)
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, even today. There never was such a dataset at all.

We just don't have anywhere near enough thermometers.


There you go shutting down the debate again.


OK guys, instead of accusing ITN and IBN of whacky shit, why don't you discuss this?

I happen to agree that there are issues prohibiting a valid data set.

1. Number of thermometers.

2. Spacing of thermometers.

3. Time and frequency of thermometer reading.

4. Location of thermometers.

Can we get a rough idea? Maybe...margin of error?


They think Denver is hotter then Venus, thats pretty whacky.


I don't remember either of them saying that. Can you get a quote please?


Can you quote them denying it can you quote them giving a coherent alternative explanation for anything they are challenged on.


So you can't do it? Duly noted.


You can remember them ever claiming that you can't measure temperature?


You do know that there is a thread devoted to this, the next one down at time of writing and middles has asked them about venus and denver.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
09-12-2019 21:25
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1623)
spot wrote:
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, even today. There never was such a dataset at all.

We just don't have anywhere near enough thermometers.


There you go shutting down the debate again.


OK guys, instead of accusing ITN and IBN of whacky shit, why don't you discuss this?

I happen to agree that there are issues prohibiting a valid data set.

1. Number of thermometers.

2. Spacing of thermometers.

3. Time and frequency of thermometer reading.

4. Location of thermometers.

Can we get a rough idea? Maybe...margin of error?


They think Denver is hotter then Venus, thats pretty whacky.


I don't remember either of them saying that. Can you get a quote please?


Can you quote them denying it can you quote them giving a coherent alternative explanation for anything they are challenged on.


So you can't do it? Duly noted.


You can remember them ever claiming that you can't measure temperature?


You do know that there is a thread devoted to this, the next one down at time of writing and middles has asked them about venus and denver.


Then it should be quite easy for you to back your claim, unless it wasn't true. Is that even possible?


gasguzzler, calling the jet stream the "Norwegian jet stream" is a bigoted statement. -James-
09-12-2019 21:49
James___
★★★★★
(2179)
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, even today. There never was such a dataset at all.

We just don't have anywhere near enough thermometers.


There you go shutting down the debate again.


OK guys, instead of accusing ITN and IBN of whacky shit, why don't you discuss this?

I happen to agree that there are issues prohibiting a valid data set.

1. Number of thermometers.

2. Spacing of thermometers.

3. Time and frequency of thermometer reading.

4. Location of thermometers.

Can we get a rough idea? Maybe...margin of error?


They think Denver is hotter then Venus, thats pretty whacky.


I don't remember either of them saying that. Can you get a quote please?


Can you quote them denying it can you quote them giving a coherent alternative explanation for anything they are challenged on.


So you can't do it? Duly noted.


You can remember them ever claiming that you can't measure temperature?


You do know that there is a thread devoted to this, the next one down at time of writing and middles has asked them about venus and denver.


Then it should be quite easy for you to back your claim, unless it wasn't true. Is that even possible?


Just another example of what it means to be an American.
09-12-2019 21:50
spot
★★★★☆
(1286)
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, even today. There never was such a dataset at all.

We just don't have anywhere near enough thermometers.


There you go shutting down the debate again.


OK guys, instead of accusing ITN and IBN of whacky shit, why don't you discuss this?

I happen to agree that there are issues prohibiting a valid data set.

1. Number of thermometers.

2. Spacing of thermometers.

3. Time and frequency of thermometer reading.

4. Location of thermometers.

Can we get a rough idea? Maybe...margin of error?


They think Denver is hotter then Venus, thats pretty whacky.


I don't remember either of them saying that. Can you get a quote please?


Can you quote them denying it can you quote them giving a coherent alternative explanation for anything they are challenged on.


So you can't do it? Duly noted.


You can remember them ever claiming that you can't measure temperature?


You do know that there is a thread devoted to this, the next one down at time of writing and middles has asked them about venus and denver.


Then it should be quite easy for you to back your claim, unless it wasn't true. Is that even possible?


I must be going mad then. Yes those two are reasonable, it's just every scientist in the last 200 years doesn't understand basic thermodynamics. How could I have missed that.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
09-12-2019 22:07
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1623)
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, even today. There never was such a dataset at all.

We just don't have anywhere near enough thermometers.


There you go shutting down the debate again.


OK guys, instead of accusing ITN and IBN of whacky shit, why don't you discuss this?

I happen to agree that there are issues prohibiting a valid data set.

1. Number of thermometers.

2. Spacing of thermometers.

3. Time and frequency of thermometer reading.

4. Location of thermometers.

Can we get a rough idea? Maybe...margin of error?


They think Denver is hotter then Venus, thats pretty whacky.


I don't remember either of them saying that. Can you get a quote please?


Can you quote them denying it can you quote them giving a coherent alternative explanation for anything they are challenged on.


So you can't do it? Duly noted.


You can remember them ever claiming that you can't measure temperature?


You do know that there is a thread devoted to this, the next one down at time of writing and middles has asked them about venus and denver.


Then it should be quite easy for you to back your claim, unless it wasn't true. Is that even possible?


I must be going mad then. Yes those two are reasonable, it's just every scientist in the last 200 years doesn't understand basic thermodynamics. How could I have missed that.

So again I ask, is that a "no" on backing your claim?


gasguzzler, calling the jet stream the "Norwegian jet stream" is a bigoted statement. -James-
09-12-2019 22:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11013)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Some people argue, because they enjoy arguing. The arguments keep going in around in endless circles. I tend to stay out of these, since I don't really enjoy arguing. The only reason to complain about an argument, you've been enjoy, would be you ran out of material, or are getting tired/bored, running around in circles. I get bored easy, so I seldom make it through the second lap, around the track.

The religion/cult analogy works, because there is really only one data set/historic temperature readings. Only one sample to analyze. It does't go back all that far, nor is it complete, accurate, or consistent. It's far from perfect, but it's absolutely the best we can ever get, until we can travel through time. Consider that keeping an official temperature record started in 1886, not sure how many hundreds of monitoring stations or where they were placed around the world. Now, we have hundreds of thousands of monitoring stations. The original intent of the monitoring stations were to aid in weather forecasting, and stations were placed mainly where weather conditions were of the greatest concern. Collecting data to track global warming, didn't come until much later in the game. Hurricanes were always a huge, seasonal concern, so there was, and still is a focus on measuring temperature and weather in the tropics. More monitoring stations added in tropical locations, would of course, raise the global average temperature. There is no independent data set, just the one 'bible', to work with.

Those that 'believe' are treated with respect, and rewarded (grants/subsidies). Those that don't are ridiculed and punished. The believers are the saviors of the world, deniers are planet killers. You follow the IPCC, and are rewarded with a clean, green, planet, 'heaven', or you deny, and we all are going to die a fiery, horrible death, 'hell'. It's faith based, it's fear based, it's a cult. They have a set of signs of the approaching Apocalypse, any form of ice melting, heat waves, severe storms, wildfire, and many other things too horrible to mention. Unfortunately, these signs, have be going on, basically forever, least long before we burned the evil black goo. Some of those were actually much worse in the past. Many of those signs were used in ancient religions/cults as well, to compel mass suicide. Which is similar to the economic ruin we face, by completely ending the use of fossil fuels, in a few decades.


It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, even today. There never was such a dataset at all.

We just don't have anywhere near enough thermometers.


Nor is it possible to measure your exact hight its constantly changing but it's very possible to get a useful number.

Denying statistical math again, eh?


The Parrot Killer
09-12-2019 22:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11013)
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, even today. There never was such a dataset at all.

We just don't have anywhere near enough thermometers.


There you go shutting down the debate again.


OK guys, instead of accusing ITN and IBN of whacky shit, why don't you discuss this?

I happen to agree that there are issues prohibiting a valid data set.

1. Number of thermometers.

2. Spacing of thermometers.

3. Time and frequency of thermometer reading.

4. Location of thermometers.

Can we get a rough idea? Maybe...margin of error?


They think Denver is hotter then Venus, thats pretty whacky.

Lie. Never said any such thing. Also nothing to do with any of these questions. You keep evading them.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 09-12-2019 22:17
09-12-2019 22:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11013)
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, even today. There never was such a dataset at all.

We just don't have anywhere near enough thermometers.


There you go shutting down the debate again.


OK guys, instead of accusing ITN and IBN of whacky shit, why don't you discuss this?

I happen to agree that there are issues prohibiting a valid data set.

1. Number of thermometers.

2. Spacing of thermometers.

3. Time and frequency of thermometer reading.

4. Location of thermometers.

Can we get a rough idea? Maybe...margin of error?


They think Denver is hotter then Venus, thats pretty whacky.


I don't remember either of them saying that. Can you get a quote please?


Can you quote them denying it can you quote them giving a coherent alternative explanation for anything they are challenged on.


So you can't do it? Duly noted.


You can remember them ever claiming that you can't measure temperature?


You do know that there is a thread devoted to this, the next one down at time of writing and middles has asked them about venus and denver.


Then it should be quite easy for you to back your claim, unless it wasn't true. Is that even possible?


I must be going mad then. Yes those two are reasonable, it's just every scientist in the last 200 years doesn't understand basic thermodynamics. How could I have missed that.


You've gone mad. You think you can speak for every scientist in the last 200 years.


The Parrot Killer
10-12-2019 02:28
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5682)
spot wrote: I must be going mad then.

Only if you believe that you speak for every scientist in the last 200 years.

spot wrote: ... it's just every scientist in the last 200 years doesn't understand basic thermodynamics.

So, yes, maybe you are right about you going mad.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
10-12-2019 20:02
spot
★★★★☆
(1286)
Into the Night wrote:

You've gone mad. You think you can speak for every scientist in the last 200 years.


No they have spoken for themselves, If I could be bothered and if it were not an utter waste of time I could give you a long list with names next to quotes of scientists making statements on this issue as you well know. But instead you would rather play your silly games.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
10-12-2019 20:08
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5682)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote: You've gone mad. You think you can speak for every scientist in the last 200 years.

No they have spoken for themselves

Close but no cigar. It needs to be in the present tense. They need to speak for themselves. They need to be present in this forum so as to be cross examined. Otherwise, no one else gets to pretend to speak for them.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
10-12-2019 20:10
spot
★★★★☆
(1286)
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote: You've gone mad. You think you can speak for every scientist in the last 200 years.

No they have spoken for themselves

Close but no cigar. It needs to be in the present tense. They need to speak for themselves. They need to be present in this forum so as to be cross examined. Otherwise, no one else gets to pretend to speak for them.


.


I think they have better things to do then talk to you ****wits


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
10-12-2019 21:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11013)
spot wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote: You've gone mad. You think you can speak for every scientist in the last 200 years.

No they have spoken for themselves

Close but no cigar. It needs to be in the present tense. They need to speak for themselves. They need to be present in this forum so as to be cross examined. Otherwise, no one else gets to pretend to speak for them.


.


I think they have better things to do then talk to you ****wits


Especially since a lot of them are dead!



The Parrot Killer
Edited on 10-12-2019 21:37
10-12-2019 21:38
spot
★★★★☆
(1286)
Take it up with your mate, mate.
10-12-2019 22:24
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5682)
spot wrote:I think they have better things to do then talk to you ****wits

Especially when they are already dead.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate The counterproductive and neurotic omnipresence of IBDaMann in this forum:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
There are some paid climate deniers in this forum to spread false information, ignore them10625-01-2020 17:56
Definitions required to address discussions in this forum.2728-08-2019 06:12
What a Greenhouse is for IBdaMann815-04-2019 00:43
Reddit's science forum banned climate deniers. Why don't all newspapers do the same? (2013)921-11-2017 19:25
This forum is f ucking garbage8913-11-2017 06:00
▲ 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 © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact