The echo chamber23-01-2020 07:00 | |
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
I've noticed we hold to the position we are happiest with, no one is unhappy with their angle here, and none of us, myself included, have budged. And I mean it's what we WANT to be the truth, regardless of what the truth is. To indict myself first I like the position of being a sage skeptic. Where yes yes there is truth to the global warming science but it's the scale of the threat that is overstated. I can smugly look down on both deniers and fanatics while I relax into the knowledge that all will be well. ITN/IBD like the grand hoax position. Far more ambitious and vulnerable and they do pretty well with it considering the challenge it presents. And I'm going to pick on Harry C (sorry Harry I actually appreciate your posts, always well written, but you're very transparently engaged in what we are all guilty of). Harry C likes the hoax position as well and is in the information gathering phase. I contradict his conclusion so he usually skips my posts. Recently he posted this chastisement, 1-22-20: Harry C wrote: The internet allows you to cherry pic. You can confirm anything, including that there were never dinosaurs or that the Earth is flat, by engaging in the folly of looking for evidence to support a preconceived conclusion. Humans are good at finding patterns. When your theory is contradicted, you can simply ignore it as "not a find" in your pursuit of building your case. I wonder if you're even aware of your selectivity Harry. Just a short list of you tuning me out: new-and-1st-thoughts 9-15-20 ignored post tmiddles wrote:Harry C wrote:...by what physical mechanism does CO2 gas warm the atmosphere? in-general 10-9-19 ignored post tmiddles wrote:Harry C wrote:...second is the second law of thermodynamics versus the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere....I would suggest figuring out what you think the 2nd law of thermodynamics is. You've found the one place where that is contested! Do you think textbooks are corrupted with a false 2nd LTD? Personally (I'm also a non scientist) I've found it more helpful to get the concepts be starting with the simplest examples first. one-step-at-a-time 11-12-19 ignored post tmiddles wrote:Harry C wrote:I add "Ground" as I assume that's what you mean. The "surface" of an object would take it as a totality so for Earth the gases we call an atmosphere are also "Earth" and constitute part of it's "Surface". So we KNOW (yes we really do) that the ground level temperature on Earth differs from what we would have without an atmosphere in that the mean temperature, the average, is about 30 C hotter. Also the extremes are less severe, so it doesn't get as cold or as hot in it's highs and lows. We KNOW this from two sources: the math on how much energy we get from the sun would determine a mean temp of -18C, and we're at 15C, and we have actually been to the moon, same distance from the sun with no atmosphere, and it confirms the math with a mean temp of -23C with extreme highs and lows. demonstrating-ir-co2-reaction 12/31/19 ignored post tmiddles wrote:Harry C wrote:Amen, I'm wrong plenty. It's like a super power in a debate to give yourself permission to be wrong and move on. default-value 1/3/20 ignored post tmiddles wrote:Harry C wrote:Does the atmosphere retain the heat longer than having no atmosphere? there-are-some-paid-climate-deniers...1-18-20 ingored post tmiddles wrote:Harry C wrote:... what is the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming and where my I find it? there is no theory...thread 1-20-20 ignored posts tmiddles wrote:Harry C wrote:...a traffic engineer and you are performing traffic counts on a roadway exchange by a mall. If you rely on data exclusively around Christmas ....Excellent example! tmiddles wrote:Harry C wrote:The worst thing out there are those simplified illustrations showing sun rays hitting the earth and bouncing off because it appears as if it is creating energy.Why don't we drill down on that and look at one you find troubling. They seem clear to me as not creating any energy. Now I don't expect a positive response to this of course but I think, in truth, this topic is THE topic here. It's the crazy elephant in the room and it's not unique to this issue. I think this grows on the internet like cancer. I know I'm guilty too because there is no way things just happen to be what I hoped they would be on this issue. |
23-01-2020 19:01 | |
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14373) |
tmiddles wrote:I've noticed we hold to the position we are happiest with, Wrong word. You used "we" and you should have used "I." Maybe it was a typo. You don't even know my position. I bet you couldn't accurately state it. You haven't been able to yet. You have only assigned bogus positions to me. You should have written "I've noticed that I preach the religion that makes me happiest." That would have been accurate. You could have also written "I've noticed that I NEED to disrupt all conversations that I find abrasive to my religious preaching." That would be accurate as well. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
23-01-2020 21:33 | |
Into the Night★★★★★ (21559) |
tmiddles wrote: You are not interested in any truth. All you want to do is preach your religion. tmiddles wrote: You are not a sage or a skeptic. tmiddles wrote: There is no such thing as 'global warming' science. Define 'global warming'. There is no science based on undefined buzzwords. tmiddles wrote: What threat? Define 'global warming'. tmiddles wrote: You are certainly smug in your religion. Most fundamentalists are. tmiddles wrote: Light does not have a temperature. tmiddles wrote: Light does not have a temperature. tmiddles wrote: Oxygen and hydrogen absorb infrared light and convert it to thermal energy. tmiddles wrote: You cannot trap light. You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat. tmiddles wrote: You cannot increase temperature without energy. Venus is not a proof of your denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics. tmiddles wrote: You cannot trap light. You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat. You cannot reduce the radiance of any planet and increase its temperature at the same time. tmiddles wrote: CO2 doesn't have an angle. tmiddles wrote: e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy and 't' is time. tmiddles wrote: The 2nd law of thermodynamics has not been falsified. You are just denying it as well. False authority fallacy. You cannot use any book to falsify the 2nd law of thermodynamics. tmiddles wrote: There is no temperature Earth 'should be'. 'Should be' is not used in science. Nothing in the atmosphere is capable of destroying energy. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm or cool anything. * You cannot create energy out of nothing. * You cannot destroy energy into nothing. First law of thermodynamics: E(t+1) = E(t) + U where 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work. You are denying this law as well. The presence of an atmosphere is not work. tmiddles wrote: About all an atmosphere does. tmiddles wrote: Math error. Failure to select by randN. Failure to declare variance. Failure to calculate margin of error. Failure to present raw data. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. The emissivity of the Moon is unknown. The temperature of Earth is unknown. The temperature of the Moon is unknown. tmiddles wrote: Heat by conductance is not 'storage'. tmiddles wrote: Radiance isn't 'pumped'. Not all the light from the Sun is absorbed. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. tmiddles wrote: No. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm anything. tmiddles wrote: No. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm anything. tmiddles wrote: A yes/no question in both cases. The answer is 'NO' to both questions. tmiddles wrote: No physically possible. tmiddles wrote: All gases, solids, and liquids absorb infrared light and convert it to thermal energy. tmiddles wrote: Radiance isn't absorbed. Light is absorbed. Radiance is not light. tmiddles wrote: All gases, liquids, or solids absorb infrared light. tmiddles wrote: No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. tmiddles wrote: The temperature of the Earth is unknown. The temperature of the Moon is unknown. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. The emissivity of the Moon is unknown. There is no reason the Earth has the same emissivity as the Moon. If it did, the mean temperature of the Moon would be the same as Earth. tmiddles wrote: Did you forget that during the daytime, temperatures on Earth are much COLDER than the Moon? tmiddles wrote: Math error. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. Not all sunlight is absorbed. tmiddles wrote: Lie. You have used such precision in your 'predictions'. tmiddles wrote: The temperature of the Earth is unknown. tmiddles wrote: The temperature of the Earth is unknown. Math error. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. You are again denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and using random values as 'data'. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
23-01-2020 23:55 | |
Harry C★★☆☆☆ (157) |
tmiddles wrote: I'll plead guilty to wanting to debate the merits of the threat of CO2 creating long term global increase in temperature based upon scientific fact. I'll plead guilty of not having enough information to be comfortable asserting or responding to some topics. I'll plead guilty of ignoring information that is not in my interest area (anecdotal evidence). I will NOT plead guilty to ignoring someone out of vanity. I'm not sure what else you are looking for. As to your two followup questions on my traffic study example. 1. No. Yes. No. 2. No. No. Cheers. You learn something new every day if you are lucky! |
24-01-2020 00:44 | |
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
Harry C wrote:Harry you're clearly not interested in talking to me. You ask questions, I respond to them, you ignore the responses. I think it's because I'm not moving the discussion to where you'd like it. And it is a discussion at that point, not a debate. You can't debate until after two positions have been presented. You do however engage those, like IBD, who move the discussion where you want it to go. The bias in your learning, information gathering is very clear. You've had long back and forths with IBD on these subjects and tuned me out almost entirely. You're free to do that. If you ever actually want to discuss these topics with me I'm happy to do that. I take "1. No. Yes. No. 2. No. No." in response to everything you ignored above, which is almost exclusively focused on the issue of CO2 and global warming, to be your indication you're not interested in talking with me. I think you, me and everyone who comes across this topic should think hard about how we all may warp our own perception of the world around us to suit our preference for what we'd like the facts to be. As far as I can tell you have so far, in about 4 months of being on this board, entirely avoided the basic, consensus theory of global warming and are still holding on to one you've made up (as in you are still pretending to yourself that the Al Gore's and Bill Nye's of the world believe something entirely different from what that do). You are pretending.' there-are-some-paid-climate-deniers...1-18-20 ingored post tmiddles wrote:Harry C wrote:... what is the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming and where my I find it? But you engage with what you wanted to find: Harry C wrote:link My point of this thread is also that I think I probably am too. Not out of vanity but out of a failure to apply the scientific method to a scientific question. Edited on 24-01-2020 01:08 |
24-01-2020 00:51 | |
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
IBdaMann wrote:No, I am accusing us all of a psychological and social error here. You and me both IBD. You can see that clearly from my post so move on to a real point of debate if you'd like to.tmiddles wrote:I've noticed we hold to the position we are happiest with, Your position has a different emphasis for me that it does for you. What I notice about it is the "Grand Hoax". That governments and professionals are engaged in a deliberate campaign to lie to the public about the issues of this board, which includes falsifying data and outright fraud. More to it than that but that's the "Grand Hoax" portion. Edited on 24-01-2020 00:54 |
24-01-2020 00:53 | |
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
Into the Night wrote:...You cannot trap light...Sometimes you really seem like a bot ITN. No response at all to the subject of the post I guess. How about trying to look at it with respect to Flat Earthers? They do the echo chamber thing too. Let's see if you're capable of addressing that. |
24-01-2020 01:39 | |
Into the Night★★★★★ (21559) |
tmiddles wrote:Harry C wrote:Harry you're clearly not interested in talking to me. You ask questions, I respond to them, you ignore the responses. You are describing yourself. Inversion fallacy. tmiddles wrote: You want to quibble over the meaning of 'debate' now? tmiddles wrote: Guilty as charged. I am biased to theories of science and the use of mathematics; two things YOU deny. tmiddles wrote: It is YOU that does not want to discuss anything. You only want to preach. tmiddles wrote: Stop preaching. tmiddles wrote: Again, you describe yourself. Inversion fallacy. tmiddles wrote: Theory is not consensus. Define 'global warming'. tmiddles wrote: Both deny Al Gore and Bill Nye deny science and mathematics, just as you do. tmiddles wrote: Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself again. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
24-01-2020 01:53 | |
Into the Night★★★★★ (21559) |
tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann wrote:No, I am accusing us all of a psychological and social error here.tmiddles wrote:I've noticed we hold to the position we are happiest with, Homunculus fallacy. tmiddles wrote: The government has been CREATING random numbers and using them as 'data' as an outright fraud. It is deliberately lying to the public to further government agenda as set by the Democrats. tmiddles wrote: Nope. That's all there is to it. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
24-01-2020 01:55 | |
Into the Night★★★★★ (21559) |
tmiddles wrote:You just failed the Turing test.Into the Night wrote:...You cannot trap light...Sometimes you really seem like a bot ITN. tmiddles wrote:I responded to your post, liar. tmiddles wrote:Irrelevant. Redirection fallacy. tmiddles wrote: YALIFNAP. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
24-01-2020 02:33 | |
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
Into the Night wrote: You sure do spout off a lot for someone not interested in talking. |
24-01-2020 02:40 | |
Into the Night★★★★★ (21559) |
tmiddles wrote:Into the Night wrote: YALIFNAP The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
24-01-2020 03:20 | |
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
Into the Night wrote:tmiddles wrote:Into the Night wrote: You sure do spout off a lot for someone not interested in talking. |
24-01-2020 18:47 | |
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14373) |
tmiddles wrote: The internet allows you to cherry pic. You can confirm anything, including that there were never dinosaurs or that the Earth is flat, by engaging in the folly of looking for evidence to support a preconceived conclusion. You cannot use the internet to confirm unambiguous definitions for the Global Warming, Greenhouse Effect or for the global climate. You cannot use the internet to confirm science of the aforementioned concepts. tmiddles wrote: Humans are good at finding patterns. ... even when there is no pattern, e.g. among random events like weather. tmiddles wrote: I wonder if you're even aware of your selectivity Harry. Just a short list of you tuning me out: Irony abounds. tmiddles wrote: The atmosphere can have a huge impact on a planets ground level temp (see Venus and Mercury for comparison). I don't recall anyone claiming that an atmosphere somehow isn't necessary to have a bottom of the atmosphere. Your statement that an atmosphere can have a huge impact on temperatures at the bottom of the atmosphere is stupid. It's like saying that a house can have a huge impact on temperatures inside a house. Duuuuh. tmiddles wrote: The, let's call its "CO2 theory" is that CO2, along with water vapor, have the unique ability to absorb the infrared energy coming up off the earth (while oxygen and hydrogen do not). Incorrect. Egregiously incorrect. Perhaps you can give us a repeatable example of something that spontaneously increases in temperature without additional energy. tmiddles wrote: Venus is proof. Nope. It is nothing of the sort. tmiddles wrote: Now the important bit by my estimation is that we know that an atmosphere results in a slowing down, evening out, and increase in temperature at the ground level of a planet just from conduction with the ground. So you're saying that the bottom of the atmosphere is warmed via conduction with the planet? ... and that the bottom of the atmosphere would not have been warmed if there were no atmosphere? That's absolutely profound. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
24-01-2020 22:57 | |
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
IBdaMann wrote:But what you should know very well IBD is that discrediting the abundant science that disproves ridiculous ideas is enough! Or, in the language of the person doing that I should say "alleged" science : )tmiddles wrote: ...You can confirm anything, including that there were never dinosaurs or that the Earth is flat, by engaging in the folly of looking for evidence to support a preconceived conclusion. See this meeting of 3 seemingly sane believers in Flat Earth meeting with 3 professional scientists. They emerge from the discussion unscathed, as convinced as they were before that the Earth is flat. The are rooted in an online support for it: https://youtu.be/Q7yvvq-9ytE Are you willing to venture away from the topic of Global Warming here IBD? To discuss the form, the method, of self deception? IBdaMann wrote:tmiddles wrote: I wonder if you're even aware of your selectivity Harry. Just a short list of you tuning me out:Irony abounds. You seem to have missed my self deprecation: tmiddles wrote:To indict myself first ...what we are all guilty of...I know I'm guilty too... |
25-01-2020 00:32 | |
Into the Night★★★★★ (21559) |
tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann wrote:But what you should know very well IBD is that discrediting the abundant science that disproves ridiculous ideas is enough! Or, in the language of the person doing that I should say "alleged" science : )tmiddles wrote: ...You can confirm anything, including that there were never dinosaurs or that the Earth is flat, by engaging in the folly of looking for evidence to support a preconceived conclusion. He has not denied any theory of science. YOU have though. You still continue to deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Inversion fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
25-01-2020 01:17 | |
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
Into the Night wrote:...Stefan-Boltzmann law. Inversion fallacy. I'm seriously beginning to wonder if you're a bot ITN. Let's talk about how people can convince themselves the world if flat. Can you do that with me? Edited on 25-01-2020 01:17 |
25-01-2020 01:23 | |
Into the Night★★★★★ (21559) |
tmiddles wrote:Into the Night wrote:...Stefan-Boltzmann law. Inversion fallacy. You already failed the Turing test. You must failed it again. tmiddles wrote: Religion. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
25-01-2020 01:25 | |
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
Into the Night wrote:tmiddles wrote: I'll ask again if you're willing to discuss HOW these people fool themselves. If not so be it I can't make you. |
25-01-2020 05:55 | |
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14373) |
tmiddles wrote:Into the Night wrote:tmiddles wrote: I'd like to repost your post. It is incredibly stupid. Into the Night gave you a direct and concise answer and you immediately made a post announcing how you were ignoring his response. What would any rational person's response be to you? [Answer: "I'm not going to waste my time trying to engage in a conversation with you if you are going to make it a point to ignore me."] Are you under the impression that people come to this site for your preaching? [hint: not on your life] . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
25-01-2020 06:01 | |
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
IBdaMann wrote:...I'm not going to waste my time trying to engage in a conversation with you if you are going to make it a point to ignore me... Not at all. I saw the one word "religion" and I'm asking you both if you actually want to talk about this. I'm inviting more than a one word response. I have no clue what ITN means by "religion" particularly as you're both fond of unique, personal, and revolutionary definitions for words not shared by anyone else, except maybe each other. With you guys the dictionary, textbook, and all prior human knowledge is of no assistance in parsing what you mean when you say anything. |
25-01-2020 06:12 | |
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14373) |
tmiddles wrote:I have no clue what ITN means by "religion" particularly as you're both fond of unique, personal, and revolutionary definitions for words not shared by anyone else, except maybe each other. You are fond of characterizing terms of which you are unfamiliar, which are MANY, as unique, personal and revolutionary. You seem to think that anything you don't know must be fabricated because you are, after all, omniscient. The bottom line is that you are the uneducated, scientifically illiterate WACKO in the equation whose delusion of omniscience prevents him from learning anything. After MONTHS you still haven't been able to grasp the concept that a material/substance is not itself a body. Your omniscience delusion tells you that it is, because you have declared it as such. Wikipedia's errant conflation is all the proof you need to know that you are RIGHT! I feel your pain. tmiddles wrote:With you guys the dictionary, textbook, and all prior human knowledge is of no assistance in parsing what you mean when you say anything. Thank you! Two bogus position assignments in one day! I'm touched. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
25-01-2020 13:56 | |
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
IBdaMann wrote:No IBD I'm saying I am not able to use them to know what you mean. I can't because you make up your own definitions for words. You have both stated many times that you don't follow dictionary, wikipedia, or any consensus view on the meaning of a word or reference.tmiddles wrote:With you guys the dictionary, textbook, and all prior human knowledge is of no assistance in parsing what you mean when you say anything. Now I would argue that this is simply an attack on a functional use of language. That is consistent with your attacks on functionality as a whole. I have not trouble looking things up otherwise. Google, wikipedia, the dictionary, all work really well. |
25-01-2020 19:13 | |
Harry C★★☆☆☆ (157) |
tmiddles, you spent a great deal of energy to rake me over the coals over my lack of interaction with you. All I can say in response is you are spending so much energy trying to look things up, distinguish yourself as an authority and provide distractions that I can't take you seriously. And if I can't, the people with far more science background than I have must just be toying with you for amusement. It's just my suggestion, and my practice, to humble yourself to the information and provider. Go back and evaluate what you can synthesize. When you get stuck, come back and ask for assistance. The personality you have created for your user name is that of just an argumentative fool. I'm sure there is a lot more to you than what we are seeing. For your sake, I'd like to see you use your energy to move the argument forward. Good luck! |
25-01-2020 19:37 | |
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5193) |
Harry C wrote: I've come to the conclusion, that he's a retired, troll, with too much time on his hands, since he has nobody else to play with anymore. This is just a playground, where he hasn't gotten kick off yet, and still a few people show up to play. He'll either get kick off here too, or the site will get shut down, for lack of use. Which, he isn't smart enough to realize, is probably one of the last few sites, to tolerate the foolishness. He hasn't really contributed anything to the site, just tear down, destroy, distract. Can't get any attention, any other way, or any other place. |
25-01-2020 19:39 | |
Into the Night★★★★★ (21559) |
tmiddles wrote:Into the Night wrote:tmiddles wrote: Religion. RQAA. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
25-01-2020 19:42 | |
Into the Night★★★★★ (21559) |
tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann wrote:...I'm not going to waste my time trying to engage in a conversation with you if you are going to make it a point to ignore me... Just did. tmiddles wrote: Okay. Fundamentalist religion. tmiddles wrote: RQAA. tmiddles wrote: Lie. RDCF. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: No dictionary or textbook defines any word. False authority fallacy . No dictionary or textbook contains all prior human knowledge. False authority fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
25-01-2020 19:49 | |
Into the Night★★★★★ (21559) |
tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann wrote:No IBD I'm saying I am not able to use them to know what you mean.tmiddles wrote:With you guys the dictionary, textbook, and all prior human knowledge is of no assistance in parsing what you mean when you say anything. Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that is trying to change words here. It is YOU that constantly quibbling over words here. Repetitious Redefinition Fallacy (RRF). Repetitious False Authority Fallacy (RFAF). tmiddles wrote: Lie. RRFRFAF. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: RFAF. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: You don't get to deny the English language. You don't get to call the Liberal language English. I'm sorry that you do not know English. tmiddles wrote: Composional error fallacy. RDCF. RRFRFAF. tmiddles wrote: RFAF. tmiddles wrote: RFAF. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
25-01-2020 20:45 | |
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14373) |
tmiddles wrote: I can't because you make up your own definitions for words. Incorrect. I use the definitions and semantics as I learned them, and now you are an expert on how I and others learn things. You, on the other hand, intentionally distort meanings and semantics, especially those of others, as a dishonest way of preaching your religion. Since you cannot win in the forum of ideas you seek to sabotage and silence the ideas of others. tmiddles wrote:You have both stated many times that you don't follow dictionary, wikipedia, or any consensus view on the meaning of a word or reference. Follow? How does one "follow" a dictionary? Yes, I summarily dismiss Wikipedia and other warmizombie church material; I don't know how that relates to "following" unless you mean in the sense that you are a follower of Wikipedia's teachings. Of course, science does not use any consensus; science is not determined by democratic vote and no institution's approval or permission is required for science to be created or falsified. So, yes, if a dictionary is in error, and I notice it, I will certainly advise you. Otherwise dictionaries are references for SPELLING. Additionally, *I* get to determine what words *I* use in my arguments and what they mean. As long as I define my terms then there is no issue. No one gets to dismiss my arguments just because I don't use Wikipedia's terminology, for example, or that Google doesn't return results supporting my terms. Google does not own English and Google does not own science. Similarly, as long as you do not define your terms, e.g. the global climate, Greenhouse Effect, etc., or define your margin of error, you are in error and your argument is summarily dismissed. So, if you ever have an issue whereby I am not defining my terms then you have a case. If it's simply that you don't agree with the words I am using then you don't. You have to address my argument under my words and my semantics. You are similarly welcome to use your own preferred terms ... but when you try to add a frequency term to emissivity, just because you don't understand the science, then your argument itself is flawed and is dismissed on that basis. tmiddles wrote: Now I would argue that this is simply an attack on a functional use of language. ... and you would be incorrect. The speaker gets to craft his own expression, as long as the semantics are unambiguously defined. When I first encountered Into the Night, there were several times in which I started to rake him over the coals ... only to discover that he was entirely correct, he was just using different words. He leans towards industry/marketing terminology and I use mostly purist science and math terminology. He and I both learned the same concepts but under different lingo. I had to dedicate posts to saying "OK, OK, I am backpedaling ... as long as you actually mean X when you write Y and as long as you mean P when you write Q, etc..." He wasn't wrong. He gets to choose the words he uses to express what he wants to write. So do you. You just need to define what you mean by those words. If what you mean by those words is subsequently in error, you need to change what you are arguing. You can't simply fix logic errors in your argument by quibbling over a word usage disparity. tmiddles wrote:I have not trouble looking things up otherwise. Google, wikipedia, the dictionary, all work really well. You have no problem just treating all internet sources as inerrant and lazily absorbing and regurgitating all errors you encounter. That is when your citations are "false authorities". You appeal to erroneous sources that cannot be cross-examined, and you strangely become confused when they are not accepted and your arguments are summarily dismissed. I realize the frustration you must feel. I don't know what to tell you other than you should break your addiction to false authorities and endure the withdrawal pains of just learning the material from authoritative sources the way humans learn. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
26-01-2020 07:16 | |
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
Harry C wrote:...rake me over the coals...an argumentative fool...Well like I said I include myself in making this error. All I said was that you ignored my posts and that's clearly not much of an insult as you've announced you're doing that now. You've had no response to what I've had to say in this topic either. That's your choice. It's clear what you're doing so carry on. However I think my question here, and I don't have an answer yet, is a good one so I hope someone can help. HarveyH55 wrote:...the foolishness. He hasn't really contributed anything to the site,....I don't like you either Harvey. But you claim I'm committing offenses worthy of a ban. No examples of the foolishness Harvey? But really what's interesting is how on topic you are in summing up everything I've posted, which contradicts what you want to be true, as nothing at all. Someone intent on believing dinosaurs never existed is able to do that same thing. But again I think I'm doing it too. IBdaMann wrote:Why bother saying that and not giving an example? What words have I distorted the meaning of? How is that not easily corrected by stating the meaning in place of the word? IBdaMann wrote:*I* get to determine what words *I* use in my arguments and what they mean.And if someone doesn't know, and you're addressing them, isn't it appropriate to provide a method from them to discover that meaning? IBdaMann wrote:...as long as the semantics are unambiguously defined.is often something that needs to be addressed isn't it? But hear me out here I think there is something to that: I think one of the ways this insidious self satisfaction that masquerades as debate and research works is in the reader/hearer warping what the speaker is saying to turn it into something they prefer. Wouldn't you agree I do that with what you say? IBdaMann wrote:When I first encountered Into the Night, there were several times in which I started to rake him over the coals ... only to discover that he was entirely correct, he was just using different words.That's crystal clear and well said. I would add that another similar area of confusion arises when the subject matter being addressed is confused. As I said before when I was more hopeful about our discussions: link to thread tmiddles wrote:James___ wrote: My post was about the topic of this thread.I carefully looked over this long dead thread before reviving it. It suffered from a disorganized and scattered argument that never got anywhere. As I said elsewhere I see that ITN and IBdaMann don't want to let things go when they see errors. So we can just clear things up one by one, in an organized fashion. The breakdown with posters and ITN/IBdaMann on the board I think goes something like this: I think that a good question to ask here is can a method be applied that would allow someone to see their own bias, their own blindness? And hopefully a way past it. IBdaMann wrote:...you should break your addiction to false authorities... One of the tools that has been used to "sober up" any group is laying a trap. It got Dan Rather fired when he used bad sources. I've seen attorney's in the news, like Gloria Allred for example, do the following: They open with only the accusation against a defendant and hold back the fact that they have real evidence. Doing this because she knows the defendant will craft a lie they think they can get away with. Once they have publicly she lets the other shoe drop, exposing them as a liar. But I think what's called for is a better understand and application, on my part for one, of a scientific method. I went to art school so I got nothing yet. But to reiterate: You all are 100 times crazier/blinder than me, easily, but I think I'm still crazy/blind. |
26-01-2020 18:45 | |
Harry C★★☆☆☆ (157) |
tmiddles wrote:Harry C wrote:...rake me over the coals...an argumentative fool...Well like I said I include myself in making this error. All I said was that you ignored my posts and that's clearly not much of an insult as you've announced you're doing that now. There you go again, thinking that you are the arbiter of the universe. Look, you might not like what I wrote but it was not an insult. Part of your problem is you don't stretch your comprehension. From my reply you did not even derive that I was not answering your questions because I don't take you seriously. Then you go on to complain about it again. I'm not getting in to that trap with you. Something about Proverbs 26:4 comes to mind. You wanted to be insulted and to bite back. It's clear by what you quoted, that it is not reflective of the tone and tenor of what I wrote. I was trying to give you space to take what I said and reflect upon it. Humble yourself and turn off your self-appointed judgeship and it will help you a great deal. Continue to act like an acerbic ass and you will waste a lot of time and learn nothing. I'll bet you're not like this in person. Cheers! You learn something new every day if you are lucky! |
26-01-2020 19:09 | |
Into the Night★★★★★ (21559) |
tmiddles wrote:Harry C wrote:...rake me over the coals...an argumentative fool...Well like I said I include myself in making this error. All I said was that you ignored my posts and that's clearly not much of an insult as you've announced you're doing that now. YALIF. Paranoia. tmiddles wrote: Science isn't a 'method' or a 'procedure'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's all. tmiddles wrote: YALIFNAP The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
28-01-2020 06:15 | |
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
Harry C wrote:I was saying that my accusing you of ignoring my posts what not an insult to you. I never alleged you insulted me. I don't care at all about that we are floating avatars on the internet.tmiddles wrote:...what I wrote but it was not an insult....Harry C wrote:...rake me over the coals...an argumentative fool...Well like I said I include myself in making this error. All I said was that you ignored my posts and that's clearly not much of an insult ... Harry C wrote:...I was not answering your questions because I don't take you seriously. ...This is my entire thesis here. I was pointing that out. Just as I don't take some things seriously/dismiss them and Voilà ! The echo chamber is achieved. tmiddles wrote:Into the Night wrote:Science is a set of falsifiable theories. |
28-01-2020 07:31 | |
keepit★★★★★ (3055) |
I know Richard Feynman and Karl Popper and Don Lincoln have said that science is a set of falsifiable theories but i don't find it helpful at all. It's kind of like the weak anthropic principle, not much use IMHO. |
28-01-2020 08:53 | |
Into the Night★★★★★ (21559) |
tmiddles wrote:RDCF.Harry C wrote:I was saying that my accusing you of ignoring my posts what not an insult to you. I never alleged you insulted me. I don't care at all about that we are floating avatars on the internet.tmiddles wrote:...what I wrote but it was not an insult....Harry C wrote:...rake me over the coals...an argumentative fool...Well like I said I include myself in making this error. All I said was that you ignored my posts and that's clearly not much of an insult ... tmiddles wrote:RDCF.Harry C wrote:...I was not answering your questions because I don't take you seriously. ...This is my entire thesis here. I was pointing that out. Just as I don't take some things seriously/dismiss them and Voilà ! The echo chamber is achieved. tmiddles wrote:tmiddles wrote: Lie. RDCF. RRFRFAF The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
28-01-2020 08:54 | |
Into the Night★★★★★ (21559) |
keepit wrote: Then you don't understand their arguments. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
28-01-2020 13:40 | |
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
keepit wrote: I looked for that and couldn't find it. I believe they talk about theories be falsifiable but no one has ever said Science is ONLY that. Except for ITN that is |
28-01-2020 15:26 | |
Harry C★★☆☆☆ (157) |
tmiddles wrote:Harry C wrote:...I was not answering your questions because I don't take you seriously. ...This is my entire thesis here. I was pointing that out. Just as I don't take some things seriously/dismiss them and Voilà ! The echo chamber is achieved. There is a difference. I'm trying to learn and you are not. You have already assigned yourself the role of provocateur. I've seen it so many times before. You insert yourself in to discussions with an attempt to be relevant. You dissect people's posts to the point that no one knows which end is up anymore. It causes confusion, diffusion and dilution. No sir, there is no point to this thread except you trying to create some authority for yourself. You learn something new every day if you are lucky! |
28-01-2020 17:11 | |
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14373) |
keepit wrote: I know Richard Feynman and Karl Popper and Don Lincoln have said that science is a set of falsifiable theories but i don't find it helpful at all. The most likely reason is that you don't find science helpful at all. keepit wrote: It's kind of like the weak anthropic principle, not much use IMHO. It's nothing like it at all. You are still batting 0.000 . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
28-01-2020 19:39 | |
Into the Night★★★★★ (21559) |
tmiddles wrote:keepit wrote: Lie. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |