Remember me
▼ Content

"The temperature record is unreliable!"



Page 5 of 5<<<345
20-10-2016 06:28
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
Attempting to use a derivative to calculate an average value outside that derivative is a math error.

But I'm not... I'm just noting a change, and that change is more accurate than the absolute observation, for reasons detailed in my post.

Also wouldn't work. Some rockets are heavier, take different kinds of engines with different delays, may be multistaged or multiengine, fly at different speeds and reach heights less than the little spit that took off fast and fell fast (tumble recovery), even though they took a log longer to do it.

As I stated, this was a simple paper rocket with an air pressure launcher. It was 8th grade, man. It wasn't rocket science.

I already pointed that out. I am using a gradient of a possible +-20 deg F, since that's what I've observed.

The maximum observed gradient.
jwoodward48 wrote:
But we do know that some error is steady. If I stick my observatory beneath a cool overhang, that cool overhang will continue to be cooler than the rest of the region tomorrow, and the day after that.
Not necessarily. It will make no difference on a dark overcast day, for instance.

But that will tend to not affect the average over many years.
jwoodward48 wrote:
This means that the margin of change for the derivative is less than the margin of error of the absolute measurements. This is why we use anomalies.

You cannot just choose a convenient population for your margin of error.

Oops, I meant margin of error, not margin of change. Typo.

What do you mean, "a convenient population"? I'm talking about the anomaly, which is both accurate and important. Is that convenient? Yes. Your point?
jwoodward48 wrote:
Also, as a reply to your "temperature changes greatly over distance" point and example, keep in mind that outliers do exist. This is fine. The average temperature change over distance is far less than what you observed.

How do you know? You cannot calculate that average either.

Yes, we can, to a degree of accuracy.


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

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

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
20-10-2016 12:45
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
jwoodward48 wrote:
No! I expect you hand it to me on a golden platter!

Correct.

...unless you're satisfied with your argument remaining unsupported.

I do notice, however, your reversion to attempting to shift your burden of proof.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
20-10-2016 13:17
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
jwoodward48 wrote: This is why we use anomalies.

Great. Bad math that obscures the truth is why we use "anomalies."

jwoodward48 wrote: Also, as a reply to your "temperature changes greatly over distance" point and example, keep in mind that outliers do exist. This is fine. The average temperature change over distance is far less than what you observed.

You don't know this. In fact, you are mistaken by trying to magically make error disappear. You have to carry it through.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
20-10-2016 14:16
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
No, it is you that is missing the point. You cannot claim a change unless you know the base of that change. That's absolute values.

Of course you can measure a change without knowing the absolute values.

Let us define
T1 = Absolute average temperature at time 1 (unknown)
T2 = Absolute average temperature at time 2 (unknown)
M1 = Measured average temperature at time 1
M2 = Measured average temperature at time 2
D = Difference between measured and absolute average temperature values (unknown)

So M1 = T1 + D and M2 = T2 + D



Now, the change C in temperature between time 1 and time 2 is given by

C = T2 - T1

Bur T2 = M2 - D and T1 = M1 - D, so

C = (M2 - D) - (M1 - D) = M2 - M1

Hence we don't need to know the absolute values T1 and T2.


You don't have a usable T1, T2, M1, or M2.

T1 and T2 are the unknown averages of the real temperatures; I see no reason why we shouldn't assign a label to these quantities. M1 and M2 are simply the averages of the measured temperatures, and I've just shown why we can use them.

You are also attempting to declare Mx is somehow different than Tx.

Well, yes, that's precisely because we can't accurately measure the real average temperatures. The measured temperatures will differ from the actual temperatures by some small error, which I've called D.


Which means, of course, that you are making shit up.

What do you think I am making up?
20-10-2016 15:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
No, it is you that is missing the point. You cannot claim a change unless you know the base of that change. That's absolute values.

Of course you can measure a change without knowing the absolute values.

Let us define
T1 = Absolute average temperature at time 1 (unknown)
T2 = Absolute average temperature at time 2 (unknown)
M1 = Measured average temperature at time 1
M2 = Measured average temperature at time 2
D = Difference between measured and absolute average temperature values (unknown)

So M1 = T1 + D and M2 = T2 + D

Now, the change C in temperature between time 1 and time 2 is given by

C = T2 - T1

Bur T2 = M2 - D and T1 = M1 - D, so

C = (M2 - D) - (M1 - D) = M2 - M1

Hence we don't need to know the absolute values T1 and T2.


Let's fix your math.

You should have written:
T1 = Absolute average temperature at time 1 (unknown)
T2 = Absolute average temperature at time 2 (unknown)
C1 = Compute average temperature at time 1
C2 = Computed average temperature at time 2
Error1 = T1 - C1
Error2 = T2 - C2

Now, let's accurately presume your method of computing the average global temperature has an unusably high margin of error, ergo


ABS(Error1) could be very large
ABS(Error2) could be very large
C1 = Error1 - T1
C2 = Error2 - T2

AbsoluteTempDelta = T1 - T2

MeasuredTempDelta = C2 - C1 = (Error2 - T2) - (Error1 - T1)

DeltaError = ABS(AbsoluteTempDelta - MeasuredTempDelta)
= ABS( [T1 - T2] - [ (Error2 - T2) - (Error1 - T1) ] )
= ABS( [T1 - T2] - [ (Error2 - Error1 - T2 + T1) ] )
= ABS( T1 - T2 - Error2 + Error1 + T2 - T1 )
= ABS( Error1 - Error2 ) ... which could potentially be large as ABS(Error1) + ABS(Error2), both of which could be very large.

The error of the measured change could be unusably large.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
20-10-2016 16:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
No, it is you that is missing the point. You cannot claim a change unless you know the base of that change. That's absolute values.

Of course you can measure a change without knowing the absolute values.

Let us define
T1 = Absolute average temperature at time 1 (unknown)
T2 = Absolute average temperature at time 2 (unknown)
M1 = Measured average temperature at time 1
M2 = Measured average temperature at time 2
D = Difference between measured and absolute average temperature values (unknown)

So M1 = T1 + D and M2 = T2 + D

Now, the change C in temperature between time 1 and time 2 is given by

C = T2 - T1

Bur T2 = M2 - D and T1 = M1 - D, so

C = (M2 - D) - (M1 - D) = M2 - M1

Hence we don't need to know the absolute values T1 and T2.


Let's fix your math.

You should have written:
T1 = Absolute average temperature at time 1 (unknown)
T2 = Absolute average temperature at time 2 (unknown)
C1 = Compute average temperature at time 1
C2 = Computed average temperature at time 2
Error1 = T1 - C1
Error2 = T2 - C2

Now, let's accurately presume your method of computing the average global temperature has an unusably high margin of error, ergo


ABS(Error1) could be very large
ABS(Error2) could be very large
C1 = Error1 - T1
C2 = Error2 - T2

AbsoluteTempDelta = T1 - T2

MeasuredTempDelta = C2 - C1 = (Error2 - T2) - (Error1 - T1)

DeltaError = ABS(AbsoluteTempDelta - MeasuredTempDelta)
= ABS( [T1 - T2] - [ (Error2 - T2) - (Error1 - T1) ] )
= ABS( [T1 - T2] - [ (Error2 - Error1 - T2 + T1) ] )
= ABS( T1 - T2 - Error2 + Error1 + T2 - T1 )
= ABS( Error1 - Error2 ) ... which could potentially be large as ABS(Error1) + ABS(Error2), both of which could be very large.

The error of the measured change could be unusably large.


.

In my typing haste I made some math errors in the above. Does anyone care?

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
20-10-2016 16:57
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
IBdaMann wrote:In my typing haste I made some math errors in the above. Does anyone care?


I should have had my work "peer reviewed." Then it wouldn't matter if I had errors, it would have become "settled science."


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
20-10-2016 18:55
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
The corrections:

T1 = Absolute average temperature at time 1 (unknown)
T2 = Absolute average temperature at time 2 (unknown)

C1 = Computed average temperature at time 1
C2 = Computed average temperature at time 2

Error1 = T1 - C1
Error2 = T2 - C2

Now, let's accurately presume your method of computing the average global temperature has an unusably high margin of error, ergo:

ABS(Error1) could be very large
ABS(Error2) could be very large

T1 = Error1 + C1
T2 = Error2 + C2

AbsoluteTempDelta = T1 - T2
MeasuredTempDelta = C1 - C2 = (T1 - Error1) - (T2 - Error2) = T1 -T2 + Error2 - Error1

DeltaError = ABS(AbsoluteTempDelta - MeasuredTempDelta)
= ABS( [T1 - T2] - [ (T1 - T2 + Error2 - Error1) ] )
= ABS( T1 - T2 - T1 + T2 - Error2 + Error1 )
= ABS( Error1 - Error2 )
... which could potentially be large as ABS(Error1) + ABS(Error2)
06-11-2016 04:48
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
You've confused systematic errors with random errors. What you've called Error1 and Error2 (and I called D) have virtually the same value. It's like using a clock that runs fast or slow to time an egg. You can still measure 10 minutes with a clock, even if it is running half an hour slow. Just as you don't need to know the exact absolute time to time an egg, you don't need to know the Earth's absolute temperature (however you define it) to measure a change in temperature.
06-11-2016 14:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
Surface Detail wrote: You've confused systematic errors with random errors.

That's a stupid statement to make.

Obviously I didn't confuse any types of errors because I never categorized any errors. I simply identified them. All the errors I identified are correctly identified as errors.

Let's review your position:

You believe that your WACKY religious faith bestows upon you divine knowledge that somehow eliminates uncertainty/error, and now you additionally believe that assigning labels to types of errors makes for a valid explanation as to why some errors can just evaporate.

You insist that your divine religion-bequeathed knowledge allows you to know whether the earth's average global temperature is increasing or decreasing to some useful accuracy without requiring any sort of sufficient dataset.

You are genuinely surprised by others who weren't gullible enough to fall for the blatantly obvious Global Warming scam.

Have I covered everything?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
07-11-2016 06:23
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
The errors don't evaporate, but they do partially cancel out.
07-11-2016 16:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
jwoodward48 wrote: The errors don't evaporate, but they do partially cancel out.

Show your math. Show where they cancel. I see that they factor out, thus running though the entire computation without being cancelled in any way.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
07-11-2016 18:32
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
It's a result of the physical nature of the error, like how a clock that runs 5 minutes ahead of true time can still be used to measure the length of time intervals.
07-11-2016 18:48
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
jwoodward48 wrote:It's a result of the physical nature of the error, like how a clock that runs 5 minutes ahead of true time can still be used to measure the length of time intervals.

Bad example. A clock that is an unknown amount off of true time cannot used to tell what time it is to any usable accuracy.

An insufficient number of simultaneous thermometer readings to compute the earths average global temperature to any usable accuracy cannot be used to compute changes in earth's average global changes to any useful accuracy.

An insufficient number of simultaneous thermometer readings do not somehow cancel out their insufficiency error.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
07-11-2016 18:53
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:It's a result of the physical nature of the error, like how a clock that runs 5 minutes ahead of true time can still be used to measure the length of time intervals.

Bad example. A clock that is an unknown amount off of true time cannot used to tell what time it is to any usable accuracy.

But it can be used to tell the difference between two times with a usable accuracy.
An insufficient number of simultaneous thermometer readings to compute the earths average global temperature to any usable accuracy cannot be used to compute changes in earth's average global changes to any useful accuracy.

Which is why they aren't simultaneous. They're over time. And you still haven't listened - if the error is relatively constant, the derivative of the measurement has less error than the measurement itself.
An insufficient number of simultaneous thermometer readings do not somehow cancel out their insufficiency error.
.

You haven't been listening. This is not what I said.


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

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

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
07-11-2016 20:49
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
jwoodward48 wrote: But it can be used to tell the difference between two times with a usable accuracy.

Bad example. Time is the same everywhere. Thermometers can only measure temperature at one point and every point can differ in temperature from the next point.

Your clock example would be appropriate in a universe where time can differ at every single point on the earth.

jwoodward48 wrote: Which is why they aren't simultaneous. They're over time.

This is bad. You are totally lost.

Go back and re-read the posts and I'll be happy to address any specific areas of confusion.

jwoodward48 wrote: And you still haven't listened - if the error is relatively constant, the derivative of the measurement has less error than the measurement itself.

No. You apparently have no business in this particular conversation. Go learn some math. I will gladly help you with any specific areas of confusion.


jwoodward48 wrote: You haven't been listening. This is not what I said.

Your wording to the effect of claiming that I am the problem is bogus. You are very unclear even when you are not gibbering and babbling. You are the problem. You don't get to EVADE clearly stating your position and then hide behind the phrase "that's not what I said." If you aren't going to be clear then you are saying whatever I say you are saying. Be clear or live with the ramifications.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
07-11-2016 21:20
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
*puts on his IB hat*

IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: But it can be used to tell the difference between two times with a usable accuracy.

Bad example. Time is the same everywhere. Thermometers can only measure temperature at one point and every point can differ in temperature from the next point.

You still don't understand.
Your clock example would be appropriate in a universe where time can differ at every single point on the earth.

Yep, you don't get it.
jwoodward48 wrote: Which is why they aren't simultaneous. They're over time.

This is bad. You are totally lost.

It is so, so bad. You are incapable of reading a map.
Go back and re-read the posts and I'll be happy to address any specific areas of confusion.

How about all of it, you incompetent idiot? You make no sense.
[quote]jwoodward48 wrote: And you still haven't listened - if the error is relatively constant, the derivative of the measurement has less error than the measurement itself.

No. You apparently have no business in this particular conversation.

No, you are just stupid.
Go learn some math.

You should go back to kindergarten.
I will gladly help you with any specific areas of confusion.

If you need help remembering what 2+2 is, you can come to me.
jwoodward48 wrote: You haven't been listening. This is not what I said.

Your wording to the effect of claiming that I am the problem is bogus.

Do you need help?
You are very unclear even when you are not gibbering and babbling.

Are you having a seizure?
You are the problem.

You are the reason that I make no sense, IB!
You don't get to EVADE clearly stating your position and then hide behind the phrase "that's not what I said."

Well that's just your WACKY religion!
If you aren't going to be clear then you are saying whatever I say you are saying.

You live in a reality-based community, you fool! The world is whatever I say it is!
Be clear or live with the ramifications.

[insert vaguely threat-like closing insult]


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

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

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
07-11-2016 22:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
jwoodward48 wrote: *puts on his IB hat*

You're so cute when you pout, yes you are.

I guess we're done.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
07-11-2016 22:10
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Oh, the little IB is trying to be condescending! How cute.

Yeah, I'm done. Done in the sense of goodbye, have a nice life, see you never. This is absolutely pointless. Scream and rant all you want, I'm not reading another post here. Of all my hobbies, this forum is the only one which brings me anxiety and anger - why would I stay? And you'd never change your mind or admit to being wrong, I can see that now.

Do try to pop that bubble sometime, IB. The world is really quite interesting when it's not black and white.
08-11-2016 14:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4910)
jwoodward48 wrote: Yeah, I'm done. Done in the sense of goodbye, have a nice life, see you never.

Good bye then. God speed. Be a stranger.

jwoodward48 wrote: This is absolutely pointless. Scream and rant all you want, I'm not reading another post here.

You rant. You preach a WACKY religion. I am an atheist. I don't preach any religion. I don't have any religion.

I discuss science. You deny science.

I have just summarized the entirety of our interaction.

jwoodward48 wrote: Of all my hobbies, this forum is the only one which brings me anxiety and anger

Of course. You need for your WACKY religious dogma to remain unquestioned and undoubted. What you encounter on this site, however, is the very science that rubs you the wrong way. You just want the relaxing ease of letting others do your thinking for you as you enjoy a nice, peaceful Global Warming high, but that hateful science robs you of your "Climate" fix.

To make matters worse, you rest your hope beyond hope on the phrase "What if Global Warming is true?" yet on this site you get Stefan-Boltzmann rudely thrown in your face to dash any remnants of that hope. It's enough to give any warmizombie anxiety and anger.

DAMN SCIENCE! You deny and deny and just when you've rationalized away all relevant science someone on this site brings it right back to the forefront and bursts your comfy little bubble. If I were you, I'd leave as well.

So, good bye. I wish you the best finding that perfect, science-free zone where others will be at your beckon call to cater to your every desire to have them do your thinking for you. Good luck.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
09-11-2016 20:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9575)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Oh, the little IB is trying to be condescending! How cute.

Yeah, I'm done. Done in the sense of goodbye, have a nice life, see you never. This is absolutely pointless. Scream and rant all you want, I'm not reading another post here. Of all my hobbies, this forum is the only one which brings me anxiety and anger - why would I stay? And you'd never change your mind or admit to being wrong, I can see that now.

Do try to pop that bubble sometime, IB. The world is really quite interesting when it's not black and white.


Have a nice life in your self induced paranoia.


The Parrot Killer
Page 5 of 5<<<345





Join the debate "The temperature record is unreliable!":

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
What makes you think CO2 increases temperature?508-10-2019 19:13
Earth surface temperature measurements9325-09-2019 19:46
There is no valid physics that can show CO2 increases temperature2917-09-2019 22:35
If CO2 have higher temperature than O2 and N2 in the air?317-09-2019 00:37
Earths Temperature114-08-2019 20:08
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


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