There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N2

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N2 > Page 13

Page 13 of 14

19-01-2020 23:51
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	James___ wrote: Harry C, since you mentioned church, this is what the Bible says. Hebrews 13:15-16; Therefore, let us offer through Jesus a continual sacrifice of praise to God, proclaiming our allegiance to his name. 16 And don't forget to do good and to share with those in need. These are the sacrifices that please God. The Bible supports socialism. It supports caring about and helping others. Charity isn't socialism. 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
20-01-2020 00:07
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Into the Night wrote: James___ wrote: Harry C, since you mentioned church, this is what the Bible says. Hebrews 13:15-16; Therefore, let us offer through Jesus a continual sacrifice of praise to God, proclaiming our allegiance to his name. 16 And don't forget to do good and to share with those in need. These are the sacrifices that please God. The Bible supports socialism. It supports caring about and helping others. Charity isn't socialism. It is. It's looking out for the common welfare of the people. The scripture specifically mentions "sacrifices that please God". This one didn't. Genesis 4:9 And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper? Apparently Cain didn't know this; Galatians 6:2; Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. You're right ITN. I am wrong and you tell it like it is. Edited on 20-01-2020 00:08
20-01-2020 03:01
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Harry C wrote: tmiddles wrote: "Accuracy", "precision", "exacting" are all relative terms... Talk about blunting a point, this is nothing but a huge distraction...if that's you're purpose, so be it. I consider this to be a clear description of the reality of "Knowing" any measurement and having anything be "useable". Harry C wrote:...temperature records that are so incomplete as to defy anal6sis Now here you play into their hands. They don't defy analysis at all. They defy analysis to some purposes. I agree it's a serious topic SO YOU BETTER HAVE THE BEST ARGUMENT POSSIBLE. It's clear you dodge my posts because I make you uncomfortable with strong arguments that the "easy outs" ITN/IBD offer are BS. Hear me: They are the best thing to ever happen to the consesus hysteria because they make the counterpoint look moronic. I have these guys sticking to saying you cannot know the temperature of Denver. Can you get more dismiss-able than that? Harry C wrote:Low data confidence is a WAG. No "WAG" is not a useful term and bad data is not fabricated data. Also there is distinction between errors in data gathering and a confidence level associated with the method/circumstances of data gathering. Again the Pat Franks stuff is worth checking out. Earth surface temperature measurements 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! Two questions for you: 1- Do you think the traffic engineer could do it right? That the traffic count could be known and useful to the city in it's planning? 2- Do you think this same process of analysis and diagnosis of what went wrong can be applied to work done on Earth's temperature and other areas relevant tot his topic? That someone could identify the errors? IBdaMann wrote: For the sake of discussion let's say you choose "the earth's average global temperature is rising." Great. Box checked. No let's go with the temperature of Denver. If you are going to present an example of how something should be done, where is it? Harry C notice that IBD has just shown you what he views cannot be done. In 5 years ITN/IBD have never once given an example of something that CAN BE DONE. Not once. They are to science what Jim Crow was to voting for blacks in the south. It's a test that just never gets passed. "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 20-01-2020 03:06
20-01-2020 03:09
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: For the sake of discussion let's say you choose "the earth's average global temperature is rising." Great. Box checked. No let's go with the temperature of Denver. If you are going to present an example of how something should be done, where is it? Harry C notice that IBD has just shown you what he views cannot be done. In 5 years ITN/IBD have never once given an example of something that CAN BE DONE. Not once. genesis 11:6 The Lord said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.
20-01-2020 20:18
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	James___ wrote: Into the Night wrote: James___ wrote: Harry C, since you mentioned church, this is what the Bible says. Hebrews 13:15-16; Therefore, let us offer through Jesus a continual sacrifice of praise to God, proclaiming our allegiance to his name. 16 And don't forget to do good and to share with those in need. These are the sacrifices that please God. The Bible supports socialism. It supports caring about and helping others. Charity isn't socialism. It is. It's looking out for the common welfare of the people. No, it isn't. Charity is not socialism. Socialism does NOT even look out for the common welfare of the people. It STEALS from the people. It is the government STEALING from the people. 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

20-01-2020 20:29
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: Harry C wrote: tmiddles wrote: "Accuracy", "precision", "exacting" are all relative terms... Talk about blunting a point, this is nothing but a huge distraction...if that's you're purpose, so be it. I consider this to be a clear description of the reality of "Knowing" any measurement and having anything be "useable". A temperature reading is not the temperature of the Earth. tmiddles wrote: Harry C wrote:...temperature records that are so incomplete as to defy anal6sis Now here you play into their hands. They don't defy analysis at all. They defy analysis to some purposes. There is no analysis possible on data the doesn't exist. tmiddles wrote: I agree it's a serious topic SO YOU BETTER HAVE THE BEST ARGUMENT POSSIBLE. It's clear you dodge my posts because I make you uncomfortable with strong arguments that the "easy outs" ITN/IBD offer are BS. Easy outs to what? Define 'climate change'. Define 'global warming'. tmiddles wrote: Hear me: They are the best thing to ever happen to the consesus hysteria because they make the counterpoint look moronic. You are being moronic. You are chanting. You are locked in multiple paradoxes. tmiddles wrote: I have these guys sticking to saying you cannot know the temperature of Denver. Can you get more dismiss-able than that? You can't just create data out of nothing. tmiddles wrote: Harry C wrote:Low data confidence is a WAG. No "WAG" is not a useful term and bad data is not fabricated data. Fabricated numbers is not data. You are fabricating 'data' again. tmiddles wrote: Also there is distinction between errors in data gathering and a confidence level associated with the method/circumstances of data gathering. You are not collecting data. You are fabricating numbers and calling them 'data'. tmiddles wrote: Again the Pat Franks stuff is worth checking out. Earth surface temperature measurements RDCF. RQAA. 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! ...of why you are wrong. You are just making up numbers and calling them 'data'. tmiddles wrote: Two questions for you: 1- Do you think the traffic engineer could do it right? That the traffic count could be known and useful to the city in it's planning? 2- Do you think this same process of analysis and diagnosis of what went wrong can be applied to work done on Earth's temperature and other areas relevant tot his topic? That someone could identify the errors? Irrelevant. Redirection fallacy. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: For the sake of discussion let's say you choose "the earth's average global temperature is rising." Great. Box checked. No let's go with the temperature of Denver. It is not possible to know the temperature of Denver. The boundaries are not set. There are not enough thermometers. tmiddles wrote: If you are going to present an example of how something should be done, where is it? Already did. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: Harry C notice that IBD has just shown you what he views cannot be done. In 5 years ITN/IBD have never once given an example of something that CAN BE DONE. Not once. Lie. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: They are to science what Jim Crow was to voting for blacks in the south. It's a test that just never gets passed. Racism. False equivalence fallacy. You can't just make up numbers and call them 'data'. You are still denying statistical mathematics. 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
20-01-2020 22:35
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	Harry C wrote: IBdaMann wrote: With all due respect, every time you insist that you wish to falsify Greenhouse Effect you profess your devotion to your belief in the existence of just such a falsifiable science model. I don't know why you can't allow me the space to reconcile terms to reinforce my knowledge. I'm not at odds with you about the outcome. You are working very hard to legitimize the dogma of Greenhouse Effect as actual science. Your "attempts" to falsify Greenhouse Effect imply that you believe it can be proven false. Only falsifiable models can be proven false. Unfalsifiable models, e.g. religions, cannot be proven false. Global Warming, Climate Change and Greenhouse Effect are all religions ... yet you tell me that, with all due respect, I should just shut up about telling you how "they can't be proven false" and to just let you prove them false, presumably because you are so much wiser than the bothersome people who are telling you that you can't do what you are trying to do. Your attempts to prove those religious dogmas false does not make you wise. They make you stupid, with all due respect of course. Harry C wrote: IBdaMann wrote:With all due repsect, every time you get irritated that I point out that Greenhouse Effect it is just a WACKY religious dogma you tip your hand that you're all about the religion. I'm not irritated. I've been struggling for acceptance and you've been less than respectful. And you can blow me. I politely tried to be helpful. I took the time to write lengthy posts to guide you where you were wasting your time. You essentially told me to just shut up ... with a "with all due respect." So, with all due respect, from now on, I'm just going to tell you how stupid you are when you write stupid things. You and I are going to have a lot of fun. If you aren't having fun, don't worry, I'll be having enough fun for the both of us. Take a little bit of your own advice and be respectful or you won't get any in return. . 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
21-01-2020 10:56
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: Harry C wrote:....you can't allow me the space to reconcile terms... ...Unfalsifiable models, ... For Harry C, What about "making sense" and "being useful"? Paying taxes, voting, working and surviving are practical matters very much impacted by this issue of the CLIMATE DEBATE. Science and Engineering are not just theoretical exercises, but pull their weight as we are able to fly across the planet in a jet plane and know the weather conditions when we arrive. They are useful, produce a tremendous amount of reliable knowledge, solve problems and get things done. ITN/IBD have one consistent theme in everything they say: Complete uselessness. Is knowing the temperature of Denver impossible? Is it religious dogma to know the temperature of Denver? Are we helpless to know and describe the climate of Denver? Nope. IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: No one can know the temperature of Denver. He's absolutely correct.... These clowns are just crazy. Anytime someone claims, coherently, that something is being done wrong it's with an example of how to do it right. It's 5 years and counting with these two trolls never offering a single example of science done right, of a single problem being address or a mystery solved. "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
21-01-2020 16:10
Harry C★★☆☆☆ (157)	IBdaMann wrote: Harry C wrote: IBdaMann wrote: With all due respect, every time you insist that you wish to falsify Greenhouse Effect you profess your devotion to your belief in the existence of just such a falsifiable science model. I don't know why you can't allow me the space to reconcile terms to reinforce my knowledge. I'm not at odds with you about the outcome. You are working very hard to legitimize the dogma of Greenhouse Effect as actual science. Your "attempts" to falsify Greenhouse Effect imply that you believe it can be proven false. Only falsifiable models can be proven false. Unfalsifiable models, e.g. religions, cannot be proven false. Global Warming, Climate Change and Greenhouse Effect are all religions ... yet you tell me that, with all due respect, I should just shut up about telling you how "they can't be proven false" and to just let you prove them false, presumably because you are so much wiser than the bothersome people who are telling you that you can't do what you are trying to do. Your attempts to prove those religious dogmas false does not make you wise. They make you stupid, with all due respect of course. Harry C wrote: IBdaMann wrote:With all due repsect, every time you get irritated that I point out that Greenhouse Effect it is just a WACKY religious dogma you tip your hand that you're all about the religion. I'm not irritated. I've been struggling for acceptance and you've been less than respectful. And you can blow me. I politely tried to be helpful. I took the time to write lengthy posts to guide you where you were wasting your time. You essentially told me to just shut up ... with a "with all due respect." So, with all due respect, from now on, I'm just going to tell you how stupid you are when you write stupid things. You and I are going to have a lot of fun. If you aren't having fun, don't worry, I'll be having enough fun for the both of us. Take a little bit of your own advice and be respectful or you won't get any in return. . Dear Mr. Mann, You are not correct about my purpose here. I'll try one last time to clarify. The majority of the world believes that there is a greenhouse effect and that it is creating increased temperatures due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere. I am not one of them. When I encounter people who are entrenched in that belief with whom I would like to try to present a more convincing position, I have to have an ability to take something that is controversial and deeply sophisticated and create a relatable explanation to replace the dogma. I can not and will not be a person that states a position without being able to support it backwards and forwards. That has been and remains my purpose here. Admittedly I do not have a science background and it handicaps my ability to come up to speed on the science. I am not there yet but I'm not stupid. I have made a repeated appeal to get information and gain knowledge which is the essence of my pursuit. I don't understand why, against the basic physics that are the essence of the platform of your position, is not clearly convincing to the rest of the world. I welcome your insight if you choose to assist. If you don't, that's ok too. Go ahead and continue with your attacks, which don't make sense to me, and I'll just fade away and follow my pursuit somewhere else. Since I'm not the enemy, what have you won? Sincerely, Harry You learn something new every day if you are lucky! Edited on 21-01-2020 16:17
21-01-2020 16:46
Harry C★★☆☆☆ (157)	tmiddles wrote: Harry C wrote:....you can't allow me the space to reconcile terms......Unfalsifiable models, ... For Harry C, What about "making sense" and "being useful"? Paying taxes, voting, working and surviving are practical matters very much impacted by this issue of the CLIMATE DEBATE. I've always considered myself as a mechanic, pragmatist and peacemaker. Whatever the reality of the situation is, that's what I will support. I don't believe in AGW because of the background of the movement. There's too much about it that appears like a political movement based upon a lie. There's a conspicuous void in the support of science and the story that's being told. Yes there are elemental scientific points but no continuity in the story. My argument with the establishment is to prove what CO2 in the atmosphere does or does not do. I can find a great deal of oversimplified information. ITN and IBDM have expanded my comprehension of the issue. It's no knock against them when I write that they are scientific fundamentalists. I wish I had that knowledge. It's hard for me to understand the threat that I seem to be. To the best of my understanding, I think I understand their basic premise. I am writing a lay-oriented essay on what I can piece together. It's difficult and there are a lot of unending avenues yet to go down. Part of my difficulty has been to understand, remove and replace buzzwords. Another has been to use the correct words that have the meaning that is intended. The fundamental issue for me is what exactly does CO2 do in the atmosphere versus the IPCC position. 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. I am not one to argue for arguments sake. I don't have the time remaining in my life to do so. You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
21-01-2020 16:52
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	Harry C wrote:I welcome your insight if you choose to assist. If you don't, that's ok too. I will try to be helpful one more time. You cannot convince anyone of anything he does not want to believe; he will need to convince himself. You are not wise if you dismiss this just because I am "telling you what you cannot do." You cannot use science to falsify a religious belief. You are wasting your time pursuing the science of why a religious belief amounts to a "miracle" that violates physics because that will not convince anyone holding that religious belief to abandon that religious belief. You are unwise if you dismiss this just because I am "telling you what you cannot do." The only avenue you have available that will have any chance of achieving your objective is to ask said believer why he believes what he believes. When he responds that it is not a belief but is "thettled thienth" THEN you can point out that science runs counter to those beliefs. This is where you need to master the "warmizombie shuffle" whereby warmizombies alternate back and forth between violating thermodynamics and violating Stefan-Boltzmann. They start off violating thermodynamics, you call them on it, they retort "nobody is saying anything about creating additional energy" and then they shift to the "greenhouse gas increases temperature by 'slowing' the escape of earth's thermal radiation to space," you call them on the direct violation of Stefan-Boltzman, they claim that you have to understand what is going on in the atmosphere and return back to square-1 by violating thermodynamics, you call them on it, they retort "I told you a thousand times, nobody is saying anything about creating additional energy" and they shift to the "greenhouse gas increases temperature by 'slowing' the escape of earth's thermal radiation to space," you call them on the direct violation of Stefan-Boltzman, they claim that you have to understand what is going on in the atmosphere and return back to square-1 by violating thermodynamics, you call them on it, they retort "I told you a thousand times, nobody is saying anything about creating additional energy" and they shift to the "greenhouse gas increases temperature by 'slowing' the escape of earth's thermal radiation to space," you call them on the direct violation of Stefan-Boltzman, they claim that you have to understand what is going on in the atmosphere and return back to square-1 by violating thermodynamics, you call them on it, they retort "I told you a thousand times, nobody is saying anything about creating additional energy" and they shift to the "greenhouse gas increases temperature by 'slowing' the escape of earth's thermal radiation to space," you call them on the direct violation of Stefan-Boltzman, they claim that you have to understand what is going on in the atmosphere and return back to square-1 by violating thermodynamics, you call them on it, they retort "I told you a thousand times, nobody is saying anything about creating additional energy" and they shift to the "greenhouse gas increases temperature by 'slowing' the escape of earth's thermal radiation to space," you call them on the direct violation of Stefan-Boltzman, they claim that you have to understand what is going on in the atmosphere and return back to square-1 by violating thermodynamics, you call them on it, they retort "I told you a thousand times, nobody is saying anything about creating additional energy" and they shift to the "greenhouse gas increases temperature by 'slowing' the escape of earth's thermal radiation to space," you call them on the direct violation of Stefan-Boltzman, they claim that you have to understand what is going on in the atmosphere and return back to square-1 by violating thermodynamics, you call them on it, they retort "I told you a thousand times, nobody is saying anything about creating additional energy" and they shift to the "greenhouse gas increases temperature by 'slowing' the escape of earth's thermal radiation to space," you call them on the direct violation of Stefan-Boltzman, they claim that you have to understand what is going on in the atmosphere and return back to square-1 by violating thermodynamics, you call them on it, they retort "I told you a thousand times, nobody is saying anything about creating additional energy" and they shift to the "greenhouse gas increases temperature by 'slowing' the escape of earth's thermal radiation to space," you call them on the direct violation of Stefan-Boltzman, they claim that you have to understand what is going on in the atmosphere and return back to square-1 by violating thermodynamics, you call them on it, they retort "I told you a thousand times, nobody is saying anything about creating additional energy" ... and it goes on and on and on forever. Good Luck. [find - WARMIZOMBIESHUFFLE] 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
21-01-2020 18:03
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	ibdm, what about your "manual"? Couldn't he just read that? It does have all of the answers in it. http://politiplex.freeforums.net/post/2 Of course what is interesting is if hydrocarbons are interfering with the convection process that helps to warm the stratosphere. The cooling of the stratosphere has been observed. In a way it'd be sad if scientists are using CO2 because it's easy to understand for people like you. Of course ozone depletion plays a role in the cooling of the stratosphere because it absorbs UV radiation. And that would need to be taken into consideration. And with how much people debate this, it would be the IPCC's mistake in saying CO2 when they should've been saying CFCs, aerosols and hydrocarbons. Then they would be discussing atmospheric chemistry and physics. But they didn't do that, did they? And if they said that, then they could've said we need to reduce all 3. And capturing hydrocarbons is different than carbon capture which is what they promote. From the skeptics perspective. They're not challenging that stratospheric cooling is happening. And with what I've said, aerosols are usually the gas propellant in a can and CFCs, CCl4 is essentially of unknown origin yet isn't listed as a GHG for some reason https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases. With that said, reducing the 3 different things that I think could help our atmosphere to function as it should, well, if people made 1 or 2 less trips a day, then everything harming our atmosphere would probably be on the decline. http://scarcewhales.blogspot.com/2009/09/what-is-it-about-46-barrels-per-year.html [url]https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/29/revisiting-the-mystery-of-stratospheric-cooling/ [/url]
21-01-2020 18:41
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Harry C wrote:....you can't allow me the space to reconcile terms... ...Unfalsifiable models, ... For Harry C, What about "making sense" and "being useful"? Paying taxes, voting, working and surviving are practical matters very much impacted by this issue of the CLIMATE DEBATE. Define 'climate change'. Define 'global warming'. tmiddles wrote: Science and Engineering are not just theoretical exercises, but pull their weight as we are able to fly across the planet in a jet plane and know the weather conditions when we arrive. Science is not engineering. Engineering is not science. False equivalence fallacy. tmiddles wrote: They are useful, produce a tremendous amount of reliable knowledge, solve problems and get things done. Science is not engineering. Engineering is not science. tmiddles wrote: ITN/IBD have one consistent theme in everything they say: Complete uselessness. RDCF. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: Is knowing the temperature of Denver impossible? RQAA. tmiddles wrote: Is it religious dogma to know the temperature of Denver? RQAA. tmiddles wrote: Are we helpless to know and describe the climate of Denver? Nope. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: No one can know the temperature of Denver. He's absolutely correct.... These clowns are just crazy. YALIFNAP tmiddles wrote: Anytime someone claims, coherently, that something is being done wrong it's with an example of how to do it right. There is no way to 'do it right' when measuring the temperature of Denver. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: It's 5 years and counting with these two trolls never offering a single example of science done right, of a single problem being address or a mystery solved. We have shown you the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics many times. You deny them both. We have shown you the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You deny it too. I have shown you the requirements of statistical mathematics. You deny it as well. You make up numbers, call them 'data', then sit there and complain when someone tells you that doesn't work. Science is not 'done'. It is not a verb. It is a noun. Science simply is. You deny the very engineering that creates the jet plane flying across country, AND the engineering that creates the very weather station at the airport you are flying to. 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
21-01-2020 19:25
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Into the Night wrote: We have shown you the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics many times. You deny them both. We have shown you the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You deny it too. I have shown you the requirements of statistical mathematics. You deny it as well. You make up numbers, call them 'data', then sit there and complain when someone tells you that doesn't work. Science is not 'done'. It is not a verb. It is a noun. Science simply is. You deny the very engineering that creates the jet plane flying across country, AND the engineering that creates the very weather station at the airport you are flying to. You sound like a preacher on Sunday. The First Law of Thermodynamics The first law of thermodynamics states that the heat added to the system adds to its internal energy, while the work done by the system reduces the internal energy. In symbols, you use ∆U to denote the change in internal energy, Q to stand for heat transfer and W for the work done by the system, and so the first law of thermodynamics is: ∆U=Q−W ∆U = Q - W∆U=Q−W https://sciencing.com/first-law-of-thermodynamics-definition-example-13722772.html Why do you ignore it where it states; the heat added to the system adds to its internal energy So when you say that climate change is a hoax, how can I believe you? Edited on 21-01-2020 19:26
21-01-2020 20:19
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	James___ wrote: Into the Night wrote: We have shown you the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics many times. You deny them both. We have shown you the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You deny it too. I have shown you the requirements of statistical mathematics. You deny it as well. You make up numbers, call them 'data', then sit there and complain when someone tells you that doesn't work. Science is not 'done'. It is not a verb. It is a noun. Science simply is. You deny the very engineering that creates the jet plane flying across country, AND the engineering that creates the very weather station at the airport you are flying to. You sound like a preacher on Sunday. The First Law of Thermodynamics The first law of thermodynamics states that the heat added to the system adds to its internal energy, while the work done by the system reduces the internal energy. In symbols, you use ∆U to denote the change in internal energy, Q to stand for heat transfer and W for the work done by the system, and so the first law of thermodynamics is: ∆U=Q−W ∆U = Q - W∆U=Q−W https://sciencing.com/first-law-of-thermodynamics-definition-example-13722772.html Why do you ignore it where it states; the heat added to the system adds to its internal energy So when you say that climate change is a hoax, how can I believe you? CO2 is not heat. 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

21-01-2020 20:31
Harry C★★☆☆☆ (157)	IBdaMann wrote: Harry C wrote:I welcome your insight if you choose to assist. If you don't, that's ok too. I will try to be helpful one more time. [snip] Good Luck. [*find - WARMIZOMBIESHUFFLE] Thank you. You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
21-01-2020 20:37
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	James___ wrote:ibdm, what about your "manual"? Couldn't he just read that? It does have all of the answers in it. http://politiplex.freeforums.net/post/2 James__, you are brilliant. Yes, he certainly read The MANUAL. Excellent point. James___ wrote: Of course what is interesting is if hydrocarbons are interfering with the convection process that helps to warm the stratosphere. The cooling of the stratosphere has been observed. In a way it'd be sad if scientists are using CO2 because it's easy to understand for people like you. James__, I have a quick question for you. Doesn't this supposedly observed "cooling of the stratosphere" represent a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics? p.s. - Don't think I somehow missed your comment about CO2 making it easier to understand. Perhaps at a future point we can discuss what kind of person I am. That could be fun, right? . 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
21-01-2020 22:12
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote:ibdm, what about your "manual"? Couldn't he just read that? It does have all of the answers in it. http://politiplex.freeforums.net/post/2 James__, you are brilliant. Yes, he certainly read The MANUAL. Excellent point. James___ wrote: Of course what is interesting is if hydrocarbons are interfering with the convection process that helps to warm the stratosphere. The cooling of the stratosphere has been observed. In a way it'd be sad if scientists are using CO2 because it's easy to understand for people like you. James__, I have a quick question for you. Doesn't this supposedly observed "cooling of the stratosphere" represent a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics? p.s. - Don't think I somehow missed your comment about CO2 making it easier to understand. Perhaps at a future point we can discuss what kind of person I am. That could be fun, right? . It doesn't. You should be saying the heat from the troposphere not flowing into the stratosphere is a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Instead, a game. As for what kind of person you are, I think you're a Christian. Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. Galatians 6:7-8 KJV You don't really discuss science. I think what you want is for people to accept your understanding.
21-01-2020 22:40
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	James___ wrote: IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote:ibdm, what about your "manual"? Couldn't he just read that? It does have all of the answers in it. http://politiplex.freeforums.net/post/2 James__, you are brilliant. Yes, he certainly read The MANUAL. Excellent point. James___ wrote: Of course what is interesting is if hydrocarbons are interfering with the convection process that helps to warm the stratosphere. The cooling of the stratosphere has been observed. In a way it'd be sad if scientists are using CO2 because it's easy to understand for people like you. James__, I have a quick question for you. Doesn't this supposedly observed "cooling of the stratosphere" represent a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics? p.s. - Don't think I somehow missed your comment about CO2 making it easier to understand. Perhaps at a future point we can discuss what kind of person I am. That could be fun, right? . It doesn't. You should be saying the heat from the troposphere not flowing into the stratosphere is a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Instead, a game. As for what kind of person you are, I think you're a Christian. Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. Galatians 6:7-8 KJV You don't really discuss science. I think what you want is for people to accept your understanding. It does flow into the stratosphere. 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 Edited on 21-01-2020 22:41
22-01-2020 00:25
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Harry C wrote: ...I do not have a science background and it handicaps my ability to come up to speed on the science. I don't either but I think that given the universal impact either a massive tax or a real climate crisis has regular people need to understand this as best we can. It's is MORE important for ordinary people like us to get this clarified than for anyone else. Harry C wrote: There's too much about it that appears like a political movement based upon a lie. Just because you don't like a messenger it doesn't mean that the message is false. Watch these back to back: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0433383/ Joe McArthy was an A-hole https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2149175/ Of course we have russian spys Harry C wrote:I am writing a lay-oriented essay on what I can piece together. That's great! I consider myself to be in a similar endeavor. 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. IBdaMann wrote:...a religious belief amounts to a "miracle" that violates physics... This from a poster who rejects all science books. How can you trust someone's made up version of physics? IBdaMann wrote:..."greenhouse gas increases temperature by 'slowing' the escape of earth's thermal radiation to space," you call them on the direct violation of Stefan-Boltzman, Note ITN/IBD will never provide any support or citation for this claim. It goes like this: The reality is that the emissivity/albedo of matter does in fact vary based on frequency. They claim it doesn't with no explanation at all. Take snow. It's bright white to visible light, low emissivity, high albedo. But to infra red light it's emissivity is like 0.97, as absorptive at black paint. So yes the emissivity of the atmosphere to visible light and to infra red is different. "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
22-01-2020 00:56
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: Harry C wrote: ...I do not have a science background and it handicaps my ability to come up to speed on the science. I don't either but I think that given the universal impact either a massive tax or a real climate crisis has regular people need to understand this as best we can. It's is MORE important for ordinary people like us to get this clarified than for anyone else. Define 'climate crisis'. Define 'climate change'. Define 'global warming'. 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. Would you rather point to one that destroys energy (violating the 1st LOT), or one that tries to heat the surface using a colder gas (violating the 2nd LOT)? Perhaps you could explain to him about the diagrams that try to create energy out of nothing (violating the 1st LOT). Explain the 'greenhouse gas' model without violating the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:...a religious belief amounts to a "miracle" that violates physics... This from a poster who rejects all science books. How can you trust someone's made up version of physics? He did not make it up. YOU are denying physics and trying to change equations. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:..."greenhouse gas increases temperature by 'slowing' the escape of earth's thermal radiation to space," you call them on the direct violation of Stefan-Boltzman, Note ITN/IBD will never provide any support or citation for this claim. Already have. We have given the equation to you multiple times. You just deny it. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: It goes like this: The reality is that the emissivity/albedo of matter does in fact vary based on frequency. Nope. No frequency term in emissivity. You can't just change the equation. tmiddles wrote: They claim it doesn't with no explanation at all. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: Take snow. It's bright white to visible light, low emissivity, high albedo. There is no frequency term in emissivity. tmiddles wrote: But to infra red light it's emissivity is like 0.97, as absorptive at black paint. There is no frequency term in emissivity. Argument from randU fallacy. Black paint does not have a single emissivity value. The value depends on the paint used, and the surface it's painted on. tmiddles wrote: So yes the emissivity of the atmosphere to visible light and to infra red is different. There is no frequency term in emissivity. You are AGAIN denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law. 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
22-01-2020 03:59
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote:...made up version of physics? He did not make it up. Where did he, or you, get it? Find one citation or reference anywhere at all. Here are 12 that contradict you: TWELVE REFERENCES ON NET RADIANCE ITN/IBD DENY Yes yes, I know, you'll lie and claim you already answered that. "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
22-01-2020 05:41
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote:...made up version of physics? He did not make it up. Where did he, or you, get it? Find one citation or reference anywhere at all. Here are 12 that contradict you: TWELVE REFERENCES ON NET RADIANCE ITN/IBD DENY Yes yes, I know, you'll lie and claim you already answered that. RDCF. RQAA. 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
22-01-2020 05:50
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: TWELVE REFERENCES ON NET RADIANCE ITN/IBD DENY False authority fallacy. https://effectiviology.com/false-authority/ "A false authority is an authority figure whose authority is invalid because they either have dubious credentials, irrelevant credentials, or no credentials at all." So 12 science text books have dubious credentials, irrelevant credentials, or no credentials at all? Or maybe ITN just doesn't know what he's saying when he spouts "false authority" Let's take: #2 -University Physics Volume 2: Net Heat Transfer of a Person About the authors Senior contributing authors Samuel J. Ling, Truman State University Dr. Samuel Ling has taught introductory and advanced physics for over 25 years at Truman State University, where he is currently Professor of Physics and the Department Chair. Dr. Ling has two PhDs from Boston University, one in Chemistry and the other in Physics, and he was a Research Fellow at the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, before joining Truman. Dr. Ling is also an author of A First Course in Vibrations and Waves, published by Oxford University Press. Dr. Ling has considerable experience with research in Physics Education and has published research on collaborative learning methods in physics teaching. He was awarded a Truman Fellow and a Jepson fellow in recognition of his innovative teaching methods. Dr. Ling's research publications have spanned Cosmology, Solid State Physics, and Nonlinear Optics. Jeff Sanny, Loyola Marymount University Dr. Jeff Sanny earned a BS in Physics from Harvey Mudd College in 1974 and a PhD in Solid State Physics from the University of California–Los Angeles in 1980. He joined the faculty at Loyola Marymount University in the fall of 1980. During his tenure, he has served as department Chair as well as Associate Dean. Dr. Sanny enjoys teaching introductory physics in particular. He is also passionate about providing students with research experience and has directed an active undergraduate student research group in space physics for many years. William Moebs, Formerly of Loyola Marymount University Dr. William Moebs earned a BS and PhD (1959 and 1965) from the University of Michigan. He then joined their staff as a Research Associate for one year, where he continued his doctoral research in particle physics. In 1966, he accepted an appointment to the Physics Department of Indiana Purdue Fort Wayne (IPFW), where he served as Department Chair from 1971 to 1979. In 1979, he moved to Loyola Marymount University (LMU), where he served as Chair of the Physics Department from 1979 to 1986. He retired from LMU in 2000. He has published research in particle physics, chemical kinetics, cell division, atomic physics, and physics teaching. Now ITN are all three false authorities? And how did you arrive at that determination?
22-01-2020 06:01
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: TWELVE REFERENCES ON NET RADIANCE ITN/IBD DENY False authority fallacy. https://effectiviology.com/false-authority/ "A false authority is an authority figure whose authority is invalid because they either have dubious credentials, irrelevant credentials, or no credentials at all." Not what a false authority is. You are just showing your illiteracy in logic. tmiddles wrote: So 12 science text books have dubious credentials, irrelevant credentials, or no credentials at all? False authority fallacy. The ONLY authoritative reference to any theory of science is the theory itself. tmiddles wrote: Or maybe ITN just doesn't know what he's saying when he spouts "false authority" I know exactly what I am saying. You are quibbling with words again, trying to redefine them. tmiddles wrote: Let's take: #2 -University Physics Volume 2: Net Heat Transfer of a Person About the authors Senior contributing authors Samuel J. Ling, Truman State University Dr. Samuel Ling has taught introductory and advanced physics for over 25 years at Truman State University, where he is currently Professor of Physics and the Department Chair. Dr. Ling has two PhDs from Boston University, one in Chemistry and the other in Physics, and he was a Research Fellow at the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, before joining Truman. Dr. Ling is also an author of A First Course in Vibrations and Waves, published by Oxford University Press. Dr. Ling has considerable experience with research in Physics Education and has published research on collaborative learning methods in physics teaching. He was awarded a Truman Fellow and a Jepson fellow in recognition of his innovative teaching methods. Dr. Ling's research publications have spanned Cosmology, Solid State Physics, and Nonlinear Optics. Jeff Sanny, Loyola Marymount University Dr. Jeff Sanny earned a BS in Physics from Harvey Mudd College in 1974 and a PhD in Solid State Physics from the University of California–Los Angeles in 1980. He joined the faculty at Loyola Marymount University in the fall of 1980. During his tenure, he has served as department Chair as well as Associate Dean. Dr. Sanny enjoys teaching introductory physics in particular. He is also passionate about providing students with research experience and has directed an active undergraduate student research group in space physics for many years. William Moebs, Formerly of Loyola Marymount University Dr. William Moebs earned a BS and PhD (1959 and 1965) from the University of Michigan. He then joined their staff as a Research Associate for one year, where he continued his doctoral research in particle physics. In 1966, he accepted an appointment to the Physics Department of Indiana Purdue Fort Wayne (IPFW), where he served as Department Chair from 1971 to 1979. In 1979, he moved to Loyola Marymount University (LMU), where he served as Chair of the Physics Department from 1979 to 1986. He retired from LMU in 2000. He has published research in particle physics, chemical kinetics, cell division, atomic physics, and physics teaching. Now ITN are all three false authorities? And how did you arrive at that determination? There is no such thing as 'net heat'. 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
22-01-2020 06:02
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	tmiddles wrote:Now ITN are all three false authorities? And how did you arrive at that determination? Are the authors here to be cross-examined? If not, your claims are thrown out. Since that's all you have, the entire case is thrown out of court. . 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
22-01-2020 06:42
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: https://effectiviology.com/false-authority/ "A false authority is an authority figure whose authority is invalid because they either have dubious credentials, irrelevant credentials, or no credentials at all." Not what a false authority is. You are just showing your illiteracy in logic.... The ONLY authoritative reference to any theory of science is the theory itself. That is what false authority is, and your failure to cite the correct meaning according to you is typical. I think you meant "Appeal to authority" but that aint what you said. " the theory itself" he says...Now that would be a theory in what form exactly ITN? You know they don't grow on theory bushes right? They are generally written down. And not by god. Sooooo? wait for it ... wait for it.... A person is going to write the theory down! So who do you trust ITN ? : ) IBdaMann wrote: Are the authors here to be cross-examined? If not, your claims are thrown out. Since that's all you have, the entire case is thrown out of court. Awe did you think you were the judge IBD? You can thrown out anything you want in the court of your own mind. Crazy is always an option. "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
22-01-2020 15:32
Harry C★★☆☆☆ (157)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:Now ITN are all three false authorities? And how did you arrive at that determination? Are the authors here to be cross-examined? If not, your claims are thrown out. Since that's all you have, the entire case is thrown out of court. . I am quoting this for tmiddles' sake. Not that IBDM needs any help here but you are missing the point. You keep citing things that are essentially soundbites and not definitive closure to an argument. Until you can engage them on their level you are doomed to the same type of replies. I've been reading a literal barrage of your posts (look at your average post count per day) since I got here. In spite of what you claim about them trying to shut down discourse, you are the one who is missing the mark from a level of intellectual discourse. You keep pulling the old 'step and fetchit' They're not going to interact with you that way. The more you do that the further you move yourself away from civil discourse. I remember the thread where you were stepping them through their thoughts and they were very accommodating. I know exactly the point where it exploded on you. You should go back and read through that thread unless you are here just to be an irritant. They are very consistent with their replies and explanations. You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
22-01-2020 17:15
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	Harry C wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:Now ITN are all three false authorities? And how did you arrive at that determination? Are the authors here to be cross-examined? If not, your claims are thrown out. Since that's all you have, the entire case is thrown out of court. . I am quoting this for tmiddles' sake. Not that IBDM needs any help here but you are missing the point. You keep citing things that are essentially soundbites and not definitive closure to an argument. Until you can engage them on their level you are doomed to the same type of replies. I've been reading a literal barrage of your posts (look at your average post count per day) since I got here. In spite of what you claim about them trying to shut down discourse, you are the one who is missing the mark from a level of intellectual discourse. You keep pulling the old 'step and fetchit' They're not going to interact with you that way. The more you do that the further you move yourself away from civil discourse. I remember the thread where you were stepping them through their thoughts and they were very accommodating. I know exactly the point where it exploded on you. You should go back and read through that thread unless you are here just to be an irritant. They are very consistent with their replies and explanations. Precisely. I've learned A LOT from them over time. If one comes into the discussion with the intent to discuss the reasoning behind the argumentation and to learn about various stuff, they are very good about explaining their positions and the reasoning behind them. I remember looking back on my very early posts on various forums before ever running into ITN and I quite literally cringed at a fair amount of my own posts lol... I've learned a lot since then, especially about logic and science... I also learned what the logical foundation is for the various religions that I believe in. Edited on 22-01-2020 17:18
22-01-2020 19:07
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: https://effectiviology.com/false-authority/ "A false authority is an authority figure whose authority is invalid because they either have dubious credentials, irrelevant credentials, or no credentials at all." Not what a false authority is. You are just showing your illiteracy in logic.... The ONLY authoritative reference to any theory of science is the theory itself. That is what false authority is, No. You do not get to redefine 'false authority'. tmiddles wrote: and your failure to cite the correct meaning according to you is typical. Already did. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: I think you meant "Appeal to authority" but that aint what you said. No, i mean 'false authority'. tmiddles wrote: " the theory itself" he says. That's right! Good for you! tmiddles wrote: ..Now that would be a theory in what form exactly ITN? Varies. tmiddles wrote: You know they don't grow on theory bushes right? Correct. They grow in fertile minds. tmiddles wrote: They are generally written down. Most of the time, true. Not always. tmiddles wrote: And not by god. Irrelevant. tmiddles wrote: Sooooo? wait for it ... wait for it.... A person is going to write the theory down! In most cases, true. tmiddles wrote: So who do you trust ITN ? The guy that wrote the theory down (or published it in some other way). tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Are the authors here to be cross-examined? If not, your claims are thrown out. Since that's all you have, the entire case is thrown out of court. Awe did you think you were the judge IBD? Actually, he is. tmiddles wrote: You can thrown out anything you want in the court of your own mind. He just did. tmiddles wrote: Crazy is always an option. YALIFNAP. Calling people names is a fallacy. Presenting no argument is a 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

22-01-2020 22:19
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Harry C wrote:...not definitive closure to an argument. Be specific. One false claim made by ITN/IBD (the lynch pin to their argument actually) is that radiance from cool objects, i.e. our atmosphere, cannot be absorbed by warmer ones, i.e. the ground during the day. This was thoroughly debunked at length and here are 12 references doing so: TWELVE REFERENCES ON NET RADIANCE ITN/IBD DENY I also have two entire threads in my sig. Max Planck debunks the ITN/IDB position on net radiance A complete calculation on net radianc ein action. Harry C wrote:They are very consistent with their replies and explanations. Please find their replies to any of the three threads above and gook luck with that. They dodged all three entirely. So what's missing for you Harry C? Other than the satisfaction of having the position you want to win prevail that is. Do you think it's sane to deny an elementary physics text book, twelve of them, because the authors aren't here to be cross examined? Harry you have an agenda and I'm in your way I get that. This is why you largely ignore my posts. Not singling you out I just described everyone on this board or any other, including myself. I've never seen someone's mind changed by anyone so far. "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 22-01-2020 22:20
22-01-2020 22:45
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: Harry C wrote:...not definitive closure to an argument. Be specific. One false claim made by ITN/IBD (the lynch pin to their argument actually) is that radiance from cool objects, i.e. our atmosphere, cannot be absorbed by warmer ones, i.e. the ground during the day. It can't. You are denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics again. You cannot heat the ground with something that is colder. tmiddles wrote: This was thoroughly debunked at length and here are 12 references doing so: TWELVE REFERENCES ON NET RADIANCE ITN/IBD DENY You can't use any book to falsify the 2nd law of thermodynamics. There is no such thing as 'net heat'. tmiddles wrote: I also have two entire threads in my sig. Bully for you. They are both just reiterating your own illiteracy. tmiddles wrote: Max Planck debunks the ITN/IDB position on net radiance Nope. Max Planck is not on this forum. YOUR misinterpretation of his work is YOUR problem. tmiddles wrote: A complete calculation on net radianc ein action. There is no such thing a 'net heat'. You cannot warm a warmer body with a cold one. tmiddles wrote: Harry C wrote:They are very consistent with their replies and explanations. Please find their replies to any of the three threads above and gook luck with that. They dodged all three entirely. It is YOU denying science here. YOU are denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics several times right here in your post. tmiddles wrote: So what's missing for you Harry C? Other than the satisfaction of having the position you want to win prevail that is. Do you think it's sane to deny an elementary physics text book, twelve of them, because the authors aren't here to be cross examined? It is sane. The authors aren't here. The problem is YOUR misinterpretation. The problem is YOUR use of false authorities to deny the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. tmiddles wrote: Harry you have an agenda and I'm in your way I get that. This is why you largely ignore my posts. Not singling you out I just described everyone on this board or any other, including myself. Oh, enlightened one, you are sitting in the dark! tmiddles wrote: I've never seen someone's mind changed by anyone so far. I have. You obviously haven't paying much attention to that either. 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
22-01-2020 22:58
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote:...YOUR use of false authorities ... Hey Harry C, am I missing something? Was anything ITN just posted useful, coherent, worth reading at all as you see it?
22-01-2020 23:22
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:...YOUR use of false authorities ... Hey Harry C, am I missing something? Was anything ITN just posted useful, coherent, worth reading at all as you see it? Yes, you are missing quite a bit, actually. ITN's whole post was coherent (if one understands the English language), useful (if one wishes to learn about science), and worth reading (if one wishes to learn about science).
22-01-2020 23:25
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:...YOUR use of false authorities ... Hey Harry C, am I missing something? Was anything ITN just posted useful, coherent, worth reading at all as you see it? Hey Into the Night, great post all around. Kudos. . 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 00:54
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:...YOUR use of false authorities ... Hey Harry C, am I missing something? Was anything ITN just posted useful, coherent, worth reading at all as you see it? Yes, you are missing quite a bit, actually. ITN's whole post was coherent (if one understands the English language), useful (if one wishes to learn about science), and worth reading (if one wishes to learn about science). humble bow 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 00:54
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:...YOUR use of false authorities ... Hey Harry C, am I missing something? Was anything ITN just posted useful, coherent, worth reading at all as you see it? Hey Into the Night, great post all around. Kudos. . humble bow 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 04:04
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	gfm7175 wrote:...you are missing quite a bit.... So gfm7175 you consider these twelve reference to be bogus? ITN calls them false authority, which means they are not from credible sources: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: TWELVE REFERENCES ON NET RADIANCE ITN/IBD DENY ...False authority fallacy. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/244/Appeal-to-False-Authority "Using an alleged authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument. " https://prezi.com/xuwapkqdxdnq/false-authority/ "rely on one person who is an expert in one field to defend their argument in a completely separate field." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies "using an expert of dubious credentials..." Edited on 23-01-2020 04:09
23-01-2020 20:43
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote:...you are missing quite a bit.... So gfm7175 you consider these twelve reference to be bogus? ITN calls them false authority, which means they are not from credible sources: Not the meaning of 'false authority'. Already described why. RDCF. False authority fallacy. The ONLY authoritative reference to any theory of science is the theory itself. 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 01:17
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote:...you are missing quite a bit.... So gfm7175 you consider these twelve reference to be bogus? ITN calls them false authority, which means they are not from credible sources: Not the meaning of 'false authority'. Already described why. RDCF. False authority fallacy. The ONLY authoritative reference to any theory of science is the theory itself. I love it! I provide no less than three references showing the definition of "False Authority" and ITN denies all three and provides no reference of his own. You can just never admit you made a mistake ITN. So you have to live with all of them forever. Where is there a good reference on the logical fallacies? Can you recommend one? Seems you've been making up your own and they don't correspond to anything ever written down by anyone else? How about these?: https://www.amazon.com/Informal-Logical-Fallacies-Brief-Guide/dp/0761854339/ https://www.amazon.com/Logically-Fallacious-Ultimate-Collection-Fallacies-ebook/dp/B00GU3H270/ https://www.amazon.com/Mastering-Logical-Fallacies-Definitive-Bulletproof-ebook/dp/B01G7Y1IS0 https://www.amazon.com/Logical-Fallacies-Identification-Practice/dp/B07QVDTBFK/ Are any of those accurate? What would you trust as a guide? I want to get my terminology right. Edited on 24-01-2020 01:18

Page 13 of 14

Join the debate There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N2:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Fossil Fuel Substitution for reduced emission of CO2, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium..	392	01-12-2023 21:58
Proof That Too Much CO2 Is An Existential Threat	326	07-11-2023 19:16
Some can take the heat, and	2	14-10-2023 13:26
I have a theory	123	16-06-2023 19:16
Evolutionary Biology and the Endosymbiotic Theory of Consciousness.	111	08-06-2023 02:39