There is still no Global Warming science.

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Explanations > There is still no Global Warming science. > Page 8

Page 8 of 10

11-07-2020 18:03
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	andeep wrote:... but theoretical models confirm that CO2 levels cause global temperatures to rise, Theoretical models cannot confirm anything. It is the role of the scientific method to validate theoretical models. Nothing is ever confirmed in science. There is still no science supporting Global Warming . 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
11-07-2020 19:22
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: andeep wrote:... but theoretical models confirm that CO2 levels cause global temperatures to rise, Theoretical models cannot confirm anything. It is the role of the scientific method to validate theoretical models. Nothing is ever confirmed in science. There is still no science supporting Global Warming . It's warmer today than yesterday so global warming has happened.
11-07-2020 19:32
andeep ☆☆☆☆☆ (20)	IBdaMann wrote: andeep wrote:... but theoretical models confirm that CO2 levels cause global temperatures to rise, Theoretical models cannot confirm anything. It is the role of the scientific method to validate theoretical models. Nothing is ever confirmed in science. There is still no science supporting Global Warming First of all, theoretical models don't provide the final say on anything, but they should still be taken seriously because they are tested over time by experiments. Secondly, there are different ways of testing the theory that CO2 is causing global temperatures to rise. For one, you can use a variety of methods to look back at earlier climates to see if CO2 causes temperature increase, and some researchers have done this and have confirmed that there is evidence that supports the notion that rising CO2 levels cause global temperatures to rise. Another thing if you want evidence from something more "present-day" is looking at the longwave radiation emitted by the earth. CO2 and other greenhouse gases absorb and emit longwave radiation according to a certain spectrum, and it has been confirmed that the longwave radiation spectrum corresponds to the case if CO2 were trapping in that longwave radiation. Falsifying cause and effect can be difficult but it can be done, and there is a lot of evidence to suggest that rising CO2 levels are causing global temperatures to rise. .
11-07-2020 20:38
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	andeep wrote: First of all, theoretical models don't provide the final say on anything They abslutely do if they are validated by the scientific method. andeep wrote: but they should still be taken seriously because they are tested over time by experiments. I'm not following you. I get the distinct impression that you don't even know what a model is. In fact, I'm almost certain that you are conflating "model" with "computer program" ... whether or not it is implementing any sort of model. Let's find out. Post one of these "Climate" models here in this thread, preferably one of those that is currently being "tested over time." [hint: none exist; you need to first unambiguously define what you intend to model] andeep wrote: Secondly, there are different ways of testing the theory that CO2 is causing global temperatures to rise. ... and every single one requires knowing what the global temperature is to within a usable margin of error. Presently, that is not possible. andeep wrote: For one, you can use a variety of methods to look back at earlier climates to see if CO2 causes temperature increase, Nope. I presume you are talking about proxy measures. I'm sorry but that is equivalent to voodoo and shamanism. Science does not use proxy measures whatsoever and science never speculates about the past. You have been misled by scientifically illiterate nutjobs that you apparently trusted. Perhaps they told you that they were "scientists" and you decided to allow them to do all your thinking for you. Anyway, they lied to you. andeep wrote: Another thing if you want evidence from something more "present-day" is looking at the longwave radiation emitted by the earth. CO2 and other greenhouse gases absorb and emit longwave radiation according to a certain spectrum, and it has been confirmed that the longwave radiation spectrum corresponds to the case if CO2 were trapping in that longwave radiation. You have been lied to. You have just described egregious violations of thermodynamics and of Stefan-Boltzmann. You should have called "Bulslhit!" the moment you heard/read it. andeep wrote: Falsifying cause and effect can be difficult but it can be done, No, it cannot. Science is exactly that, i.e. the cause<-->effect of nature. andeep wrote: and there is a lot of evidence to suggest that rising CO2 levels are causing global temperatures to rise. Only within the religion of Global Warming. . 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 Edited on 11-07-2020 20:50
12-07-2020 01:17
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	andeep wrote: It's true correlation doesn't imply causation, but theoretical models confirm that CO2 levels cause global temperatures to rise, while the reverse scenario is relatively insignificant. Well the "reverse scenario" here as I described it is that higher temps will cause more CO2 to be released by the oceans right? But I may have that wrong as what I just looked up says that Oceans are less able to absorb CO2 at higher temps (not that they release more). That is described as part of the "tipping point" concern: "However, as water temperature increases, its ability dissolve CO2 decreases. Global warming is expected to reduce the ocean's ability to absorb CO2, leaving more in the atmosphere..."link IBdaMann wrote: andeep wrote: Secondly, there are different ways of testing the theory that CO2 is causing global temperatures to rise. ... and every single one requires knowing what the global temperature is to within a usable margin of error. Correlation does not require knowing the mean but simply the change in the mean. It would be like claiming you must know the total volume of the ocean to a useable margin of error to determine a sea level rise. Nope. IBdaMann wrote:...proxy measures. I'm sorry but that is equivalent to voodoo and shamanism. Plenty of what we describe as direct measurement is by proxy. A thermometer does not measure the thermal energy of a subject but rather the electrical conductivity, volume change of a liquid due to expansion, radiance absorption or some other "proxy" based on the behavior of molecules of the thermometer itself (and not the subject) with the assumption being those molecules are being affected by the thermal energy of the subject being measured. If your goal it to distinguish a warmer period from a cooler period in Earth's history a proxy can do just fine. Why not? IBdaMann wrote: andeep wrote: ...it has been confirmed that the longwave radiation spectrum corresponds to the case if CO2 were trapping in that longwave radiation. ...You have just described egregious violations of thermodynamics and of Stefan-Boltzmann. Debunked and dodged. IBD cannnot tell you why he believes that CO2 absorbing radiance and there being a corresponding increase in ground level temps is a violation of physics. He has elected to run away from this debate here:link IBD is pretending that a planet cannot have a ground level temp that rises when the radiance to space does not. Venus proves this wrong in grand fashion (ground level temps exceeding the radiance to space by well over 200 degrees). The reason is that the ground level is not the "surface" we mean when we say the "surface" temp for Stefan Boltzmann. That is the emitting surface which is largely the upper atmosphere. duncan61 wrote: tmiddles wrote: duncan61 wrote: We have looked at the amount of energy required to warm the ocean and we do not have the power needed We have? Power needed for what exactly? Obviously the Sun has been powerful enough to bring the oceans to their current temperature. You will need a bit more than a tiny bit of reflected radiance from the atmosphere to warm the oceans of the world light is still good at 60 feet but at 80 ft plus the light starts going out and at 120 ft you need artificial light to see properly. It seems you're simply saying it will take longer for temperature to change than if we didn't have oceans? Dirt and rock can absorb thermal energy and radiance too. Also we have the current temperature of Earth in spite of deep oceans that become cold the deeper you go. So I'm not sure how relevant you argument about the penetration of light is. link link It's certainly an interesting topic. "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 valid for IBD or ITN Edited on 12-07-2020 01:31

12-07-2020 02:17
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tgoebbles wrote: Correlation does not require knowing the mean but simply the change in the mean. ... which requries knowing the mean temperature. You are rhetorical slapstick comedy. Oh, and you don't appear smart by building in "plausible confusion" with the "correlation" term. tgoebbles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:...proxy measures. I'm sorry but that is equivalent to voodoo and shamanism. Plenty of what we describe as direct measurement is by proxy. Nope. There are no proxy measures in science. You know this. tgoebbles wrote: A thermometer does not measure the thermal energy of a subject but rather [chain of direct cause<--> effects deleted] Nope. Those are direct cause<-->effects we are observing and recording, and they become part of the data with the technical specifications of the measuring equipment used. So no, you don't get proxy measures admitted as valid data. tgoebbles wrote: If your goal it to distinguish a warmer period from a cooler period in Earth's history a proxy can do just fine. Nope. There is nothing that can tell you the temperature of something in the past. There is nothing that can tell you of any global temperature difference in the past. Science does not speculate about the past. You know all this. tgoebbles wrote: IBD is pretending [tgoebbles' bogus misrepresentation deleted] tgoebbles is pretending to speak for me. He has yet to be honest on this forum. tgoebbles wrote: It seems you're simply saying it will take longer for temperature to change than if we didn't have oceans? It seems you have no reason why any rational adult should believe that average temperatures are changing. . 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
12-07-2020 02:54
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: Correlation does not require knowing the mean but simply the change in the mean....It would be like claiming you must know the total volume of the ocean to a usable margin of error to determine a sea level rise.... ... which requires knowing the mean temperature. So you're claiming you must know the full volume of the ocean to determine a change in volume? IBdaMann wrote:There are no proxy measures in science. I just gave an example with the thermometer itself. Your statement is demonstrably false. Have anything to back it up? Why don't you find a type of proxy data in which there is not as you put it a "direct cause<-->effects ". Warmer weather results in a tree growing a thicker ring that year is certainly cause and effect. IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: andeep wrote: ...it has been confirmed that the longwave radiation spectrum corresponds to the case if CO2 were trapping in that longwave radiation. ...You have just described egregious violations of thermodynamics and of Stefan-Boltzmann. Debunked and dodged. IBD cannnot tell you why he believes that CO2 absorbing radiance and there being a corresponding increase in ground level temps is a violation of physics. He has elected to run away from this debate here:link IBD is pretending that a planet cannot have a ground level temp that rises when the radiance to space does not..... tmiddles is pretending to speak for me. He has yet to be honest on this forum. A false claim is made by IBD and then quickly abandoned. "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 valid for IBD or ITN Edited on 12-07-2020 03:15
12-07-2020 03:19
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	"However, as water temperature increases, its ability dissolve CO2 decreases. Global warming is expected to reduce the ocean's ability to absorb CO2, leaving more in the atmosphere..."link .Is expected a correct term.It implies it has not happened but could .The greedy ocean can stop sucking up all our CO2 we need it on the land It seems you're simply saying it will take longer for temperature to change than if we didn't have oceans? Dirt and rock can absorb thermal energy and radiance too. Also we have the current temperature of Earth in spite of deep oceans that become cold the deeper you go. So I'm not sure how relevant you argument about the penetration of light is. .If light can not penetrate past a certain depth how would the oceans at 500 metres be affected by the atmosphere .Hot water definiatly rises I connect tile fires to solar hot water units and the pipes must go up,Any dip in the pipes and the convection stops
12-07-2020 03:24
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	This is more debate like and less name calling Thank you.I have noticed how you get my points and twist them around to suit your agenda are you aware you do that.
12-07-2020 03:34
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	duncan61 wrote: This is more debate like and less name calling Thank you.I have noticed how you get my points and twist them around to suit your agenda are you aware you do that. I go first to what I see as the weakness/error so yes there is always that "spin". That's normal though to open with "Here is what I see as wrong...". You are doing that too. duncan61 wrote: .Is expected a correct term. It's odd they don't describe the uncertainty. Why not say "It will" right? Maybe they mean global warming is expected but if we all try hard enough it won't happen duncan61 wrote:If light can not penetrate past a certain depth how would the oceans at 500 metres be affected by the atmosphere. Conduction. The ability of the water, rock and solid/liquid matter of Earth below the gas atmosphere to slow an increase in ground level temperature would need to be factored into predictions. It's entirely missing from my summary here for example: link If the ocean acting a heat sink delays a 1 degree increase by 1000 years that's obviously relevant. "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 valid for IBD or ITN Edited on 12-07-2020 03:40
12-07-2020 04:29
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Hot water rises and in a normal situation you have a thernmocline which is the seperation point from the warm surface water to the colder water below.When I troll lures for freshwater fish I measure where the thermocline is with my sounder and run my lures a metre below the thermocline as freshwater fish will not swim around in the warmer water at the surface.They do this in artic waters and it can be deep as.I always try to apply a reality check to my observations and am not fooled by any maybe charts and homogenised data that is being produced to prove a point.It has been 50 years now since all the doomsday predictions about CO2 and not one little bit has come true so the theory is great it just does not work
12-07-2020 04:44
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	duncan61 wrote: Hot water rises ... thernmocline ...doomsday predictions about CO2 ... yes but conduction will still occur. I think you can grade a predictor on the predictions. I don't know that much was predicted for a 1 degree increase though. "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 valid for IBD or ITN Edited on 12-07-2020 04:45
12-07-2020 05:36
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	duncan61 wrote: Hot water rises and in a normal situation you have a thernmocline which is the seperation point from the warm surface water to the colder water below.When I troll lures for freshwater fish I measure where the thermocline is with my sounder and run my lures a metre below the thermocline as freshwater fish will not swim around in the warmer water at the surface.They do this in artic waters and it can be deep as.I always try to apply a reality check to my observations and am not fooled by any maybe charts and homogenised data that is being produced to prove a point.It has been 50 years now since all the doomsday predictions about CO2 and not one little bit has come true so the theory is great it just does not work You sure you fish. Am skeptical myself. You mentioned freshwater while living around Perth. Not sure how a depth gauge measures temperature. That's accepting satellite data when you say acoustics measures temperature as well. This is great. Thermocline is dependent on oxygen in the water. This goes straight away to the past and oxygen 18 levels. The old buoy just proved what I've been saying. Oxygen levels and type matters. He and his friends say it does not and satellites tell us nothing. He just proved science that he's been rejecting. Thermocline is known because of oxygen content. He didn't know the science behind what helps him. And it took me all of 30 seconds to realize this. Thank you Duncan 61 for proving my point. @gfm7175, IBDM and ITN, Duncan 61 just showed that using technology works. His success in fishing proves it. Edited on 12-07-2020 05:49
12-07-2020 06:11
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	You guys don't really get what this means. I've suspected it for years but I can't prove it as ITN and IBDM require. That as thermocline is measured by the oxygen content of water, atmospheric and possibly hydrophobic warming is measured by CO2 levels. And since I have no evidence like Duncan61 has demonstrated, both IBDM and ITN say that I am wrong. And for their benefit, I accept that I am wrong because I have no proof. Bye
12-07-2020 06:53
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote:So you're claiming you must know the full volume of the ocean to determine a change in volume? No, I am not. You might remember that you are the one who claimed that I claimed that ... because not a day goes by that you don't ascribe to me some stupid position and then try to attack me for it ... because you are DESPERATE for me to be wrong about something, even if you have to manufacture it. Somebody has really fukced with your mind. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:There are no proxy measures in science. I just gave an example with the thermometer itself. Nope. Cat-1 violation of Local Ordinance § TMID tmiddles wrote: Warmer weather results in a tree growing a thicker ring that year is certainly cause and effect. Greater rainfall results in a tree growing a thicker ring that year. Added nutrition in the soil results in a tree growing a thicker ring that year. Insects screwing with the roots results in a tree having a thinner ring that year. Less rainfall results in a tree having a thinner ring that year. We don't know all the possible causes for a tree having a thicker ring in a given year. We don't know all the possible causes for a tree having a thinner ring in a given year. It is not known what any given proxy measures. We can see the result but we don't know the cause (what is to be measured). Porxies are out. All of them. . Attached image:

12-07-2020 12:02
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:So you're claiming you must know the full volume of the ocean to determine a change in volume? No, I am not. So you have no response to the example? Would someone need to know the full volume of water in the ocean to determine a change in that volume? Isn't it sufficient to know that sea levels are rising or falling? This seems very analogous to knowing the thermal energy content of the gas in the atmosphere. The change in the mean temperature can actually be measured and followed without ever knowing the true mean temp of the entire body of gas. IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:There are no proxy measures in science. I just gave an example with the thermometer itself. Nope.... You have no rebuttal or response. OK IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: Warmer weather results in a tree growing a thicker ring that year is certainly cause and effect. Greater rainfall ...nutrition...Insects...all the possible causes Of course there are multiple factors that can lead to most things. Sadly we never get to be 100% certain about almost anything. That cigarettes cause lung cancer was once a "proxy" that was disputed. Non smokers get lung cancer too so there are clearly multiple factors at play. link Fortunately they didn't give up and continued this important scientific work built on proxy evidence. "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 valid for IBD or ITN Edited on 12-07-2020 12:24
12-07-2020 18:12
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote: So you have no response to the example? Are you going to answer my questions so that I can effectively answer yours, or do you recognize that you are just WRONG!? Loser. Just continue being DRKTS playmate. I find it amusing. btw, shouldn't you be out promoting domestic terrorism? . 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
12-07-2020 22:02
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:So you're claiming you must know the full volume of the ocean to determine a change in volume? No, I am not. So you have no response to the example? Would someone need to know the full volume of water in the ocean to determine a change in that volume? Isn't it sufficient to know that sea levels are rising or falling? This seems very analogous to knowing the thermal energy content of the gas in the atmosphere. The change in the mean temperature can actually be measured and followed without ever knowing the true mean temp of the entire body of gas. Base rate fallacy. Answer the questions put to you. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:There are no proxy measures in science. I just gave an example with the thermometer itself. Nope.... You have no rebuttal or response. OK RQAA. Answer the questions put to you. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: Warmer weather results in a tree growing a thicker ring that year is certainly cause and effect. Greater rainfall ...nutrition...Insects...all the possible causes Of course there are multiple factors that can lead to most things. Sadly we never get to be 100% certain about almost anything. That cigarettes cause lung cancer was once a "proxy" that was disputed. Non smokers get lung cancer too so there are clearly multiple factors at play. link Fortunately they didn't give up and continued this important scientific work built on proxy evidence. Science does not use proxies. Answer the questions put to you. 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
13-07-2020 02:00
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Lowrance sounders have the ability to detect the thermocline and the best man made dams for trout and redfin are Waroona dam Drakesbrook dam and logue brook which only has trout all these dams are stocked for recreational fishing and are only just over an hour south of Perth.I lived in Yarloop for 13 years in my 30s and 40s and know these waterways well.In the middle of summer the top 10-15 feet of the dams are like a bath and very nice for swimming but if you dive down it gets cold real quick and these waterways are like a small puddle compared to the ocean with its waves and currents
13-07-2020 03:23
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	So you have no response to the example? Would someone need to know the full volume of water in the ocean to determine a change in that volume? Isn't it sufficient to know that sea levels are rising or falling? This seems very analogous to knowing the thermal energy content of the gas in the atmosphere. The change in the mean temperature can actually be measured and followed without ever knowing the true mean temp of the entire body of gas. The sea level is not going anywhere and all that winter ice formed in hudson bay and the sea did nothing.The ice is there because there are tagged bears walking around on it There not all swimming in the middle of the bay.I went to 10 different sites on polar bears and 9 of them were pleased that the bears have had perfect conditions for the last few years and one site was all doom and gloom and the reason was that the bears will get used to it and when it doesnt happen again they will suffer.Total ****wits.Thats humans for you
13-07-2020 09:24
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: So you have no response to the example? Are you going to answer my questions ... Into the Night wrote:...Answer the questions put to you. your post didn't have a single question in it. duncan61 wrote: tmiddles wrote: Would someone need to know the full volume of water in the ocean to determine a change in that volume? The sea level is not going anywhere ...hudson bay... So you would seem to agree that measuring in one spot, Hudson Bay, and only measuring the level of the upper surface of water, is useful in determining that the total volume of sea water is not changing. Right? This is without knowing what that volume is. "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 valid for IBD or ITN
13-07-2020 15:52
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tgoebbles wrote: So you would seem to agree that measuring in one spot, Hudson Bay, and only measuring the level of the upper surface of water, is useful in determining that the total volume of sea water is not changing. Not just one place. One place might be sinking or rising. When multiple places show no perceptible SLR for at least the last several decades, then you can be confident that all the stupid warmizombie hype is just the babblings of scientifically illiterate losers who are desperate to be taken seriously for once and to be treated as superheroes who are saving the planet as they broadcast their virtue-signaling to show how they care so much about humanity (while unwittingly announcing just how much they HATE humanity). They just need to quickly bang out that one last post before they go do some looting for Black Lives Matter. . 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
13-07-2020 22:22
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: So you have no response to the example? Are you going to answer my questions ... Into the Night wrote:...Answer the questions put to you. your post didn't have a single question in it. Lie. Answer the questions put to you: 1) What are the unambiguous definitions of Global Warming, Climate Change and Greenhouse Effect that neither violate nor deny physics? [Status: Unanswered] 2) Why should any rational adult believe in either Global Warming, Climate Change or Greenhouse Effect? [Status: Unanswered] 3) How can I unambiguously demonstrate to my children thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer? [Status: Unanswered] 4) How can I know the temperature of a large, unspecified volume, e.g. Denver, to within, say, 10degF with only one temperature measurement, e.g. the Denver airport? [Status: Unanswered] 5) What are the unambiguous definitions of "race," "negro," "black people," "white people," "brown people," "white supremacy," "white nationalsim," "white nationalist," "white supremacist," "black supremacist" and "racist"? [Status: Unanswered] 6) Is there an official list of races? [Status: Unanswered] - 6a) How do I determine my own race or that of my children? [Status: Unanswered] 7) Why should any rational adult believe that there is a problem of racism in the United States? [Status: Unanswered] 8) Why should law abiding citizens be rendered defenseless before rampant violent crime? [Status: Unanswered] 9) Where in the 1st Amendment is "hate" prohibited such that, if shown, a prosecutor can throw someone in jail for having had that emotion/thought? [Status: Unanswered] 10) Why do you claim that an atmosphere only makes a planet's or moon's solid surface hotter since you are fully aware that no place at the bottom of earth's atmosphere ever reaches anywhere close to the daytime temperatures of the moon's atmosphereless solid surface? [Status: Unanswered] 11) If we were to discover that Lisa Gherardini was actually a shitty person, would that justify Black Lives Matter storming the Louvre to destroy the Mona Lisa? [Status: Unanswered] 12) Why should we destroy artifacts and relics pertaining to history that we never want to forget or repeat? [Status: Unanswered] 13) The Aztecs committed genocide of many other tribes and practiced human sacrifice; should their artwork and artifacts be destroyed? [Status: Unanswered] 14) Why would you or anyone pretend to be a judge of what history is to be revised or destroyed? [Status: Unanswered] 15) In what substantive/meaningful way do the platforms of Black Lives Matter, ANTIFA, The National Organization of Women, the DNC, Communist Party USA and Socialist Party USA ... differ? [Status: Unanswered] 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
14-07-2020 03:06
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: ...measuring in one spot, Hudson Bay, ...useful in determining that the total volume of sea water is not changing. Not just one place. One place might be sinking or rising. ... True and I said "useful" not "conclusive". Into the Night wrote:...Answer...my children..."white nationalist,"...rampant violent crime?...Black Lives Matter... ITN you are repeatedly asking this off topic mish mash. I have answered you each time that I will not be participating. Respect the board guidelines found here: https://www.climate-debate.com/guidelines.php 2) Stick to the subject Always stay on-topic in the thread you are participating in. If you want to discuss something else, then start a new thread. I will not be playing this game with you guys. You are simply trolling now by repeatedly posting this off subject material. "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 valid for IBD or ITN Edited on 14-07-2020 03:32
14-07-2020 04:49
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tgoebbles wrote: ITN you are repeatedly asking this off topic mish mash. I have answered you each time that I will not be participating. It is perfectly acceptable and proper to refer individuals to other threads and to reference points made in other threads. You do it all the time. tgoebbles wrote:Respect the board guidelines found here: https://www.climate-debate.com/guidelines.php 2) Stick to the subject Always stay on-topic in the thread you are participating in. If you want to discuss something else, then start a new thread. A new thread was created specifically for your convenience. It covers all the clarifications required for all the other threads. It is entirely acceptable and proper. You can find them all here at this link. https://politiplex.freeforums.net/post/157 tgoebbles wrote: I will not be [engaging in honesty] with you guys. [I am simply projecting my] trolling now by repeatedly [EVADING ] this off subject material. Yes, we know. It's obvious. In any event, I will post all of the questions here for your convenience and I will encourage all others who read this to ask you these same questions, or to at least be on the lookout for your attempts to weasel in your contradictory positions while expressing your self-loathing and your blind hatred for the United States and for humanity: 1) What are the unambiguous definitions of Global Warming, Climate Change and Greenhouse Effect that neither violate nor deny physics? [Status: Unanswered] 2) Why should any rational adult believe in either Global Warming, Climate Change or Greenhouse Effect? [Status: Unanswered] 3) How can I unambiguously demonstrate to my children thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer? [Status: Unanswered] 4) How can I know the temperature of a large, unspecified volume, e.g. Denver, to within, say, 10degF with only one temperature measurement, e.g. the Denver airport? [Status: Unanswered] 5) What are the unambiguous definitions of "race," "negro," "black people," "white people," "brown people," "white supremacy," "white nationalsim," "white nationalist," "white supremacist," "black supremacist" and "racist"? [Status: Unanswered] 6) Is there an official list of races? [Status: Unanswered] - 6a) How do I determine my own race or that of my children? [Status: Unanswered] 7) Why should any rational adult believe that there is a problem of racism in the United States? [Status: Unanswered] 8) Why should law abiding citizens be rendered defenseless before rampant violent crime? [Status: Unanswered] 9) Where in the 1st Amendment is "hate" prohibited such that, if shown, a prosecutor can throw someone in jail for having had that emotion/thought? [Status: Unanswered] 10) Why do you claim that an atmosphere only makes a planet's or moon's solid surface hotter since you are fully aware that no place at the bottom of earth's atmosphere ever reaches anywhere close to the daytime temperatures of the moon's atmosphereless solid surface?[Status: Unanswered] 11) If we were to discover that Lisa Gherardini was actually a shitty person, would that justify Black Lives Matter storming the Louvre to destroy the Mona Lisa? [Status: Unanswered] 12) Why should we destroy artifacts and relics pertaining to history that we never want to forget or repeat? [Status: Unanswered] 13) The Aztecs committed genocide of many other tribes and practiced human sacrifice; should their artwork and artifacts be destroyed? [Status: Unanswered] 14) Why would you or anyone pretend to be a judge of what history is to be revised or destroyed?[Status: Unanswered] 15) In what substantive/meaningful way do the platforms of Black Lives Matter, ANTIFA, The National Organization of Women, the DNC, Communist Party USA and Socialist Party USA ... differ? [Status: Unanswered] . Attached image: Edited on 14-07-2020 05:31
14-07-2020 07:41
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote:It is perfectly acceptable and proper to refer individuals to other threads... It is if it's on topic and you don't already know what someones response is. IBdaMann wrote:A new thread was created.. Then that is where posts about that thread belong. Misquoting me is also against the guidelines for this board. 8) Be cautious with quotes Don't change the wording when you quote someone. But really you and ITN make my point for me with all of this. IF you had a rebuttal you'd be providing it. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN Edited on 14-07-2020 08:03
14-07-2020 09:52
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 21d...evasion... Answer the questions put to you. 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
14-07-2020 09:53
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	tmiddles wrote:...deleted evasion...semantic fallacies.... Answer the questions put to you. 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
14-07-2020 10:09
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote:Answer ... Response is here: link
14-07-2020 11:23
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tgoebbles wrote:Misquoting me is also against the guidelines for this board. I didn't misquote you. You need to learn citation rules apparently. tgoebbles wrote:But really you and ITN make my point for me with all of this. IF you had a rebuttal you'd be providing it. There is no such thing as a "rebuttal" for someone not answering the easy, simple, straightforward questions posed to him ... except to ask that he/you answer the questions thusly posed. You make our point for us, i.e. that you are a scientifically illiterate, mathematically incompetent, dishonest, reality-denying, self-loathing sniveling little intellectual coward. Here's another easy question for you. You are an "artist" right? You're also a shitty "white" person, right? BLM should be destroying everything you make, 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

14-07-2020 16:55
DRKTS ★★☆☆☆ (305)	IBdaMann wrote: In order to have any Global Warming science there must be a falsifiable Global Warming model (that isn't false). Without one, Global Warming cannot rise above the level of "religion." The idea that absolute falsifiability is a criterion for scientific merit is an old one (Popper) that has been supplanted by new concepts over the last few decades. You are practicing what is called naïve falsification criteria. Ones that are too restrictive and designed impede scientific progress. The classic non falsifiable statement statement that "all solids will have a melting point temperature" is not falsifiable as even if you could find a material that did not apparently melt under test conditions, you could always find a higher temperature or different ambient conditions under which the material could melt. Yet it is a perfectly reasonable scientific hypothesis based on the energy taken to break molecular bonds, but not falsifiable. Another one is "There are no black swans" so you produce a black swan and say "I have falsified that theory". So I say "but how dark does grey have to be before you consider it black? What color is its feet (brown) and bill (red)?" We know from quantum mechanics that there is inherent uncertainty in all we measure. Therefore there is always room falsifiability or verification to be wrong. There are also systems that we cannot do experiments on (too small, too remote, too large) does that rule out cosmology, astrophysics, nuclear physics, and string theory as not being science? As theory progresses it often outstrips our ability to test the new ideas, that is temporary state of being unfalsifiable.
14-07-2020 17:57
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	DRKTS wrote: The idea that absolute falsifiability is a criterion for scientific merit is an old one (Popper) that has been supplanted by new concepts over the last few decades. Incorrect. The industry has formalized those concepts and set them in concrete. You will simply not find any technology project or science research undertaken by any government or any funding organization that isn't based on falsifiable specifications. Religions on the other hand, like Global Warming, are inherently unfalsifiable and can never enter the scientific method (which requires total falsifiability). I would take the opportunity to reiterate that you are a fraud. Any actual scientist would know all this and not need to be lectured on the bare minimum requirements. Give up the charade. You know that I'm going to point out your fraud every time you try to perpetrate it. DRKTS wrote: The classic non falsifiable statement statement ... The two classic unfalsifiable statements are "God is real and active in our lives" (i.e. the Good News) and "The threat of Climate Change is worse than previously feared" (i.e. the Bad News). DRKTS wrote: "all solids will have a melting point temperature" is not falsifiable It is a falsifiable statement and is false. DRKTS wrote: Yet it is a perfectly reasonable scientific hypothesis Nope. It is discarded immediately upon being shown to be false. DRKTS wrote: So I say "but how dark does grey have to be before you consider it black? I'd like to take the opportunity to point out that you are a fraud, if I haven't done so already. You are talking about ambiguity. All science models must be unambiguous, e.g. "black" must be specified. This is why all science is expressed in math (or other formal notation). DRKTS wrote: We know from quantum mechanics that there is inherent uncertainty in all we measure. Hence the existence of the formal notation "+/-" to unambiguously specify tolerance and margin of error. DRKTS wrote: There are also systems that we cannot do experiments on (too small, too remote, too large) Don't forget that we cannot do experiments on systems that do not exist, e.g. the global Climate. Until validation of a model by the scientific method (which requires falsifiability) no model can be classified as science. DRKTS wrote:As theory progresses it often outstrips our ability to test the new ideas, that is temporary state of being unfalsifiable. ... and if we cannot test it then it does not become science and Occam's Razor ensures all unnecessary complications/additions are stripped away. btw ... have you noticed that both you and tgoebbles strangely become immediately indignant when asked to answer questions/provide data that put your stupid, WACKY claims under scrutiny? You did? So did I. You are both ardently dishonest warmizombies who are stuck having others do their thinking for them. How's that working out for you? [hint: I already know the answer] I'll give you another opportunity to prove my point. Post your "June Climate" data here in this thread. If I didn't mention it before, you are a fraud. I'm going to make sure everybody knows. Have a great day. p.s. - you are a relic of a defunct religion. The DNC and other Marxist organizations have found it no longer so useful and have instead decided to throw their resources behind ANTIFA and Black Lives Matter. You won't be getting the same level of support you once enjoyed. You might want to jump fences and become a self-loather and virtue-signaler like tgoebbles. He has read the tea leaves and read the writing on the wall and he has already migrated to where the political capital resides. . 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
14-07-2020 18:41
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: ...questions posed to him ... Response is here: link IBdaMann wrote: DRKTS wrote: "all solids will have a melting point temperature" is not falsifiable It is a falsifiable statement and is false. Why do you say that? When/how was it falsified? DRKTS wouldn't you say a cause and effect theory like AGW: that increasing CO2 increases ground level temperatures, Is as simple and falsifiable as it gets? It doesn't even require a specific value to be achieved as "warming" is a "greater than" distinction. To use your "No black swans exist" example, AGW as a theory is more like "Darker swans don't exist". All you have to do is show that CO2 increases and temperatures don't in any experiment/research and you've falsified it. Doesn't even have to be a planet. If the 2 liter soda bottle HS science demos didn't work it would falsify it. Mythbusters Greenhouse effect ,two liter soda bottles But of course they do work as it's a very solid theory. "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 valid for IBD or ITN
14-07-2020 18:50
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:It is perfectly acceptable and proper to refer individuals to other threads... It is if it's on topic and you don't already know what someones response is. IBdaMann wrote:A new thread was created.. Then that is where posts about that thread belong. Misquoting me is also against the guidelines for this board. 8) Be cautious with quotes Don't change the wording when you quote someone. But really you and ITN make my point for me with all of this. IF you had a rebuttal you'd be providing it. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN Funny how you are whining about "misquotes" when it is YOU who regularly and purposefully misquotes people by removing the most important parts of what people say (or removing the critical surrounding context from what people said).
14-07-2020 19:01
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Black Swans predominantly occur in the southeast and southwest of Australia, live throughout southern Australia, extending south to Tasmania and north to Townsville in Queensland and Port Headland in Western Australia1. They have been introduced to New Zealand. Black Swans frequent lakes, rivers, estuaries and swamps.
14-07-2020 19:07
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	The black swan is Western Australias symbol and is on our state flag.I know it proves nothing but could not help myself.You are correct Tmiddles CO2 causing global warming is a great theory and can be proved in a 2 litre bottle in a lab but in the big bad world with wind clouds water vapour rainforests ice sheets it is a bit harder to get a grip on.Time is proving you wrong over and over it is just not happening.I do not weigh in to all the science this and that bollocks I need proof by one of the predidicted events happening and it is not.Now you all keep moving the time further away 2100 will be warmer etc.Get a life
14-07-2020 19:16
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	gfm7175 wrote: ...it is YOU who regularly and purposefully misquotes people by removing the most important parts of what people say (or removing the critical surrounding context from what people said). Try actually pointing that out. You seem fond of saying I've done that but don't include what I left out that so distorted things. Take this (which is actually on topic here), from link: tmiddles wrote:... IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object. ... Have I distorted or left anything important out of that claim IBD made? "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 valid for IBD or ITN
14-07-2020 19:19
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: ...it is YOU who regularly and purposefully misquotes people by removing the most important parts of what people say (or removing the critical surrounding context from what people said). Try actually pointing that out. You seem fond of saying I've done that but don't include what I left out that so distorted things. Take this (which is actually on topic here), from link: tmiddles wrote:... IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object. ... Have I distorted or left anything important out of that claim IBD made? Violation of tmiddles ordinance. Summarily dismissed. Continued evasion of questions asked of you to answer.
14-07-2020 20:11
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: ...it is YOU who regularly and purposefully misquotes people by removing the most important parts of what people say (or removing the critical surrounding context from what people said). Try actually pointing that out. You seem fond of saying I've done that but don't include what I left out that so distorted things. Take this (which is actually on topic here), from link: tmiddles wrote:... IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object. ... Have I distorted or left anything important out of that claim IBD made? Violation of tmiddles ordinance. Summarily dismissed. Continued evasion of questions asked of you to answer. I was just outside. Seemed pretty d@mned hot. Yep, it's getting warmer.
14-07-2020 20:41
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tgoebbles wrote:Why do you say that? When/how was it falsified? The moment one single counterexample to the null hypothesis is identified, any argument/claim/theory is FALSE. Don't worry, I know that you are scientifically illiterate so you get a pass for not having known that, or even for possibly not understanding what I just wrote. tgoebbles wrote: DRKTS wouldn't you say a cause and effect theory like AGW: that increasing CO2 increases ground level temperatures, Is as simple and falsifiable as it gets? Why are you asking another scientifically illiterate moron? Is he one of your slavemasters? Your unfalsifiable religious dogma is wrought with ridiculous ambiguity. Only members of your congregation will waste time discussing the matter as though it somehow pertains to science. Again, your acknowledged obedience to your slavemasters warrants you getting a pass on this one. tgoebbles wrote: To use your "No black swans exist" example, AGW as a theory is more like "Darker swans don't exist". Nope. It's more like "darker zmeethiolms exist and are worse than previously feared." tgoebbles wrote: All you have to do is show that ... BUZZ. Wrong. You don't get to say what needs to be shown if it's supposed to be science. No human does. Only the falsifiable model gets to say what shows it to be false and the scientific method goes to work on that. Oh, by the way, there is no falsifiable AGW model ... because it's a WACKY religious faith based on HATRED and intolerance that targets scientifically illiterate morons for recruitment, ... morons who are pathetic losers desperate to roleplay superheroes who are saving the planet. Science is the last thing that will ever be associated with any of them. You were saying ... . 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

Page 8 of 10

Join the debate There is still no Global Warming science.:

Threads	Replies	Last post
The History of Science	1	19-04-2024 21:51
A Science Test	18	09-12-2023 00:53
Magic or Science	7	06-12-2023 00:29
Science and Atmospheric Chemistry	6	25-11-2023 20:55
The SCIENCE of the "Greenhouse Effect"	291	05-11-2023 22:46