| 18-11-2018 06:46 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
HarveyH55 wrote:
The bad part of those tests, is that they knew long before there was even a bomb, that radiation was a serious, and deadly health risk. Guess that was the point of making such bombs. Fortunately, none have been used since WWII, but can't understand why the obsession with still making them, and not getting rid of what we have. Certainly, to store them, there must be monitoring and maintenance, which is costly. Always thought it odd, that no portable power source has been produced. Maybe they do have the means, just no way to keep people for cracking on open, and using the little pellet of fuel for other things, mostly bad things.
I'm not a huge fan of genetic engineering, we know enough to play, but still mostly trial and error. Most everything need to fool around, can be found, for anyone to get in on the game. Ethics and morals are pretty rare these days. Kids have been mostly learning them in public school, or TV entertainment shows, no consequences to reinforce the principles. Most have an idea of right and wrong, but nothing usually comes of it, if they just do what they want anyway.
I don't think CO2 is the most pressing issue threatening the planet.
Talk about depressing. This is probably the wrong forum for you.
They have forums for mental health issues. They might be able to help you. Basically nothing you said has to do with climate change. |
| 18-11-2018 15:48 |
HarveyH55 ★★★★★
(5197) |
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
The bad part of those tests, is that they knew long before there was even a bomb, that radiation was a serious, and deadly health risk. Guess that was the point of making such bombs. Fortunately, none have been used since WWII, but can't understand why the obsession with still making them, and not getting rid of what we have. Certainly, to store them, there must be monitoring and maintenance, which is costly. Always thought it odd, that no portable power source has been produced. Maybe they do have the means, just no way to keep people for cracking on open, and using the little pellet of fuel for other things, mostly bad things.
I'm not a huge fan of genetic engineering, we know enough to play, but still mostly trial and error. Most everything need to fool around, can be found, for anyone to get in on the game. Ethics and morals are pretty rare these days. Kids have been mostly learning them in public school, or TV entertainment shows, no consequences to reinforce the principles. Most have an idea of right and wrong, but nothing usually comes of it, if they just do what they want anyway.
I don't think CO2 is the most pressing issue threatening the planet.
Talk about depressing. This is probably the wrong forum for you.
They have forums for mental health issues. They might be able to help you. Basically nothing you said has to do with climate change.
Just responding to the nuclear test article you link tom which didn't real address 'Climate Change' either. But, you are actually right, we all have mental health issues, of some form or another. No one is perfect, and no one can really define what is the normal, or health mind. Mostly, a lot mental conditions are the result of poor parenting. They've replaced leather, with psychology and medications. Pumping a bunch of chemicals in to a growing body and mind can't be good in the long run, life long dependency. Programming (therapy sessions) a child to believe they are mental defective, really doesn't correct the problem, just provide an excuse for bad behavior. which will provide a life saving defense, if they do something horrific. The people who claim to be normal, and everyone else has problems, are defined as insane. I don't deny that have have a few issues, mostly harmless. I interact peacefully with most others, so not a huge problem.
I mostly work with electronics, although I've slowed down quite a bit, since the components have got real small, and lack the eyesight and dexterity to deal with them. I don't have a lot of formal training in electronics, but have had good luck in taking things a part, finding the problem, and fixing it, with what I have on hand, or a small purchase. It's not just limited to electronics either, do a little programming (kind of sloppy, I'm told). I also have done all my home repairs, and automotive. Most of my major appliances are well over 20 years old. More interested in function, over appearance. I can easily learn, teach myself what I need to know, to do the repairs.
I may not know exactly what's wrong with 'Climate Change', I just know that it's wrong. Like anything else, I spot the faulty component. Since we have been on a warming trend, since the ice age, even with the actual measured data, most of which need some adjustments, it's still to small of scope to illustrate the past, or predict the future. Nothing to compare to, as 'normal', no actually way to prove it's not natural. The only reason it continues to be a debate, is the control, the power, the profit. Things that many an unbalanced man has sought since civilization. The environmental interests are really the only part worth supporting, but it really isn't the CO2 that needs cleaning. The 'deniers' have little to gain from a full on fight, just a need to protect their bank accounts. Fighting would just drain the hard earn cash, since there isn't any government money being spent to prove 'climatology' is wrong. Even if a few pieces are proven wrong, it's a very large, circumstantial case. The use of those bad data sets won't stop, or be pulled out, since it's well integrated, they won't start over, without anything previously used. |
| 18-11-2018 16:25 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
HarveyH55 wrote:
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
The bad part of those tests, is that they knew long before there was even a bomb, that radiation was a serious, and deadly health risk. Guess that was the point of making such bombs. Fortunately, none have been used since WWII, but can't understand why the obsession with still making them, and not getting rid of what we have. Certainly, to store them, there must be monitoring and maintenance, which is costly. Always thought it odd, that no portable power source has been produced. Maybe they do have the means, just no way to keep people for cracking on open, and using the little pellet of fuel for other things, mostly bad things.
I'm not a huge fan of genetic engineering, we know enough to play, but still mostly trial and error. Most everything need to fool around, can be found, for anyone to get in on the game. Ethics and morals are pretty rare these days. Kids have been mostly learning them in public school, or TV entertainment shows, no consequences to reinforce the principles. Most have an idea of right and wrong, but nothing usually comes of it, if they just do what they want anyway.
I don't think CO2 is the most pressing issue threatening the planet.
Talk about depressing. This is probably the wrong forum for you.
They have forums for mental health issues. They might be able to help you. Basically nothing you said has to do with climate change.
Just responding to the nuclear test article you link tom which didn't real address 'Climate Change' either. But, you are actually right, we all have mental health issues, of some form or another. No one is perfect, and no one can really define what is the normal, or health mind. Mostly, a lot mental conditions are the result of poor parenting. They've replaced leather, with psychology and medications. Pumping a bunch of chemicals in to a growing body and mind can't be good in the long run, life long dependency. Programming (therapy sessions) a child to believe they are mental defective, really doesn't correct the problem, just provide an excuse for bad behavior. which will provide a life saving defense, if they do something horrific. The people who claim to be normal, and everyone else has problems, are defined as insane. I don't deny that have have a few issues, mostly harmless. I interact peacefully with most others, so not a huge problem.
I mostly work with electronics, although I've slowed down quite a bit, since the components have got real small, and lack the eyesight and dexterity to deal with them. I don't have a lot of formal training in electronics, but have had good luck in taking things a part, finding the problem, and fixing it, with what I have on hand, or a small purchase. It's not just limited to electronics either, do a little programming (kind of sloppy, I'm told). I also have done all my home repairs, and automotive. Most of my major appliances are well over 20 years old. More interested in function, over appearance. I can easily learn, teach myself what I need to know, to do the repairs.
I may not know exactly what's wrong with 'Climate Change', I just know that it's wrong. Like anything else, I spot the faulty component. Since we have been on a warming trend, since the ice age, even with the actual measured data, most of which need some adjustments, it's still to small of scope to illustrate the past, or predict the future. Nothing to compare to, as 'normal', no actually way to prove it's not natural. The only reason it continues to be a debate, is the control, the power, the profit. Things that many an unbalanced man has sought since civilization. The environmental interests are really the only part worth supporting, but it really isn't the CO2 that needs cleaning. The 'deniers' have little to gain from a full on fight, just a need to protect their bank accounts. Fighting would just drain the hard earn cash, since there isn't any government money being spent to prove 'climatology' is wrong. Even if a few pieces are proven wrong, it's a very large, circumstantial case. The use of those bad data sets won't stop, or be pulled out, since it's well integrated, they won't start over, without anything previously used.
You should probably be posting in a psychology forum. Your thoughts seem to be confused, muddled, etc. Is there a point to your disjointed ramblings?
Edited on 18-11-2018 17:18 |
| 18-11-2018 19:17 |
HarveyH55★★★★★
(5197) |
James, you're the one who posted about nuclear tests, and mental issues. The 'You should probably be posting in a psychology forum.', is a childish attack. Some reason you are defensive, feeling a need to fight? Maybe something in my ramblings hit a little to close to something you know to be true, but afraid to acknowledge. Thing about the truth, is always comes out eventually, so, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. I don't need to be right about everything, know everything. I'm not perfect, make plenty of mistakes, but I learn from them, and I remember, so I don't keep repeating them... |
| 18-11-2018 19:40 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21599) |
HarveyH55 wrote:
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
The bad part of those tests, is that they knew long before there was even a bomb, that radiation was a serious, and deadly health risk. Guess that was the point of making such bombs. Fortunately, none have been used since WWII, but can't understand why the obsession with still making them, and not getting rid of what we have. Certainly, to store them, there must be monitoring and maintenance, which is costly. Always thought it odd, that no portable power source has been produced. Maybe they do have the means, just no way to keep people for cracking on open, and using the little pellet of fuel for other things, mostly bad things.
I'm not a huge fan of genetic engineering, we know enough to play, but still mostly trial and error. Most everything need to fool around, can be found, for anyone to get in on the game. Ethics and morals are pretty rare these days. Kids have been mostly learning them in public school, or TV entertainment shows, no consequences to reinforce the principles. Most have an idea of right and wrong, but nothing usually comes of it, if they just do what they want anyway.
I don't think CO2 is the most pressing issue threatening the planet.
Talk about depressing. This is probably the wrong forum for you.
They have forums for mental health issues. They might be able to help you. Basically nothing you said has to do with climate change.
Just responding to the nuclear test article you link tom which didn't real address 'Climate Change' either. But, you are actually right, we all have mental health issues, of some form or another. No one is perfect, and no one can really define what is the normal, or health mind. Mostly, a lot mental conditions are the result of poor parenting. They've replaced leather, with psychology and medications. Pumping a bunch of chemicals in to a growing body and mind can't be good in the long run, life long dependency. Programming (therapy sessions) a child to believe they are mental defective, really doesn't correct the problem, just provide an excuse for bad behavior. which will provide a life saving defense, if they do something horrific. The people who claim to be normal, and everyone else has problems, are defined as insane. I don't deny that have have a few issues, mostly harmless. I interact peacefully with most others, so not a huge problem.
I mostly work with electronics, although I've slowed down quite a bit, since the components have got real small, and lack the eyesight and dexterity to deal with them. I don't have a lot of formal training in electronics, but have had good luck in taking things a part, finding the problem, and fixing it, with what I have on hand, or a small purchase. It's not just limited to electronics either, do a little programming (kind of sloppy, I'm told). I also have done all my home repairs, and automotive. Most of my major appliances are well over 20 years old. More interested in function, over appearance. I can easily learn, teach myself what I need to know, to do the repairs.
I may not know exactly what's wrong with 'Climate Change', I just know that it's wrong. Like anything else, I spot the faulty component. Since we have been on a warming trend, since the ice age, even with the actual measured data, most of which need some adjustments, it's still to small of scope to illustrate the past, or predict the future. Nothing to compare to, as 'normal', no actually way to prove it's not natural. The only reason it continues to be a debate, is the control, the power, the profit. Things that many an unbalanced man has sought since civilization. The environmental interests are really the only part worth supporting, but it really isn't the CO2 that needs cleaning. The 'deniers' have little to gain from a full on fight, just a need to protect their bank accounts. Fighting would just drain the hard earn cash, since there isn't any government money being spent to prove 'climatology' is wrong. Even if a few pieces are proven wrong, it's a very large, circumstantial case. The use of those bad data sets won't stop, or be pulled out, since it's well integrated, they won't start over, without anything previously used.
It doesn't take money to show the Church of Global Warming is wrong. It just takes recognition of science and math. The science isn't complicated. The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics are easy to learn. So is the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
The math is a bit harder, since I know of very few schools that properly teach statistical math properly.
Even fewer teach logic.
Even fewer teach philosophy.
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 |
|
| 18-11-2018 19:41 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
The bad part of those tests, is that they knew long before there was even a bomb, that radiation was a serious, and deadly health risk. Guess that was the point of making such bombs. Fortunately, none have been used since WWII, but can't understand why the obsession with still making them, and not getting rid of what we have. Certainly, to store them, there must be monitoring and maintenance, which is costly. Always thought it odd, that no portable power source has been produced. Maybe they do have the means, just no way to keep people for cracking on open, and using the little pellet of fuel for other things, mostly bad things.
I'm not a huge fan of genetic engineering, we know enough to play, but still mostly trial and error. Most everything need to fool around, can be found, for anyone to get in on the game. Ethics and morals are pretty rare these days. Kids have been mostly learning them in public school, or TV entertainment shows, no consequences to reinforce the principles. Most have an idea of right and wrong, but nothing usually comes of it, if they just do what they want anyway.
I don't think CO2 is the most pressing issue threatening the planet.
Talk about depressing. This is probably the wrong forum for you.
They have forums for mental health issues. They might be able to help you. Basically nothing you said has to do with climate change.
Just responding to the nuclear test article you link tom which didn't real address 'Climate Change' either. But, you are actually right, we all have mental health issues, of some form or another. No one is perfect, and no one can really define what is the normal, or health mind. Mostly, a lot mental conditions are the result of poor parenting. They've replaced leather, with psychology and medications. Pumping a bunch of chemicals in to a growing body and mind can't be good in the long run, life long dependency. Programming (therapy sessions) a child to believe they are mental defective, really doesn't correct the problem, just provide an excuse for bad behavior. which will provide a life saving defense, if they do something horrific. The people who claim to be normal, and everyone else has problems, are defined as insane. I don't deny that have have a few issues, mostly harmless. I interact peacefully with most others, so not a huge problem.
I mostly work with electronics, although I've slowed down quite a bit, since the components have got real small, and lack the eyesight and dexterity to deal with them. I don't have a lot of formal training in electronics, but have had good luck in taking things a part, finding the problem, and fixing it, with what I have on hand, or a small purchase. It's not just limited to electronics either, do a little programming (kind of sloppy, I'm told). I also have done all my home repairs, and automotive. Most of my major appliances are well over 20 years old. More interested in function, over appearance. I can easily learn, teach myself what I need to know, to do the repairs.
I may not know exactly what's wrong with 'Climate Change', I just know that it's wrong. Like anything else, I spot the faulty component. Since we have been on a warming trend, since the ice age, even with the actual measured data, most of which need some adjustments, it's still to small of scope to illustrate the past, or predict the future. Nothing to compare to, as 'normal', no actually way to prove it's not natural. The only reason it continues to be a debate, is the control, the power, the profit. Things that many an unbalanced man has sought since civilization. The environmental interests are really the only part worth supporting, but it really isn't the CO2 that needs cleaning. The 'deniers' have little to gain from a full on fight, just a need to protect their bank accounts. Fighting would just drain the hard earn cash, since there isn't any government money being spent to prove 'climatology' is wrong. Even if a few pieces are proven wrong, it's a very large, circumstantial case. The use of those bad data sets won't stop, or be pulled out, since it's well integrated, they won't start over, without anything previously used.
You should probably be posting in a psychology forum. Your thoughts seem to be confused, muddled, etc. Is there a point to your disjointed ramblings?
Contextomy fallacy. Inversion fallacy.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 18-11-2018 19:44 |
| 19-11-2018 16:07 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
Tim, it is interesting that cooling started at about the same time as nuclear testing started being conducted in our atmosphere. The graph shows from about 1945 _ 1980, the same time frame of no warning is when nuclear testing was being done while the ozone layer was being depleted.
Of course could've been caused by the source of heat being blocked. If someone has the time the USGS has an earthquake search engine. It shows the number of earthquakes around Greenland keeps steadily increasing.
Still, if someone wants to argue against co2, are they willing to take on the IPCC?
They won't win. Those same people can't show where annual temperature graphs don't agree with co2. They don't but not even Republicans in America will say they don't when they disagree with the IPCC. People seem to be stuck on what someone said yet it only takes a few minutes to consider a graph. That's the 2nd link.
https://goo.gl/images/P2Qj8y
If you look at 1880 - 1910 then look at 1945 - 1975 (from 1975 - 1975 it was a very minimal increase in temperature) the co2 levels don't parallel temperature change. From 1910 - 1945 then from 1978 to present, the increase in temperature and co2 levels don't agree with each other. But to follow IPCC policy that 30 years shows a trend, people can't consider the change in co2 levels and temperatures over 30 year periods. After all, from 1880 - 1910 the temperature actually dropped. Yet all of the people who argue against co2 can't say this graph shows that.
https://goo.gl/images/ciHXNH
This is where if a person wanted to, they could find out what years nuclear testing was being done and see if the global temperature had a change. It could also be seen if geological activity around Greenland increased. I've got things I'm pursuing so have other concerns.
Edited on 19-11-2018 16:20 |
| 19-11-2018 18:37 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
I added some lines which are for at a minimum represent 30 year periods. According to scientists with the IPCC a 30 year time frame represents a trend. For those who keep saying someone said CO2, can you show on this graph where there is a pattern or a trend? Is there something that kept you from looking at what the argument is about or even considering it?
Yet you'll come after me because I am aware of this while you aren't. I've learned that when all someone has is an opinion and refuse to consider anything then it's really a waste of time to try and discuss something with them. There are other things that have a better relationship with global warming than CO2 does. But we can't discuss those things because they're not about CO2.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/MvuWqYbbNKQMXzcMA |
| 19-11-2018 20:44 |
HarveyH55★★★★★
(5197) |
Wish you'd embed the IMaGes, so I don't have to gamble on a link. Lot of sites have been pushy with advertisements. It's well know that there are a lot of things that follow cycles. The Farmer's Almanac is full of them. The IPCC sets their own standards, loosely based on science. They may call 30 years at trend, but they really stretch that out quite a bet, after you accept it. There has never been a 'normal' period, to compare with, least during our existence, and recorded history. There is no way to isolate, and actually observing CO2 doing it's super-power thing in the wild. We don't have any means to actually measure global temperature, it changes too much from day-night, seasons, and location. Weather has a huge effect on temperature readings, sometimes can hang around for weeks. Have to do a whole lot of math and compensation, which be heavily biased, which is obvious in the 'Hockey-Stick' graph, that proves the planet is going to burn up. Even a 30 year 'trend', is pretty meaningless, when we are 10-12,000 years out from the great ice age, and still have ice left from that period, as proven by the core samples. Just to many unknowns, nothing to compare to, nothing observable, and nothing repeatable. Really not much science in any of this, mostly fiction. |
| 19-11-2018 20:55 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
James___ wrote:
Tim, it is interesting that cooling started at about the same time as nuclear testing started being conducted in our atmosphere. The graph shows from about 1945 _ 1980, the same time frame of no warning is when nuclear testing was being done while the ozone layer was being depleted.
Of course could've been caused by the source of heat being blocked. If someone has the time the USGS has an earthquake search engine. It shows the number of earthquakes around Greenland keeps steadily increasing.
Still, if someone wants to argue against co2, are they willing to take on the IPCC?
They won't win. Those same people can't show where annual temperature graphs don't agree with co2. They don't but not even Republicans in America will say they don't when they disagree with the IPCC. People seem to be stuck on what someone said yet it only takes a few minutes to consider a graph. That's the 2nd link.
https://goo.gl/images/P2Qj8y
If you look at 1880 - 1910 then look at 1945 - 1975 (from 1975 - 1975 it was a very minimal increase in temperature) the co2 levels don't parallel temperature change. From 1910 - 1945 then from 1978 to present, the increase in temperature and co2 levels don't agree with each other. But to follow IPCC policy that 30 years shows a trend, people can't consider the change in co2 levels and temperatures over 30 year periods. After all, from 1880 - 1910 the temperature actually dropped. Yet all of the people who argue against co2 can't say this graph shows that.
https://goo.gl/images/ciHXNH
This is where if a person wanted to, they could find out what years nuclear testing was being done and see if the global temperature had a change. It could also be seen if geological activity around Greenland increased. I've got things I'm pursuing so have other concerns.
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. These graphs are random numbers.
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 |
| 19-11-2018 21:10 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
HarveyH55 wrote:
Wish you'd embed the IMaGes, so I don't have to gamble on a link. Lot of sites have been pushy with advertisements. It's well know that there are a lot of things that follow cycles. The Farmer's Almanac is full of them. The IPCC sets their own standards, loosely based on science. They may call 30 years at trend, but they really stretch that out quite a bet, after you accept it. There has never been a 'normal' period, to compare with, least during our existence, and recorded history. There is no way to isolate, and actually observing CO2 doing it's super-power thing in the wild. We don't have any means to actually measure global temperature, it changes too much from day-night, seasons, and location. Weather has a huge effect on temperature readings, sometimes can hang around for weeks. Have to do a whole lot of math and compensation, which be heavily biased, which is obvious in the 'Hockey-Stick' graph, that proves the planet is going to burn up. Even a 30 year 'trend', is pretty meaningless, when we are 10-12,000 years out from the great ice age, and still have ice left from that period, as proven by the core samples. Just to many unknowns, nothing to compare to, nothing observable, and nothing repeatable. Really not much science in any of this, mostly fiction.
I would've read your post, did read a part of it. The link to the graph I posted is to the graph only. Then you say we're not smart enough to know how to record a temperature. Yet you think your opinion should matter. It doesn't because as you said yourself, you think others are too ignorant to know anything.
You're as confused as itn. All either of you want to do is cause other people problems. It's stupid because you both use technology to get online yet routinely attack science. Why not say no one is smart enough to make a computer? That's more complex than monitoring the Earth's temperature yet neither one of you have a problem believing that a computer chip can make a million calculations a second. Can either one of you come up with something better than you think people are stupid? |
| 19-11-2018 21:13 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
HarveyH55 wrote:
Wish you'd embed the IMaGes, so I don't have to gamble on a link. Lot of sites have been pushy with advertisements. Nothing worth seeing. It's the usual temperature and CO2 concentration graphs from NOAA. They are random numbers. They are manufactured data.
HarveyH55 wrote:
It's well know that there are a lot of things that follow cycles.
All caused by circles and ellipses. The orbit of the Earth, the tilt of the Earth in relation to it's orbital path, the eccentricity of that orbit, the orbit of the Sun, etc.
HarveyH55 wrote:
The Farmer's Almanac is full of them. Mostly it concentrates on the seasons (the orbit of Earth and it's tilt), and the Moon (the tides and available light reflected from it). Just two cycles.
HarveyH55 wrote:
The IPCC sets their own standards, loosely based on science. The IPCC denies science. It uses no science at all, not even loosely based. It is a political group pushing a religion. It also denies mathematics favoring instead the bad math of using random numbers as 'statistics'.
HarveyH55 wrote:
They may call 30 years at trend, but they really stretch that out quite a bet, after you accept it.
Since it is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, it is not possible to even measure a 'trend' or a difference over 30 years.
HarveyH55 wrote:
There has never been a 'normal' period, to compare with, least during our existence, and recorded history. Quite true.
HarveyH55 wrote:
There is no way to isolate, and actually observing CO2 doing it's super-power thing in the wild. There is a way to falsify the theory can do its super-power thing in the wild. It's called the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth using surface infrared.
HarveyH55 wrote:
We don't have any means to actually measure global temperature, it changes too much from day-night, seasons, and location. True.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Weather has a huge effect on temperature readings, sometimes can hang around for weeks. Also True. This biasing factor must be eliminated in any statistical analysis. Taking all temperatures at the same time can accomplish this. It is good only for that measurement. It is useless for comparing measurements over time.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Have to do a whole lot of math and compensation, which be heavily biased, which is obvious in the 'Hockey-Stick' graph, that proves the planet is going to burn up.
Nah. Just bad math. Statistics requires the use of raw data only. Cooked data is not allowed. It is useless.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Even a 30 year 'trend', is pretty meaningless, when we are 10-12,000 years out from the great ice age, and still have ice left from that period, as proven by the core samples. Just to many unknowns, nothing to compare to, nothing observable, and nothing repeatable. Really not much science in any of this, mostly fiction.
There is no science at all. There is no mathematics here either. What you are seeing here is a fundamentalist religion in action.
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 |
| 19-11-2018 21:23 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Wish you'd embed the IMaGes, so I don't have to gamble on a link. Lot of sites have been pushy with advertisements. It's well know that there are a lot of things that follow cycles. The Farmer's Almanac is full of them. The IPCC sets their own standards, loosely based on science. They may call 30 years at trend, but they really stretch that out quite a bet, after you accept it. There has never been a 'normal' period, to compare with, least during our existence, and recorded history. There is no way to isolate, and actually observing CO2 doing it's super-power thing in the wild. We don't have any means to actually measure global temperature, it changes too much from day-night, seasons, and location. Weather has a huge effect on temperature readings, sometimes can hang around for weeks. Have to do a whole lot of math and compensation, which be heavily biased, which is obvious in the 'Hockey-Stick' graph, that proves the planet is going to burn up. Even a 30 year 'trend', is pretty meaningless, when we are 10-12,000 years out from the great ice age, and still have ice left from that period, as proven by the core samples. Just to many unknowns, nothing to compare to, nothing observable, and nothing repeatable. Really not much science in any of this, mostly fiction.
I would've read your post, did read a part of it. The link to the graph I posted is to the graph only. Then you say we're not smart enough to know how to record a temperature.
He never said any such thing. Neither did I. It is possible to record a temperature. It is not possible to record the temperature of the Earth. There are simply nowhere near enough thermometers.
James___ wrote:
Yet you think your opinion should matter. It doesn't because as you said yourself, you think others are too ignorant to know anything. He didn't say that either. He said YOU are too ignorant to know anything.
James___ wrote:
You're as confused as itn. Since my level of confusion is quite low, I hope he takes that as a compliment.
James___ wrote:
All either of you want to do is cause other people problems. You cause your own problems.
James___ wrote:
It's stupid because you both use technology to get online yet routinely attack science. Technology is not science. Science is not technology.
Science is a set of falsifiable theories, not technology.
James___ wrote:
Why not say no one is smart enough to make a computer?
I make computers. I even make chips used in computers.
James___ wrote:
That's more complex than monitoring the Earth's temperature
Actually, it's not.
James___ wrote:
yet neither one of you have a problem believing that a computer chip can make a million calculations a second.
Nope. Have no problem with it.
James___ wrote:
Can either one of you come up with something better than you think people are stupid?
Already have. See the Chapman cycle, the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Theories of science you still deny.
That's just stupid.
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 |
| 19-11-2018 21:55 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
It's stupid because you both use technology to get online yet routinely attack science. Technology is not science. Science is not technology.
Science is a set of falsifiable theories, not technology.
Logic is falsified all the time. Your logic makes you think you know something. You don't. What you sound like is a woman that's been scorned. They say Hell hath no fury like what you have. Maybe you need a man? |
| 19-11-2018 22:01 |
gfm7175 ★★★★★
(3314) |
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
It's stupid because you both use technology to get online yet routinely attack science. Technology is not science. Science is not technology.
Science is a set of falsifiable theories, not technology.
Logic is falsified all the time.
Your logic makes you think you know something. You don't. What you sound like is a woman that's been scorned. They say Hell hath no fury like what you have. Maybe you need a man?
How so? Can you provide an example of Logic being falsified?
The rest of your post can be dismissed as non-substantive Ad Hominem attacks... |
|
| 20-11-2018 03:40 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
gfm7175 wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
It's stupid because you both use technology to get online yet routinely attack science. Technology is not science. Science is not technology.
Science is a set of falsifiable theories, not technology.
Logic is falsified all the time.
Your logic makes you think you know something. You don't. What you sound like is a woman that's been scorned. They say Hell hath no fury like what you have. Maybe you need a man?
How so? Can you provide an example of Logic being falsified?
The rest of your post can be dismissed as non-substantive Ad Hominem attacks...
Your point? I think you and itn will get along just fine |
| 20-11-2018 03:50 |
gfm7175★★★★★
(3314) |
James___ wrote:
gfm7175___ wrote:
James___ wrote:
Logic is falsified all the time.
Your logic makes you think you know something. You don't. What you sound like is a woman that's been scorned. They say Hell hath no fury like what you have. Maybe you need a man?
How so? Can you provide an example of Logic being falsified?
The rest of your post can be dismissed as non-substantive Ad Hominem attacks...
Your point? I think you and itn will get along just fine
Well, that's good to know...
My point was trying to figure out your point... You claimed that logic is falsified all the time and then added in various ad hominem attacks for extra flavor... I'm asking you for a specific example or two of logic being falsified, since you say it's done "all the time"...
Edited on 20-11-2018 03:53 |
| 20-11-2018 03:58 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
gfm7175 wrote:
James___ wrote:
gfm7175___ wrote:
James___ wrote:
Logic is falsified all the time.
Your logic makes you think you know something. You don't. What you sound like is a woman that's been scorned. They say Hell hath no fury like what you have. Maybe you need a man?
How so? Can you provide an example of Logic being falsified?
The rest of your post can be dismissed as non-substantive Ad Hominem attacks...
Your point? I think you and itn will get along just fine
Well, that's good to know...
My point was trying to figure out your point... You claimed that logic is falsified all the time and then added in various ad hominem attacks for extra flavor... I'm asking you for a specific example or two of logic being falsified, since you say it's done "all the time"...
If itn doesn't do it for me then he should have a high political office. itn falsified logic all the time. I actually prefer discussing science and climate change. At the moment itn isn't very happy because no one will define either climate or climate change for him. He claims those are meaningless buzzwords. I don't have the need to see if I can satisfy his needs or desires. |
| 20-11-2018 04:08 |
gfm7175★★★★★
(3314) |
James___ wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
James___ wrote:
gfm7175___ wrote:
James___ wrote:
Logic is falsified all the time.
Your logic makes you think you know something. You don't. What you sound like is a woman that's been scorned. They say Hell hath no fury like what you have. Maybe you need a man?
How so? Can you provide an example of Logic being falsified?
The rest of your post can be dismissed as non-substantive Ad Hominem attacks...
Your point? I think you and itn will get along just fine
Well, that's good to know...
My point was trying to figure out your point... You claimed that logic is falsified all the time and then added in various ad hominem attacks for extra flavor... I'm asking you for a specific example or two of logic being falsified, since you say it's done "all the time"...
If itn doesn't do it for me then he should have a high political office. itn falsified logic all the time. I actually prefer discussing science and climate change. At the moment itn isn't very happy because no one will define either climate or climate change for him. He claims those are meaningless buzzwords. I don't have the need to see if I can satisfy his needs or desires.
I am not talking to or about ITN... I am talking to James... I asked for examples of your claim that logic is falsified all the time, and you keep diverting... apparently you have no examples...
Alright, then let's discuss science and climate change... first, how would you define those words? I like being on the same terms with my interlocutors...
I don't blame ITN... I like terms to be defined as well. And yes, they ARE meaningless buzzwords. Climate change can't be defined in a non-circular fashion, thus it is a void argument.
I don't think it's the "need" to satisfy his request, but rather that you lack the ability to satisfy his request... |
| 20-11-2018 04:48 |
HarveyH55★★★★★
(5197) |
I took a variety of science course, and they all covered something called 'The Scientific Method', which a process, a procedure, followed, when investigating an observation. The last step is the conclusion, where you summarize your tests, findings, and how it explains your initial observation. These rules were made, so any other scientist, who made a similar observation, can more easily follow your experiments, repeat them, write their own conclusion, even add experiments of their own into, write it up in the same form, and share it, and so on. Climatology doesn't follow this same method, even a little, from what I've been reading. There many papers used, that do follow the method, but these are only partly relevant to what climatology is selling as science, makes it seem more legitimate, while hiding the truth.
A thermometer does measure temperature, but it only works on a very small area. An infrared thermometer becomes very inaccurate, the further away from the surface you wish to measure. It also needs to be calibrated with a known value, at a similar distance. We have no global reference to use, so we can't read the whole planet from space, with any accuracy. So you can pretty much say the numbers mean anything you want. Can't say everyone knows how to use or read a thermometer, you do need to learn a couple of things. There is a right and wrong way.
I've only criticized 'Climate Change' and Climatology. I wouldn't expect any one person to take it personally, it's controversial, and this is a debate forum. But, then again, it's more religion, than science, sort of like 'Scientology', well actually a lot like it. Criticism can be a bad thing, when confronted by a true believer.
The are many factors that effect the warming of the planet, and just as many that effect cooling it off, it's like night and day. It more or less balances out in the long run. Occasionally, the balance gets tip one way or the other, and it takes a while to settle back out again. But the world keeps moving, and keeps getting bumped by other forces, some more than others, so the balance never really reaches an equilibrium. Consider asteroids, there are a whole lot of them space rocks orbiting the sun. Sometimes they pass real close to Earth, but they are pretty big rocks, and many. Couldn't cluster of them block out a significant amount of the sun's energy for a while, if they are traveling the same basic direction and speed, as our planet? Couldn't there also be long periods, were they don't block any, or much of the sun? Never really studied them much, mostly at the arcade as a youngster.
Regardless though, Climatology is just too dismissive of alternatives, and to quick to adopt anything that supports or sells. Science is flexible, they don't always have to have the right answer, they get it wrong, a lot, but they proved it, but most importantly, they learn from the failures too. Science is a desperate grab at anything, that will prove, or support, a pre-drawn conclusion. The conclusion, comes after the experiments, not before. |
| 20-11-2018 05:05 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
gfm7175 wrote:
James___ wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
James___ wrote:
gfm7175___ wrote:
James___ wrote:
Logic is falsified all the time.
Your logic makes you think you know something. You don't. What you sound like is a woman that's been scorned. They say Hell hath no fury like what you have. Maybe you need a man?
How so? Can you provide an example of Logic being falsified?
The rest of your post can be dismissed as non-substantive Ad Hominem attacks...
Your point? I think you and itn will get along just fine
Well, that's good to know...
My point was trying to figure out your point... You claimed that logic is falsified all the time and then added in various ad hominem attacks for extra flavor... I'm asking you for a specific example or two of logic being falsified, since you say it's done "all the time"...
If itn doesn't do it for me then he should have a high political office. itn falsified logic all the time. I actually prefer discussing science and climate change. At the moment itn isn't very happy because no one will define either climate or climate change for him. He claims those are meaningless buzzwords. I don't have the need to see if I can satisfy his needs or desires.
I am not talking to or about ITN... I am talking to James... I asked for examples of your claim that logic is falsified all the time, and you keep diverting... apparently you have no examples...
Alright, then let's discuss science and climate change... first, how would you define those words? I like being on the same terms with my interlocutors...
I don't blame ITN... I like terms to be defined as well. And yes, they ARE meaningless buzzwords. Climate change can't be defined in a non-circular fashion, thus it is a void argument.
I don't think it's the "need" to satisfy his request, but rather that you lack the ability to satisfy his request...
Don't have the need. If it's so important to either of you then why doesn't one of you present your definition for consideration?
Simple reason is you want control. Why the two of you require someone to define them for you. After all, who is placing so much emphasis on those words? I'll give you a hint, it's not me. I can discuss environmental issues without using either of of those words. |
| 20-11-2018 10:31 |
HarveyH55★★★★★
(5197) |
James___ wrote:
Don't have the need. If it's so important to either of you then why doesn't one of you present your definition for consideration?
Simple reason is you want control. Why the two of you require someone to define them for you. After all, who is placing so much emphasis on those words? I'll give you a hint, it's not me. I can discuss environmental issues without using either of of those words.
I've give my definition of both 'Science' and 'Climate Change', based on experience, opinion. May not closely follow the dictionary definition, or the 'mainstream' definition. You can 'Google' them if you are unsure, or believe I'm incorrect, which is possible, but doubtful.
Logic... Well, there's the philosophical type logic, where you can do some obviously ridiculous things, but work logically. That was one semester, many years ago. I've used the other kind of logic, digital logic, for much long, before that class, and most of my life. What logic really comes down to, is an agreed upon set of rules. Digitally (electronics/computers), the rules are defined in the hardware. In philosophy, you have to know the rules, if you want to play the game. I didn't do real well in that course, lack of interest, or the longer papers we were assigned to write, mostly both, and more important things to keep me busy at the time. |
| 20-11-2018 11:07 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
HarveyH55 wrote:
I took a variety of science course, and they all covered something called 'The Scientific Method', which a process, a procedure, followed, when investigating an observation. The last step is the conclusion, where you summarize your tests, findings, and how it explains your initial observation. These rules were made, so any other scientist, who made a similar observation, can more easily follow your experiments, repeat them, write their own conclusion, even add experiments of their own into, write it up in the same form, and share it, and so on. Climatology doesn't follow this same method, even a little, from what I've been reading. There many papers used, that do follow the method, but these are only partly relevant to what climatology is selling as science, makes it seem more legitimate, while hiding the truth.
A thermometer does measure temperature, but it only works on a very small area. An infrared thermometer becomes very inaccurate, the further away from the surface you wish to measure. It also needs to be calibrated with a known value, at a similar distance. We have no global reference to use, so we can't read the whole planet from space, with any accuracy. So you can pretty much say the numbers mean anything you want. Can't say everyone knows how to use or read a thermometer, you do need to learn a couple of things. There is a right and wrong way.
I've only criticized 'Climate Change' and Climatology. I wouldn't expect any one person to take it personally, it's controversial, and this is a debate forum. But, then again, it's more religion, than science, sort of like 'Scientology', well actually a lot like it. Criticism can be a bad thing, when confronted by a true believer.
The are many factors that effect the warming of the planet, and just as many that effect cooling it off, it's like night and day. It more or less balances out in the long run. Occasionally, the balance gets tip one way or the other, and it takes a while to settle back out again. But the world keeps moving, and keeps getting bumped by other forces, some more than others, so the balance never really reaches an equilibrium. Consider asteroids, there are a whole lot of them space rocks orbiting the sun. Sometimes they pass real close to Earth, but they are pretty big rocks, and many. Couldn't cluster of them block out a significant amount of the sun's energy for a while, if they are traveling the same basic direction and speed, as our planet? Couldn't there also be long periods, were they don't block any, or much of the sun? Never really studied them much, mostly at the arcade as a youngster.
Regardless though, Climatology is just too dismissive of alternatives, and to quick to adopt anything that supports or sells. Science is flexible, they don't always have to have the right answer, they get it wrong, a lot, but they proved it, but most importantly, they learn from the failures too. Science is a desperate grab at anything, that will prove, or support, a pre-drawn conclusion. The conclusion, comes after the experiments, not before.
No.
Given that the diameter of the earth is over 7,000km and the rocks would be less than 1km, given that above that we have found them, and any time between us and the sun would be very short.
A dust cloud would be blown away by the solar wind. |
| 20-11-2018 20:08 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
It's stupid because you both use technology to get online yet routinely attack science. Technology is not science. Science is not technology.
Science is a set of falsifiable theories, not technology.
Logic is falsified all the time.
Logic is not falsified. Neither is it falsiable. It is not a theory to be tested. It is a branch of knowledge. It is a closed functional system just like mathematics. It has the power of the formal proof and with it the power of prediction.
James___ wrote:
Your logic makes you think you know something.
...deleted angry rant and insults...
Not my logic. It didn't invent it.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 20-11-2018 20:13 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
It's stupid because you both use technology to get online yet routinely attack science. Technology is not science. Science is not technology.
Science is a set of falsifiable theories, not technology.
Logic is falsified all the time.
Logic is not falsified. Neither is it falsiable. It is not a theory to be tested. It is a branch of knowledge. It is a closed functional system just like mathematics. It has the power of the formal proof and with it the power of prediction.
James___ wrote:
Your logic makes you think you know something.
...deleted angry rant and insults...
Not my logic. It didn't invent it.
You falsify logic all the time. I've mentioned it before that the flaw in your logic is you. You don't know very much yet you claim your logic allows you to understand everything. It doesn't. When your logic prevents you from learning then it becomes a fallacy. |
| 20-11-2018 20:14 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
James___ wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
James___ wrote:
gfm7175___ wrote:
James___ wrote:
Logic is falsified all the time.
Your logic makes you think you know something. You don't. What you sound like is a woman that's been scorned. They say Hell hath no fury like what you have. Maybe you need a man?
How so? Can you provide an example of Logic being falsified?
The rest of your post can be dismissed as non-substantive Ad Hominem attacks...
Your point? I think you and itn will get along just fine
Well, that's good to know...
My point was trying to figure out your point... You claimed that logic is falsified all the time and then added in various ad hominem attacks for extra flavor... I'm asking you for a specific example or two of logic being falsified, since you say it's done "all the time"...
If itn doesn't do it for me then he should have a high political office.
While I appreciate your confidence in my to hold an executive position in government, that's hardly a qualifying factor.
James___ wrote:
itn falsified logic all the time.
Never did. Logic is a branch of knowledge, not a theory to be tested.
James___ wrote:
I actually prefer discussing science and climate change.
You are discussing neither at the moment.
James___ wrote:
At the moment itn isn't very happy because no one will define either climate or climate change for him.
'Climate' is usually defined something similar to 'weather over a long time'. 'Climate change' has no meaning since 'a long time' is unspecified, and no start or end points to describe a 'change' is specified.
James___ wrote:
He claims those are meaningless buzzwords.
'Climate' is not. 'Climate change' is.
James___ wrote:
I don't have the need to see if I can satisfy his needs or desires.
Then you remain locked in a void argument by choice. The mark of a fundamentalist.
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 |
| 20-11-2018 20:19 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
James___ wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
James___ wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
James___ wrote:
gfm7175___ wrote:
James___ wrote:
Logic is falsified all the time.
Your logic makes you think you know something. You don't. What you sound like is a woman that's been scorned. They say Hell hath no fury like what you have. Maybe you need a man?
How so? Can you provide an example of Logic being falsified?
The rest of your post can be dismissed as non-substantive Ad Hominem attacks...
Your point? I think you and itn will get along just fine
Well, that's good to know...
My point was trying to figure out your point... You claimed that logic is falsified all the time and then added in various ad hominem attacks for extra flavor... I'm asking you for a specific example or two of logic being falsified, since you say it's done "all the time"...
If itn doesn't do it for me then he should have a high political office. itn falsified logic all the time. I actually prefer discussing science and climate change. At the moment itn isn't very happy because no one will define either climate or climate change for him. He claims those are meaningless buzzwords. I don't have the need to see if I can satisfy his needs or desires.
I am not talking to or about ITN... I am talking to James... I asked for examples of your claim that logic is falsified all the time, and you keep diverting... apparently you have no examples...
Alright, then let's discuss science and climate change... first, how would you define those words? I like being on the same terms with my interlocutors...
I don't blame ITN... I like terms to be defined as well. And yes, they ARE meaningless buzzwords. Climate change can't be defined in a non-circular fashion, thus it is a void argument.
I don't think it's the "need" to satisfy his request, but rather that you lack the ability to satisfy his request...
Don't have the need.
If you are going to discuss 'climate change' or 'global warming' as if they are real and they exist, you have the need.
James___ wrote:
If it's so important to either of you then why doesn't one of you present your definition for consideration?
We aren't trying to argue that it exists. We do not have the need.
James___ wrote:
Simple reason is you want control. No, we want a definition.
James___ wrote:
Why the two of you require someone to define them for you.
Because if you are going to use them as an argument, you have to be able to define them.
James___ wrote:
After all, who is placing so much emphasis on those words?
I'll give you a hint, it's not me.
Yes it is. It is you and the Church of Global Warming, which you belong to.
James___ wrote:
I can discuss environmental issues without using either of of those words.
Then do so.
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 |
| 20-11-2018 20:58 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
HarveyH55 wrote:
I've give my definition of both 'Science' and 'Climate Change', based on experience, opinion. May not closely follow the dictionary definition, or the 'mainstream' definition. You can 'Google' them if you are unsure, or believe I'm incorrect, which is possible, but doubtful.
So far no one has been able to define 'global warming' or 'climate change' except as themselves. This means the phrase has no meaning. It's a buzzword. The only possible structure you can build with it is a void argument.
In digital logic, you can think of it as the tri-state. It has no meaning. The output driver is off the buss. If no one is driving the buss, a resistor can provide a default meaning of True (or "1"). This resistor is called a 'pull up' resistor (all of this is assuming TTL).
HarveyH55 wrote:
Logic... Well, there's the philosophical type logic, where you can do some obviously ridiculous things, but work logically.
It's actually the same logic. Unfortunately, it was taught badly to you. You already know more logic than you realize.
HarveyH55 wrote:
That was one semester, many years ago. I've used the other kind of logic, digital logic, for much long, before that class, and most of my life.
This is where you learned it.
HarveyH55 wrote:
What logic really comes down to, is an agreed upon set of rules.
Exactly. These rules are called 'axioms'. Logic is like mathematics. It is a closed functional system. It has founding axioms. It has formal proofs. It has equations. It has the possibility of making a logic error, similar to a math error. In logic, these are errors are also called fallacies. That's all a fallacy is.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Digitally (electronics/computers), the rules are defined in the hardware.
Not quite. The rules are defined by axioms. The hardware follows the rules of logic, not the other way around.
The only difference in the hardware from one logic family to another is the way a True or False is represented. In CMOS, for example, it is by a voltage. In TTL, it is by the presence (or lack of) a current drain.
Counters, shift registers, etc. are just packaged versions of combinatorial logic.
Where logic escaped you in school was the part concerning set theory. That still happens in combinatorial logic, however. Whenever you see a Venn diagram, you are using set theory.
HarveyH55 wrote:
In philosophy, you have to know the rules, if you want to play the game.
The nice thing about philosophy is the minimal set of rules. There really is only one. Any argument put forth in philosophy MUST use your own reasoning to support it. No outside references can be used.
Logic also involves arguments. So does math. Therefore philosophical arguments should at least try to conform to the requirements of logic and math. Philosophy itself defines logic and math, however, by defining the axioms to use to build those systems. Once defined, that system can't just change willy-nilly to satisfy a different argument in philosophy.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I didn't do real well in that course, lack of interest, or the longer papers we were assigned to write, mostly both, and more important things to keep me busy at the time.
It sounds like the instructor had no clue about the subject he was teaching. This is a common problem in universities, especially where philosophy is concerned.
Philosophy is simple. It is straightforward. It is not about trying to prove a chair set in front of the room doesn't exist, or the sound of one hand clapping.
It is about making an argument and providing your own reasoning for it without using outside references. It sounds simple, but it's harder than it looks!
Why no outside references? It is because an outside reference is actually the argument (and quite possibly the philosophy of) another. It is stealing someone elses argument and using it as your own. It is lazy thinking (by not thinking, but letting another do your 'thinking' for you).
Philosophy defines what science is. It defines what religion is. It defines what mathematics and logic is. It has the power to define these because it uses no outside references. Philosophy not only defines these, but also gives the reasoning for their definition.
Francis Bacon took on the definition of science. Unfortunately, that definition (which resulted in the 'scientific method'), has a few flaws in it's philosophy. It happens to allow for religion to become mixed with science.
A better philosophy for the definition of science was made by Karl Popper. This formed a basic definition of science that has been distilled down into a very simple definition:
Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
That's it. That's all science is. There is nothing more. There is nothing less. There is not 'method' or 'procedure'. There is no voting bloc to approve a theory. There is no elite. No certificate, degree, license, or other 'blessing' is required to produce a theory of science. No one 'owns' science. It is not a political group, government organization or agency, scientist or any group of scientists. It is not even people at all. It uses no supporting evidence (the theory is the only support the theory needs). It only uses conflicting evidence (which tests the null hypothesis of that theory).
It is just a set of falsifiable theories.
No theory can ever be proven. A theory of science remains a theory until it is falsified. Nonscientific theories remain theories forever, since they cannot be falsified or proven either True or False.
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 20-11-2018 20:59 |
| 20-11-2018 21:19 |
gfm7175★★★★★
(3314) |
James___ wrote:
You falsify logic all the time.
ITN doesn't have the ability to falsify logic; neither do you. You have told me that it gets falsified all the time... I am still waiting for you to provide me with even ONE example of that...
James___ wrote:
I've mentioned it before that the flaw in your logic is you.
It is not ITN's logic, and ITN cannot be a flaw in logic. Logic consists of foundational axioms, and proofs which extend from those axioms.
James___ wrote:
You don't know very much yet you claim your logic allows you to understand everything.
'Lack of Intelligence' mantra coupled with a Strawman Argument...
James___ wrote:
It doesn't.
No one said that it did.
James___ wrote:
When your logic prevents you from learning then it becomes a fallacy.
Wrong. Fallacies are "logic errors". That's all fallacies are. If one misuses logic, they are making a logic error, much like the misuse of mathematics leads to math errors. |
| 20-11-2018 21:34 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
gfm7175 wrote:
James___ wrote:
You falsify logic all the time.
ITN doesn't have the ability to falsify logic; neither do you. You have told me that it gets falsified all the time... I am still waiting for you to provide me with even ONE example of that...
James___ wrote:
I've mentioned it before that the flaw in your logic is you.
It is not ITN's logic, and ITN cannot be a flaw in logic. Logic consists of foundational axioms, and proofs which extend from those axioms.
James___ wrote:
You don't know very much yet you claim your logic allows you to understand everything.
'Lack of Intelligence' mantra coupled with a Strawman Argument...
James___ wrote:
It doesn't.
No one said that it did.
James___ wrote:
When your logic prevents you from learning then it becomes a fallacy.
Wrong. Fallacies are "logic errors". That's all fallacies are. If one misuses logic, they are making a logic error, much like the misuse of mathematics leads to math errors.
The first error that you and itn made is believing that you can learn or understand science without studying it. That is a fallacy.
Even Isaac Asimov's book which became I, Robot showed that logic can be falsified. Yet your assumptions that logic cannot be falsified is a serious lapse in reasoning which makes your assumptions illogical
Basic logic suggests that you and itn should be in a philosophy forum. Yet you neither of you are.
Edited on 20-11-2018 21:55 |
|
| 20-11-2018 22:08 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
James___ wrote:
The first error that you and itn made is believing that you can learn or understand science without studying it. That is a fallacy.
Even Isaac Asimov's book which became I, Robot showed that logic can be falsified. Yet your assumptions that logic cannot be falsified is a serious lapse in reasoning which makes your assumptions illogical
Basic logic suggests that you and itn should be in a philosophy forum. Yet you neither of you are.
You aren't arguing with Nightmare are you? He is illogical aside from being not just totally untrained in science but he refuses to learn, believing that he can self-invent himself into knowledge.
Now you and I can argue but at least we both are trying to argue actual science and not psychological trauma. |
| 20-11-2018 22:28 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
The first error that you and itn made is believing that you can learn or understand science without studying it. That is a fallacy.
Even Isaac Asimov's book which became I, Robot showed that logic can be falsified. Yet your assumptions that logic cannot be falsified is a serious lapse in reasoning which makes your assumptions illogical
Basic logic suggests that you and itn should be in a philosophy forum. Yet you neither of you are.
You aren't arguing with Nightmare are you? He is illogical aside from being not just totally untrained in science but he refuses to learn, believing that he can self-invent himself into knowledge.
Now you and I can argue but at least we both are trying to argue actual science and not psychological trauma.
The link is to a graph. After the 2013 IPCC report stated that there was a 15 year global warming hiatus they said that it takes 30 years to show a trend. The graph is separated into 30 year periods. When discussing the 2013 report the IPCC scientist stated that the new report they were working on for 2014 was going to make dire predictions.
Why when I discuss something I don't bother with what the IPCC said. If anyone tries to take on the IPCC they'll find it's like trying to talk to itn, you'll just be spinning your wheels.
With the IPCC they basically discredited the scientists who were involved with the 2013 report. That's if people get into what the argument over climate change is about.
I could get more into atmospheric chemistry about why things seem odd when it comes to CO2.
I've known this for years. I actually have other interests that I'm pursuing. With what the IPCC said, it'd be easy enough to find the articles but people might not look how they're using logic to shape their arguments.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/fNp4trwcG6qGVkug8 |
| 20-11-2018 22:47 |
gfm7175★★★★★
(3314) |
James___ wrote:
The first error that you and itn made is believing that you can learn or understand science without studying it.
You know nothing about what I have or haven't studied, nor does one need to be studied on any specific aspect of science in order to know what science is and how it works, generally speaking.
James___ wrote:
That is a fallacy.
Completely incorrect. A fallacy is a logic error. Your futile attempts to redefine words will not pass any muster with me...
James___ wrote:
Even Isaac Asimov's book which became I, Robot showed that logic can be falsified.
How so, precisely? I'm still waiting for ONE single specific example from you of logic being falsified in any way...
James___ wrote:
Yet your assumptions that logic cannot be falsified is a serious lapse in reasoning which makes your assumptions illogical
Neither of us are making any assumptions. Logic is not a theory... Maybe you should try to falsify Mathematics while you're at it...
James___ wrote:
Basic logic suggests that you and itn should be in a philosophy forum.
Logic suggests no such thing. I can be in any forum I wish to be in, so long as I abide by the rules of the forum.
James___ wrote:
Yet you neither of you are.
You have no clue what forums I participate in... |
| 20-11-2018 22:55 |
gfm7175★★★★★
(3314) |
Wake wrote:
You aren't arguing with Nightmare are you?
Ahhhh, the childish tactic of changing up a person's name as an attempt to de-legitimize their arguments... Classy...
Wake wrote:
He is illogical
From my experiences with him, he has shown quite a good understanding of logic...
Wake wrote:
aside from being not just totally untrained in science
Argument of the Stone fallacy... you dismiss his arguments without counterargument...
Wake wrote:
but he refuses to learn, believing that he can self-invent himself into knowledge.
If you say so...
Wake wrote:
Now you and I can argue but at least we both are trying to argue actual science and not psychological trauma.
Define "actual science"... |
| 20-11-2018 23:05 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
gfm7175 wrote:
Wake wrote:
You aren't arguing with Nightmare are you?
Ahhhh, the childish tactic of changing up a person's name as an attempt to de-legitimize their arguments... Classy...
Wake wrote:
He is illogical
From my experiences with him, he has shown quite a good understanding of logic...
Wake wrote:
aside from being not just totally untrained in science
Argument of the Stone fallacy... you dismiss his arguments without counterargument...
Wake wrote:
but he refuses to learn, believing that he can self-invent himself into knowledge.
If you say so...
Wake wrote:
Now you and I can argue but at least we both are trying to argue actual science and not psychological trauma.
Define "actual science"...
Let me get this straight, you're right because you're using someone else's logic. And the Dodge parked in my driveway isn't mine then because it says Dodge on it.
This is hilarious. You're right because someone else is thinking for you. And yet if I act logically then I'd let you and itn think for me?
No Thanks. I'd rather be illogical and take the time to become familiar with the subject matter.
All people need to understand is that this fits the definition of a circular argument. It revolves around you and itn being right. Why it's the wise person who doesn't entertain fools such as you and itn.
Edited on 20-11-2018 23:13 |
| 20-11-2018 23:56 |
gfm7175★★★★★
(3314) |
James___ wrote:
Let me get this straight, you're right because you're using someone else's logic. And the Dodge parked in my driveway isn't mine then because it says Dodge on it.
This is hilarious. You're right because someone else is thinking for you. And yet if I act logically then I'd let you and itn think for me?
No Thanks. I'd rather be illogical and take the time to become familiar with the subject matter.
I have absolutely no idea what you are even on about here...
James___ wrote:
All people need to understand is that this fits the definition of a circular argument.
Wrong. A circular argument is "faith"... It takes the form (A, Therefore A)... It is logically valid reasoning via the Proof of Identity (If A, Then A).
James___ wrote:
It revolves around you and itn being right. Why it's the wise person who doesn't entertain fools such as you and itn.
I'll just leave you with an old Proverb...
Do you see a man who is wise in his own eyes?
There is more hope for a fool than for him. |
| 21-11-2018 00:44 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
gfm7175 wrote:
I'll just leave you with an old Proverb...
Do you see a man who is wise in his own eyes?
There is more hope for a fool than for him.
And your logic makes you wise in your own eyes. |
| 21-11-2018 01:13 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
James___ wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
James___ wrote:
You falsify logic all the time.
ITN doesn't have the ability to falsify logic; neither do you. You have told me that it gets falsified all the time... I am still waiting for you to provide me with even ONE example of that...
James___ wrote:
I've mentioned it before that the flaw in your logic is you.
It is not ITN's logic, and ITN cannot be a flaw in logic. Logic consists of foundational axioms, and proofs which extend from those axioms.
James___ wrote:
You don't know very much yet you claim your logic allows you to understand everything.
'Lack of Intelligence' mantra coupled with a Strawman Argument...
James___ wrote:
It doesn't.
No one said that it did.
James___ wrote:
When your logic prevents you from learning then it becomes a fallacy.
Wrong. Fallacies are "logic errors". That's all fallacies are. If one misuses logic, they are making a logic error, much like the misuse of mathematics leads to math errors.
The first error that you and itn made is believing that you can learn or understand science without studying it. That is a fallacy. We have both learned and understand not only many theories of science, but also the philosophy that defines science itself. Fallacy fallacy.
James___ wrote:
Even Isaac Asimov's book which became I, Robot showed that logic can be falsified. Not possible. Not even by Asimov.
James___ wrote:
Yet your assumptions that logic cannot be falsified is a serious lapse in reasoning which makes your assumptions illogical
Logic is not a theory. It has no test. It is a closed functional system like mathematics. You are just denying both.
James___ wrote:
Basic logic suggests that you and itn should be in a philosophy forum. Yet you neither of you are.
Actually, we both are. There are some good spirited discussions there.
We also both happen to be here.
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 |
| 21-11-2018 01:15 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
The first error that you and itn made is believing that you can learn or understand science without studying it. That is a fallacy.
Even Isaac Asimov's book which became I, Robot showed that logic can be falsified. Yet your assumptions that logic cannot be falsified is a serious lapse in reasoning which makes your assumptions illogical
Basic logic suggests that you and itn should be in a philosophy forum. Yet you neither of you are.
You aren't arguing with Nightmare are you? He is illogical aside from being not just totally untrained in science but he refuses to learn, believing that he can self-invent himself into knowledge.
Still bulverism, Wake.
James___ wrote:
Now you and I can argue but at least we both are trying to argue actual science and not psychological trauma.
Neither of you are discussing science.
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 |
| 21-11-2018 01:17 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21599) |
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
The first error that you and itn made is believing that you can learn or understand science without studying it. That is a fallacy.
Even Isaac Asimov's book which became I, Robot showed that logic can be falsified. Yet your assumptions that logic cannot be falsified is a serious lapse in reasoning which makes your assumptions illogical
Basic logic suggests that you and itn should be in a philosophy forum. Yet you neither of you are.
You aren't arguing with Nightmare are you? He is illogical aside from being not just totally untrained in science but he refuses to learn, believing that he can self-invent himself into knowledge.
Now you and I can argue but at least we both are trying to argue actual science and not psychological trauma.
The link is to a graph. After the 2013 IPCC report stated that there was a 15 year global warming hiatus they said that it takes 30 years to show a trend. The graph is separated into 30 year periods. When discussing the 2013 report the IPCC scientist stated that the new report they were working on for 2014 was going to make dire predictions.
Why when I discuss something I don't bother with what the IPCC said. If anyone tries to take on the IPCC they'll find it's like trying to talk to itn, you'll just be spinning your wheels.
With the IPCC they basically discredited the scientists who were involved with the 2013 report. That's if people get into what the argument over climate change is about.
I could get more into atmospheric chemistry about why things seem odd when it comes to CO2.
I've known this for years. I actually have other interests that I'm pursuing. With what the IPCC said, it'd be easy enough to find the articles but people might not look how they're using logic to shape their arguments.
...deleted Holy Link...
The IPCC denies logic. They also deny science and mathematics.
You don't know any chemistry.
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 |