Remember me
▼ Content

Why only 'Man-Made' CO2?



Page 3 of 5<12345>
21-11-2018 01:19
James___
★★★★★
(3161)
Into the Night wrote:
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.


Like you I watched History of the World by Mel Brooks. What was the lesson about when someone wishes to espouse philosophy? What were those 2 words that were spoken?
Bull Sh1t. So eloquently stated, don't you agree Dear Friend?
Edited on 21-11-2018 01:28
21-11-2018 01:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
James___ wrote:
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.

Logic isn't owned by anybody. It simply is.
James___ wrote:
And the Dodge parked in my driveway isn't mine then because it says Dodge on it.

Non-sequitur. I have no idea who's Dodge it is (assuming you actually HAVE a driveway with a Dodge parked on it).
James___ wrote:
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?
You are not acting logically. This statement is a divisional error fallacy.
James___ wrote:
No Thanks. I'd rather be illogical and take the time to become familiar with the subject matter.

You aren't familiar with logic, mathematics, the necessary theories of science, or philosophy.
James___ wrote:
All people need to understand is that this fits the definition of a circular argument.

The definition of all of these is not circular in nature.
James___ wrote:
It revolves around you and itn being right.

No, it involves examining arguments of philosophy.
James___ wrote:
Why it's the wise person who doesn't entertain fools such as you and itn.

Bulverism 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
21-11-2018 01:38
James___
★★★★★
(3161)
Into the Night wrote:

Why it's the wise person who doesn't entertain fools such as you and itn.

Bulverism fallacy.[/quote]


This is just where you're in love with your own word games;

https://youtu.be/8Gv0H-vPoDc
21-11-2018 01:45
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Why it's the wise person who doesn't entertain fools such as you and itn.

Bulverism fallacy.



This is just where you're in love with your own word games;

https://youtu.be/8Gv0H-vPoDc[/quote]

When Nightmare doesn't have any sensible response (95% of the time) he simply opens his book: https://www.target.com/p/big-book-of-words-you-should-know-to-sound-smart-a-guide-for-aspiring-intellectuals-paperback/-/A-50266066?ref=tgt_adv_XS000000&AFID=bing_pla_df&CPNG=PLA_Entertainment%2BShopping&adgroup=SC_Entertainment&LID=700000001230728pbs&network=s&device=c&querystring=Big%20Book%20of%20Words%20to%20Make%20You%20Sound%20Smart&msclkid=af3fb06d49aa19d62a20eb99d25dd9e4&gclid=CKDb9IaT5N4CFdiHxQIdgloLVQ&gclsrc=ds
21-11-2018 02:44
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1211)
James___ wrote:
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.

It's not my logic... I didn't come up with it...
21-11-2018 02:48
James___
★★★★★
(3161)
Wake wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Why it's the wise person who doesn't entertain fools such as you and itn.

Bulverism fallacy.



This is just where you're in love with your own word games;

https://youtu.be/8Gv0H-vPoDc


When Nightmare doesn't have any sensible response (95% of the time) he simply opens his book: https://www.target.com/p/big-book-of-words-you-should-know-to-sound-smart-a-guide-for-aspiring-intellectuals-paperback/-/A-50266066?ref=tgt_adv_XS000000&AFID=bing_pla_df&CPNG=PLA_Entertainment%2BShopping&adgroup=SC_Entertainment&LID=700000001230728pbs&network=s&device=c&querystring=Big%20Book%20of%20Words%20to%20Make%20You%20Sound%20Smart&msclkid=af3fb06d49aa19d62a20eb99d25dd9e4&gclid=CKDb9IaT5N4CFdiHxQIdgloLVQ&gclsrc=ds[/quote]

That wasn't very nice of you Wake. I mean they say honesty is the best policy but you gotta learn when to lie. It's like having a battle of wits and the other person is unarmed. It's just not very sporting of you.
21-11-2018 02:55
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1211)
Do either of you care to have a scientific discussion yet? Hint, it's gotta start involving falsifiable theories at some point...
21-11-2018 03:02
James___
★★★★★
(3161)
gfm7175 wrote:
Do either of you care to have a scientific discussion yet? Hint, it's gotta start involving falsifiable theories at some point...



Isn't this how communism in Russia got started? And logic led to the Polituburo where logic dictated a person's place in society?

It is but have to go "chasing Pavements"
21-11-2018 03:05
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
gfm7175 wrote:
Do either of you care to have a scientific discussion yet? Hint, it's gotta start involving falsifiable theories at some point...


I have shown time and time again that AGM is a hoax and how it has been accomplished. What more do you need?

If you want a scientific discussion maybe you ought to think of going someplace where both sides are discussing science.

This is no criticism of you since I don't know your position or knowledge that led to that position. But there is no doubt that AGW has been used entirely by politicians to achieve political ends.
Edited on 21-11-2018 03:07
21-11-2018 03:07
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1211)
James___ wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Do either of you care to have a scientific discussion yet? Hint, it's gotta start involving falsifiable theories at some point...



Isn't this how communism in Russia got started? And logic led to the Polituburo where logic dictated a person's place in society?

It is but have to go "chasing Pavements"

I'm not interested in non-sequitur babbling...

You claimed you wanted to talk about science... I accept your invitation... have at it...
21-11-2018 03:47
James___
★★★★★
(3161)
gfm7175 wrote:
James___ wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Do either of you care to have a scientific discussion yet? Hint, it's gotta start involving falsifiable theories at some point...



Isn't this how communism in Russia got started? And logic led to the Polituburo where logic dictated a person's place in society?

It is but have to go "chasing Pavements"

I'm not interested in non-sequitur babbling...

You claimed you wanted to talk about science... I accept your invitation... have at it...



I'm watching a nice video about nature https://youtu.be/y1kARK9v07I
When you and itn take the time to learn some physics then we can talk. I was taught in the Navy not to make a fool of someone because I can. I take pride in having served my country.
Au Revoir, До Свидания, на конец.


And if anyone is wondering, how many times have I posted that environmentalism in here is worse than saying co2 is causing global warming? People who are familiar with me in here knows I'm about the environment. There's plenty of documentaries on YouTube.
And if anyone doesn't think wildlife is worth preserving doesn't understand the situation that we're putting ourselves into.
Edited on 21-11-2018 03:57
21-11-2018 05:20
James___
★★★★★
(3161)
This might help to lighten the mood. I know the drummer online. She's 18 and the other 2 gals might be 13.

https://youtu.be/BWA_hF9qipQ

I think logic dictates that girls play with dolls.


Lucy isn't singing


And Sina is playing the drums. Logic dictates that Emma Marie is singing.
Edited on 21-11-2018 06:04
21-11-2018 05:43
James___
★★★★★
(3161)
This is someone else I help to support. He's 16 now. He's Romanian but you might like what he can do. He's someone I know online. In this video he might only be 12.

https://youtu.be/9ZqnYa_iMo0
21-11-2018 06:25
James___
★★★★★
(3161)
Okay, Maybe you guys might like Vesislava?
I'm only promoting her in here.

https://youtu.be/bKtgdUABkzQ
21-11-2018 11:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
gfm7175 wrote:
Do either of you care to have a scientific discussion yet? Hint, it's gotta start involving falsifiable theories at some point...


I think they would rather just throw insults.


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
21-11-2018 11:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
James___ wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Do either of you care to have a scientific discussion yet? Hint, it's gotta start involving falsifiable theories at some point...



Isn't this how communism in Russia got started? And logic led to the Polituburo where logic dictated a person's place in society?

It is but have to go "chasing Pavements"


No.


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
21-11-2018 11:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
Wake wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Do either of you care to have a scientific discussion yet? Hint, it's gotta start involving falsifiable theories at some point...


I have shown time and time again that AGM is a hoax and how it has been accomplished. What more do you need?

If you want a scientific discussion maybe you ought to think of going someplace where both sides are discussing science.

This is no criticism of you since I don't know your position or knowledge that led to that position. But there is no doubt that AGW has been used entirely by politicians to achieve political ends.


If you think 'global warming' is a hoax, why do you keep arguing for 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
21-11-2018 11:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
James___ wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
James___ wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Do either of you care to have a scientific discussion yet? Hint, it's gotta start involving falsifiable theories at some point...



Isn't this how communism in Russia got started? And logic led to the Polituburo where logic dictated a person's place in society?

It is but have to go "chasing Pavements"

I'm not interested in non-sequitur babbling...

You claimed you wanted to talk about science... I accept your invitation... have at it...



I'm watching a nice video about nature https://youtu.be/y1kARK9v07I
When you and itn take the time to learn some physics then we can talk.

Start talking.
James___ wrote:
I was taught in the Navy not to make a fool of someone because I can. I take pride in having served my country.
Au Revoir, До Свидания, на конец.

I don't believe you.
James___ wrote:
And if anyone is wondering, how many times have I posted that environmentalism in here is worse than saying co2 is causing global warming?

I already know you favor the Church of Green but that you are still also a member of the Church of Global Warming.
James___ wrote:
People who are familiar with me in here knows I'm about the environment. There's plenty of documentaries on YouTube.

Documentaries are not a proof or an argument of your own. I will not address them here since they aren't here to discuss the arguments they make.
James___ wrote:
And if anyone doesn't think wildlife is worth preserving doesn't understand the situation that we're putting ourselves into.

Who do you think preserves and restores wildlife?? Hunters!


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
26-11-2018 22:25
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
gfm7175 wrote:
Do either of you care to have a scientific discussion yet? Hint, it's gotta start involving falsifiable theories at some point...

So what you're saying is that the Big Bang Theory isn't science? That the infinite universe theories also aren't science? What were they then invented by scientists? How do we falsify the estimated age of the Earth, Sun and Milky Way Galaxy? How do we falsify either the estimated tie from the Big Bang to the formation of all of the matter and energy in the universe?

How do we falsify the Theory of Evolution? How do we prove that the Quantum Theory is actual and not a by-product of the energy being used?

We have SCIENTIFIC theories for the several large scale extinction events. How do we falsify them? How do we falsify continental drift?

Pretending that science must be able to be disproven for it to be science is totally ignoring the fact that everything from the most underlying physics to even minor biological events cannot be proven in any way.
26-11-2018 23:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
Wake wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Do either of you care to have a scientific discussion yet? Hint, it's gotta start involving falsifiable theories at some point...

So what you're saying is that the Big Bang Theory isn't science?
That's right. The Theory of the Big Bang is not science. It is a religion.
Wake wrote:
That the infinite universe theories also aren't science?
Also a religion.
Wake wrote:
What were they then invented by scientists?
Theories.
Wake wrote:
How do we falsify the estimated age of the Earth, Sun and Milky Way Galaxy?
You can't. Not science.
Wake wrote:
How do we falsify either the estimated tie from the Big Bang to the formation of all of the matter and energy in the universe?
You can't. Not science.
Wake wrote:
How do we falsify the Theory of Evolution?
You can't. Not science either. The Theory of Evolution is a religion.
Wake wrote:
How do we prove that the Quantum Theory is actual and not a by-product of the energy being used?

Science has no proofs. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.Quantum theory is a branch of science.
Wake wrote:
We have SCIENTIFIC theories for the several large scale extinction events.

None. Science has no theories about past unobserved events.
Wake wrote:
How do we falsify them?
You can't. It is not science.
Wake wrote:
How do we falsify continental drift?
An observation. Not science. The CAUSE of continental drift is a theory of science. So far it has not been falsified.
Wake wrote:
Pretending that science must be able to be disproven for it to be science is totally ignoring the fact that everything from the most underlying physics to even minor biological events cannot be proven in any way.

Science has no proofs. Science does not require falsification. Only that a theory be falsifiable.


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
27-11-2018 02:29
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1211)
Wake wrote:
So what you're saying is that the Big Bang Theory isn't science?

That's precisely what I'm saying.

Wake wrote:That the infinite universe theories also aren't science?

Correct.

Wake wrote:What were they then invented by scientists?

Nope. They are unfalsifiable theories.

Wake wrote:How do we falsify the estimated age of the Earth, Sun and Milky Way Galaxy? How do we falsify either the estimated tie from the Big Bang to the formation of all of the matter and energy in the universe?

We can't...

Wake wrote:How do we falsify the Theory of Evolution? How do we prove that the Quantum Theory is actual and not a by-product of the energy being used?

We can't...

Wake wrote:We have SCIENTIFIC theories for the several large scale extinction events. How do we falsify them?

No we don't... We can't...

Wake wrote:How do we falsify continental drift?

This is not science... this is an observation...

Wake wrote:Pretending that science must be able to be disproven for it to be science is totally ignoring the fact that everything from the most underlying physics to even minor biological events cannot be proven in any way.

Science doesn't get proven or disproven. Science is an open functional system...
Edited on 27-11-2018 02:30
28-11-2018 00:46
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
gfm7175 wrote:
Wake wrote:
So what you're saying is that the Big Bang Theory isn't science?

That's precisely what I'm saying.

Wake wrote:That the infinite universe theories also aren't science?

Correct.

Wake wrote:What were they then invented by scientists?

Nope. They are unfalsifiable theories.

Wake wrote:How do we falsify the estimated age of the Earth, Sun and Milky Way Galaxy? How do we falsify either the estimated tie from the Big Bang to the formation of all of the matter and energy in the universe?

We can't...

Wake wrote:How do we falsify the Theory of Evolution? How do we prove that the Quantum Theory is actual and not a by-product of the energy being used?

We can't...

Wake wrote:We have SCIENTIFIC theories for the several large scale extinction events. How do we falsify them?

No we don't... We can't...

Wake wrote:How do we falsify continental drift?

This is not science... this is an observation...

Wake wrote:Pretending that science must be able to be disproven for it to be science is totally ignoring the fact that everything from the most underlying physics to even minor biological events cannot be proven in any way.

Science doesn't get proven or disproven. Science is an open functional system...

While you two are holding hands and smiling into each other's eyes the rest of the world passes you by since ignorance is ignorance; both of you certain show that.

Webster's Dictionary: "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."

This is the rest of the world goes by. Tell us - where do you see "falsifiable" instead of "study"?

Well I guess love conquers all. Have a good marriage you two.
28-11-2018 01:08
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2396)
So, according to Webster's... How is Climatology a science? It can't be observed, there is no behavior, weather isn't climate. Can't experiment, test, or measure climate, it's only our individual perception of our environment. Recorded history doesn't go back very far, compared to the estimated (guessed) age of the planet. We know it's constantly changing though, never been a normal period to compare with, no way to know the future, until it gets here.
28-11-2018 02:14
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1211)
Wake wrote:
While you two are holding hands and smiling into each other's eyes the rest of the world passes you by since ignorance is ignorance; both of you certain show that.

It's rather hard for me to do that with him... he's over half way across the country from me and it's not like I have his Skype or anything... heck, I don't even use those social media apps... I'm an odd millennial that way...

Wake wrote:Webster's Dictionary: "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."

Webster's Dictionary does not define Science. Philosophy defines Science... Tell me, which dictionary is the authoritative and correct one? Dictionaries very often contradict each other...

Wake wrote:This is the rest of the world goes by. Tell us - where do you see "falsifiable" instead of "study"?

Philosophy.

Wake wrote:Well I guess love conquers all. Have a good marriage you two.

Always with the need to get personal instead of focusing on the arguments at hand...
28-11-2018 02:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
Wake wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Wake wrote:
So what you're saying is that the Big Bang Theory isn't science?

That's precisely what I'm saying.

Wake wrote:That the infinite universe theories also aren't science?

Correct.

Wake wrote:What were they then invented by scientists?

Nope. They are unfalsifiable theories.

Wake wrote:How do we falsify the estimated age of the Earth, Sun and Milky Way Galaxy? How do we falsify either the estimated tie from the Big Bang to the formation of all of the matter and energy in the universe?

We can't...

Wake wrote:How do we falsify the Theory of Evolution? How do we prove that the Quantum Theory is actual and not a by-product of the energy being used?

We can't...

Wake wrote:We have SCIENTIFIC theories for the several large scale extinction events. How do we falsify them?

No we don't... We can't...

Wake wrote:How do we falsify continental drift?

This is not science... this is an observation...

Wake wrote:Pretending that science must be able to be disproven for it to be science is totally ignoring the fact that everything from the most underlying physics to even minor biological events cannot be proven in any way.

Science doesn't get proven or disproven. Science is an open functional system...

While you two are holding hands and smiling into each other's eyes the rest of the world passes you by since ignorance is ignorance; both of you certain show that.

Webster's Dictionary: "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."

This is the rest of the world goes by. Tell us - where do you see "falsifiable" instead of "study"?

Webster does not define science, Wake. No dictionary defines any word. Don't try to use a dictionary as a philosophy book.


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
28-11-2018 02:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
gfm7175 wrote:
Wake wrote:
While you two are holding hands and smiling into each other's eyes the rest of the world passes you by since ignorance is ignorance; both of you certain show that.

It's rather hard for me to do that with him... he's over half way across the country from me and it's not like I have his Skype or anything... heck, I don't even use those social media apps... I'm an odd millennial that way...

Wake wrote:Webster's Dictionary: "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."

Webster's Dictionary does not define Science. Philosophy defines Science... Tell me, which dictionary is the authoritative and correct one? Dictionaries very often contradict each other...

Wake wrote:This is the rest of the world goes by. Tell us - where do you see "falsifiable" instead of "study"?

Philosophy.

Wake wrote:Well I guess love conquers all. Have a good marriage you two.

Always with the need to get personal instead of focusing on the arguments at hand...


He has had this anger problem quite some time.


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
28-11-2018 02:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
HarveyH55 wrote:
So, according to Webster's... How is Climatology a science? It can't be observed, there is no behavior, weather isn't climate. Can't experiment, test, or measure climate, it's only our individual perception of our environment. Recorded history doesn't go back very far, compared to the estimated (guessed) age of the planet. We know it's constantly changing though, never been a normal period to compare with, no way to know the future, until it gets here.


Science is a set of falsifiable theories. 'Climatology' is a buzzword. It is not a branch of science. It is not possible to make a theory out a void argument (by using buzzwords).

The idea of of the word 'climatology' is to make the study of climate sound 'scientific'. You are correct. There is no study of 'climate'. The word is subjective.


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
28-11-2018 03:15
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1211)
Into the Night wrote:
He has had this anger problem quite some time.

That's unfortunate... I would hate to be angry that often...
28-11-2018 04:55
James___
★★★★★
(3161)
Wake wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Wake wrote:
So what you're saying is that the Big Bang Theory isn't science?

That's precisely what I'm saying.

Wake wrote:That the infinite universe theories also aren't science?

Correct.

Wake wrote:What were they then invented by scientists?

Nope. They are unfalsifiable theories.

Wake wrote:How do we falsify the estimated age of the Earth, Sun and Milky Way Galaxy? How do we falsify either the estimated tie from the Big Bang to the formation of all of the matter and energy in the universe?

We can't...

Wake wrote:How do we falsify the Theory of Evolution? How do we prove that the Quantum Theory is actual and not a by-product of the energy being used?

We can't...

Wake wrote:We have SCIENTIFIC theories for the several large scale extinction events. How do we falsify them?

No we don't... We can't...

Wake wrote:How do we falsify continental drift?

This is not science... this is an observation...

Wake wrote:Pretending that science must be able to be disproven for it to be science is totally ignoring the fact that everything from the most underlying physics to even minor biological events cannot be proven in any way.

Science doesn't get proven or disproven. Science is an open functional system...

While you two are holding hands and smiling into each other's eyes the rest of the world passes you by since ignorance is ignorance; both of you certain show that.

Webster's Dictionary: "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."

This is the rest of the world goes by. Tell us - where do you see "falsifiable" instead of "study"?

Well I guess love conquers all. Have a good marriage you two.



Wake,
Communism comes from logic. It's basically what those 2 are promoting. This is why they don't allow for independent thought.
28-11-2018 05:02
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1211)
James___ wrote:
Wake,
Communism comes from logic.

No it doesn't.

Wake wrote:It's basically what those 2 are promoting. This is why they don't allow for independent thought.

Inversion Fallacy.
28-11-2018 19:07
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
HarveyH55 wrote:
So, according to Webster's... How is Climatology a science? It can't be observed, there is no behavior, weather isn't climate. Can't experiment, test, or measure climate, it's only our individual perception of our environment. Recorded history doesn't go back very far, compared to the estimated (guessed) age of the planet. We know it's constantly changing though, never been a normal period to compare with, no way to know the future, until it gets here.


Excuse me but failure to understand the English language does not in any way change the world around you.
28-11-2018 19:24
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James___ wrote:
Wake wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Wake wrote:
So what you're saying is that the Big Bang Theory isn't science?

That's precisely what I'm saying.

Wake wrote:That the infinite universe theories also aren't science?

Correct.

Wake wrote:What were they then invented by scientists?

Nope. They are unfalsifiable theories.

Wake wrote:How do we falsify the estimated age of the Earth, Sun and Milky Way Galaxy? How do we falsify either the estimated tie from the Big Bang to the formation of all of the matter and energy in the universe?

We can't...

Wake wrote:How do we falsify the Theory of Evolution? How do we prove that the Quantum Theory is actual and not a by-product of the energy being used?

We can't...

Wake wrote:We have SCIENTIFIC theories for the several large scale extinction events. How do we falsify them?

No we don't... We can't...

Wake wrote:How do we falsify continental drift?

This is not science... this is an observation...

Wake wrote:Pretending that science must be able to be disproven for it to be science is totally ignoring the fact that everything from the most underlying physics to even minor biological events cannot be proven in any way.

Science doesn't get proven or disproven. Science is an open functional system...

While you two are holding hands and smiling into each other's eyes the rest of the world passes you by since ignorance is ignorance; both of you certain show that.

Webster's Dictionary: "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."

This is the rest of the world goes by. Tell us - where do you see "falsifiable" instead of "study"?

Well I guess love conquers all. Have a good marriage you two.



Wake,
Communism comes from logic. It's basically what those 2 are promoting. This is why they don't allow for independent thought.


I really do find it extremely peculiar that, faced with proof that their system of beliefs are incorrect, they simply deny it. I cannot tell you the weeks and months of research on projects when I was forced to reverse my beliefs in order to make them conform to reality. In many cases entire research papers or the explanations in meetings of people with PhDs had to be discarded in order to make devices work properly. I was forced to teach myself calculus in order to double check doctorates and then prove them wrong. The use of calculus in research and development is pretty rare outside of quantum physics and that was a lot of more or less wasted time to review reality from what turned out to be the faulty view of someone else.

And in many cases the devices I worked on held people's lives in the balance whether it was an automated mechanism to detect HIV, poison gas detectors for the military or cancer treatment devices to start-up companies that could not afford wasted time on incorrect science.

The Bobbsey Twins denying the very existence of entire segments of science while at the same time speaking about mathematics that are the under-support of these sciences is pretty crazy.
28-11-2018 20:08
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1211)
Wake wrote:
I really do find it extremely peculiar that, faced with proof that their system of beliefs are incorrect, they simply deny it.

You have not and cannot do so. Science doesn't make use of proofs. Only closed functional systems do...

Wake wrote:
I cannot tell you the weeks and months of research on projects when I was forced to reverse my beliefs in order to make them conform to reality. In many cases entire research papers or the explanations in meetings of people with PhDs had to be discarded in order to make devices work properly. I was forced to teach myself calculus in order to double check doctorates and then prove them wrong. The use of calculus in research and development is pretty rare outside of quantum physics and that was a lot of more or less wasted time to review reality from what turned out to be the faulty view of someone else.

And in many cases the devices I worked on held people's lives in the balance whether it was an automated mechanism to detect HIV, poison gas detectors for the military or cancer treatment devices to start-up companies that could not afford wasted time on incorrect science.

The Bobbsey Twins denying the very existence of entire segments of science while at the same time speaking about mathematics that are the under-support of these sciences is pretty crazy.

I don't believe you.
28-11-2018 20:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
So, according to Webster's... How is Climatology a science? It can't be observed, there is no behavior, weather isn't climate. Can't experiment, test, or measure climate, it's only our individual perception of our environment. Recorded history doesn't go back very far, compared to the estimated (guessed) age of the planet. We know it's constantly changing though, never been a normal period to compare with, no way to know the future, until it gets here.


Excuse me but failure to understand the English language does not in any way change the world around you.


Yet another canned irrelevant insult from the Church of Global Warming.


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
28-11-2018 20:28
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2396)
I don't believe he learned calculus... It takes a while to get it, but it's quicker and easier to use, over algebra. I only took one semester, but I remember wondering why I had to mess around with so much algebra first, guess that's how colleges make money...
28-11-2018 20:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
Wake wrote:
I really do find it extremely peculiar that, faced with proof that their system of beliefs are incorrect, they simply deny it. I cannot tell you the weeks and months of research on projects when I was forced to reverse my beliefs in order to make them conform to reality.

Define 'reality'. Please explain how it is related to 'beliefs'.
Wake wrote:
In many cases entire research papers or the explanations in meetings of people with PhDs had to be discarded in order to make devices work properly. I was forced to teach myself calculus in order to double check doctorates and then prove them wrong.

You don't know calculus. You deny it. I don't believe you have proved anyone wrong.
Wake wrote:
The use of calculus in research and development is pretty rare outside of quantum physics
It's actually pretty common. You just deny it. The Stefan-Boltzmann law itself, which you deny, is the result of calculus.
Wake wrote:
and that was a lot of more or less wasted time to review reality from what turned out to be the faulty view of someone else.
Define 'reality'. Please explain how it is related to 'faulty views'.
Wake wrote:
And in many cases the devices I worked on held people's lives in the balance whether it was an automated mechanism to detect HIV, poison gas detectors for the military or cancer treatment devices to start-up companies that could not afford wasted time on incorrect science.

I don't believe you.
Wake wrote:
The Bobbsey Twins denying the very existence of entire segments of science

Science isn't 'segments'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
Wake wrote:
while at the same time speaking about mathematics
Which you deny.
Wake wrote:
that are the under-support of these sciences is pretty crazy.

Mathematics does not support science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It is an open functional system. Mathematics is defined by a set of axioms. It is a closed functional system.

A set of falsifiable theories has nothing to do with a set of axioms.

Formalizing a theory into mathematical form is simply giving a theory the power of prediction. It does not create the theory in any way.


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
28-11-2018 20:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't believe he learned calculus... It takes a while to get it, but it's quicker and easier to use, over algebra. I only took one semester, but I remember wondering why I had to mess around with so much algebra first, guess that's how colleges make money...


Each have their place. The calculus makes use of algebra, but it in and of itself is not a replacement for algebra. Algebra is still used without using the calculus. You still need both.

You are right about the calculus though. Once you get it, it's pretty easy to use. You are also correct about Wake's knowledge of the calculus. I don't believe he learned it either. It's simply one of the many claims he makes about what a great engineer and scientist he is.


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
28-11-2018 23:04
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't believe he learned calculus... It takes a while to get it, but it's quicker and easier to use, over algebra. I only took one semester, but I remember wondering why I had to mess around with so much algebra first, guess that's how colleges make money...


Now that is really stupid. Algebra is simple and you use every day in fields such as research. Algebra calculates change while Calculus the rate of change.
28-11-2018 23:23
James___
★★★★★
(3161)
Wake wrote:

I really do find it extremely peculiar that, faced with proof that their system of beliefs are incorrect, they simply deny it. I cannot tell you the weeks and months of research on projects when I was forced to reverse my beliefs in order to make them conform to reality. In many cases entire research papers or the explanations in meetings of people with PhDs had to be discarded in order to make devices work properly. I was forced to teach myself calculus in order to double check doctorates and then prove them wrong. The use of calculus in research and development is pretty rare outside of quantum physics and that was a lot of more or less wasted time to review reality from what turned out to be the faulty view of someone else.

And in many cases the devices I worked on held people's lives in the balance whether it was an automated mechanism to detect HIV, poison gas detectors for the military or cancer treatment devices to start-up companies that could not afford wasted time on incorrect science.

The Bobbsey Twins denying the very existence of entire segments of science while at the same time speaking about mathematics that are the under-support of these sciences is pretty crazy.



They do tend to sound like an old married couple, don't they? Who was it that was the first communist leader in Russia? Was it Stalin?
Yet in many ways communism held Russia back because the Polituburo had to be in control. The same thing in China. People have to have the government's permission to pursue an idea.
In the US the problem is the people who think there's nothing left to learn. You know, conservatives who don't know how to manage risk.
In the future I'll probably learn more about calculus. It kind of goes along with science and I do like science.
Where I'm a bit different about physics is that I've read books on scientists and their work. It helps to understand what they were thinking so everything isn't just about an equation. With too many people that's all it comes back to.
One famous scientist actually came up with a calculation for the electron where it's value was about 1.4. He said it needed to be 1 so he changed the answer to 1. He was considering it's linear + angular momentum of which 1 was the KE of an electron. What he might not have considered is that it's linear and angular velocities could very while the electron has a constant average like gas molecules have.
29-11-2018 02:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13273)
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't believe he learned calculus... It takes a while to get it, but it's quicker and easier to use, over algebra. I only took one semester, but I remember wondering why I had to mess around with so much algebra first, guess that's how colleges make money...


Now that is really stupid. Algebra is simple and you use every day in fields such as research. Algebra calculates change while Calculus the rate of change.


Not what calculus does, Wake.

Try again.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Page 3 of 5<12345>





Join the debate Why only 'Man-Made' CO2?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The NCOVID Lock Down Prove CO2 Emission Do Not Cause Global Warming Climate Change1215-09-2020 04:37
The ACTUAL Percentage of Atmospheric CO26403-09-2020 05:12
CO2 sensor112-08-2020 19:10
Less CO21022-07-2020 02:16
CO2 level to cause harm1813-07-2020 22:08
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact