Why only 'Man-Made' CO2?

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.

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.

James___ wrote:
And the Dodge parked in my driveway isn't mine then because it says Dodge 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?

James___ wrote:
No Thanks. I'd rather be illogical and take the time to become familiar with the subject matter.

James___ wrote:
All people need to understand is that this fits the definition of a circular argument.

James___ wrote:
It revolves around you and itn being right.

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

Into the Night wrote:

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

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

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

Bulverism fallacy.

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.

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

gfm7175 wrote:
Do either of you care to have a scientific discussion yet? Hint, it's gotta start involving falsifiable theories at some point...

gfm7175 wrote:
Do either of you care to have a scientific discussion yet? Hint, it's gotta start involving falsifiable theories at some point...

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"

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...

gfm7175 wrote:
Do either of you care to have a scientific discussion yet? Hint, it's gotta start involving falsifiable theories at some point...

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"

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.

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.

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.

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?

James___ wrote:
People who are familiar with me in here knows I'm about the environment. There's plenty of documentaries on YouTube.

James___ wrote:
And if anyone doesn't think wildlife is worth preserving doesn't understand the situation that we're putting ourselves into.

gfm7175 wrote:
Do either of you care to have a scientific discussion yet? Hint, it's gotta start involving falsifiable theories at some point...

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?

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

Wake wrote:
What were they then invented by scientists?

Wake wrote:
How do we falsify the estimated age of the Earth, Sun and Milky Way Galaxy?

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?

Wake wrote:
How do we falsify the Theory of Evolution?

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

Wake wrote:
We have SCIENTIFIC theories for the several large scale extinction events.

Wake wrote:
How do we falsify them?

Wake wrote:
How do we falsify continental drift?

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.

Wake wrote:
So what you're saying is that the Big Bang Theory isn't science?

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

Wake wrote:What were they then invented by scientists?

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?

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?

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

Wake wrote:How do we falsify continental drift?

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.

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...

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.

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."

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

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

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"?

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...

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.

Into the Night wrote:
He has had this anger problem quite some time.

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.

James___ wrote:
Wake,
Communism comes from logic.

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

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.

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.

Wake wrote:
I really do find it extremely peculiar that, faced with proof that their system of beliefs are incorrect, they simply deny it.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Wake wrote:
The use of calculus in research and development is pretty rare outside of quantum physics

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.

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.

Wake wrote:
The Bobbsey Twins denying the very existence of entire segments of science

Wake wrote:
while at the same time speaking about mathematics

Wake wrote:
that are the under-support of these sciences is pretty crazy.

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...

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...

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.

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.