wikipedia accuracy

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > wikipedia accuracy > Page 2

Page 2 of 3

29-01-2020 04:54
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: spot wrote: How does one find out what the theory actually is? Read it for yourself. It's available for all to see. Where? Should I go to wikipedia for that? RQAA. tmiddles wrote: One of these 12 references maybe?: Where? RQAA. tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: I'm genuinely curious where (ITN) would tell someone to go find the theories of physics. I don't believe you. As I'm convinced there is no source ITN would ever approve of I would be nothing less than amazed. RDCF. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: But I'm asking you too gfm. Where would you go as a reference for basic theories of physics? RQAA. tmiddles wrote: We've covered that it's NOT wikipedia. True. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: spot wrote:How does one find out what the theory actually is? Unless you are the boy in the plastic bubble, you have to be brain dead to ask this question. You deny that many people are duped into trusting Wikipedia? Isn't that the subject of many a post by you? So WHERE should the go INSTEAD! Help them escape the evil clutches of wiki. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: Where??? RQAA. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: I'll make it easy for you: 1st law FALSE AUTHORITY FALLACY Fallacy fallacy. The theory itself is the only authoritative reference. tmiddles wrote: ITN is not an identifiable source for anything. Yes I am. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: Neither am I. Yes you are. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: This is why you claim Wikipedia is not trustworthy. RFAF. tmiddles wrote: The only link you provide is to your own website politiplex. It happens to have several references to science and engineering collected there. tmiddles wrote: That is beyond suspicious. Bulverism fallacy. tmiddles wrote: You didn't learn the laws from yourself so I ask again. Where ITN? RQAA. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: You cannot use Wikipedia as a reference. Summarily dismissed. This implies that there could be a better reference doesn't it? What? RQAA. 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
29-01-2020 05:10
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: Get out from behind your computer, visit your library ... Great idea! So you are very passionate in your warning about wikipedia. Here's the college text book I'm looking to. Any advice on if it's credible? #2 -University Physics Volume 2 About the authors Senior contributing authors Samuel J. Ling, Truman State University Dr. Samuel Ling has taught introductory and advanced physics for over 25 years at Truman State University, where he is currently Professor of Physics and the Department Chair. Dr. Ling has two PhDs from Boston University, one in Chemistry and the other in Physics, and he was a Research Fellow at the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, before joining Truman. Dr. Ling is also an author of A First Course in Vibrations and Waves, published by Oxford University Press. Dr. Ling has considerable experience with research in Physics Education and has published research on collaborative learning methods in physics teaching. He was awarded a Truman Fellow and a Jepson fellow in recognition of his innovative teaching methods. Dr. Ling's research publications have spanned Cosmology, Solid State Physics, and Nonlinear Optics. Jeff Sanny, Loyola Marymount University Dr. Jeff Sanny earned a BS in Physics from Harvey Mudd College in 1974 and a PhD in Solid State Physics from the University of California–Los Angeles in 1980. He joined the faculty at Loyola Marymount University in the fall of 1980. During his tenure, he has served as department Chair as well as Associate Dean. Dr. Sanny enjoys teaching introductory physics in particular. He is also passionate about providing students with research experience and has directed an active undergraduate student research group in space physics for many years. William Moebs, Formerly of Loyola Marymount University Dr. William Moebs earned a BS and PhD (1959 and 1965) from the University of Michigan. He then joined their staff as a Research Associate for one year, where he continued his doctoral research in particle physics. In 1966, he accepted an appointment to the Physics Department of Indiana Purdue Fort Wayne (IPFW), where he served as Department Chair from 1971 to 1979. In 1979, he moved to Loyola Marymount University (LMU), where he served as Chair of the Physics Department from 1979 to 1986. He retired from LMU in 2000. He has published research in particle physics, chemical kinetics, cell division, atomic physics, and physics teaching. Contributing authors Stephen D. Druger Alice Kolakowska, University of Memphis David Anderson, Albion College Daniel Bowman, Ferrum College Dedra Demaree, Georgetown University Edw. S. Ginsberg, University of Massachusetts Joseph Trout, Richard Stockton College Kevin Wheelock, Bellevue College David Smith, University of the Virgin Islands Takashi Sato, Kwantlen Polytechnic University Gerald Friedman, Santa Fe Community College Lev Gasparov, University of North Florida Lee LaRue, Paris Junior College Mark Lattery, University of Wisconsin Richard Ludlow, Daniel Webster College Patrick Motl, Indiana University Kokomo Tao Pang, University of Nevada, Las Vegas Kenneth Podolak, Plattsburgh State University Reviewers Salameh Ahmad, Rochester Institute of Technology–Dubai John Aiken, University of Colorado–Boulder Raymond Benge, Terrant County College Gavin Buxton, Robert Morris University Erik Christensen, South Florida State College Clifton Clark, Fort Hays State University Nelson Coates, California Maritime Academy Herve Collin, Kapi'olani Community College Carl Covatto, Arizona State University Alejandro Cozzani, Imperial Valley College Danielle Dalafave, The College of New Jersey Nicholas Darnton, Georgia Institute of Technology Ethan Deneault, University of Tampa Kenneth DeNisco, Harrisburg Area Community College Robert Edmonds, Tarrant County College William Falls, Erie Community College Stanley Forrester, Broward College Umesh Garg, University of Notre Dame Maurizio Giannotti, Barry University Bryan Gibbs, Dallas County Community College Lynn Gillette, Pima Community College–West Campus Mark Giroux, East Tennessee State University Matthew Griffiths, University of New Haven Alfonso Hinojosa, University of Texas–Arlington Steuard Jensen, Alma College David Kagan, University of Massachusetts Sergei Katsev, University of Minnesota–Duluth Gregory Lapicki, East Carolina University Jill Leggett, Florida State College–Jacksonville Alfredo Louro, University of Calgary James Maclaren, Tulane University Ponn Maheswaranathan, Winthrop University Seth Major, Hamilton College Oleg Maksimov, Excelsior College Aristides Marcano, Delaware State University James McDonald, University of Hartford Ralph McGrew, SUNY–Broome Community College Paul Miller, West Virginia University Tamar More, University of Portland Farzaneh Najmabadi, University of Phoenix Richard Olenick, The University of Dallas Christopher Porter, Ohio State University Liza Pujji, Manakau Institute of Technology Baishali Ray, Young Harris University Andrew Robinson, Carleton University Aruvana Roy, Young Harris University Gajendra Tulsian, Daytona State College Adria Updike, Roger Williams University Clark Vangilder, Central Arizona University Steven Wolf, Texas State University Alexander Wurm, Western New England University Lei Zhang, Winston Salem State University Ulrich Zurcher, Cleveland State University
29-01-2020 05:52
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14411)	tmiddles wrote:About the authors I don't care about authors. Tell me about content. Does the book discuss "greenhouse effect"? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-01-2020 05:54
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: Does the book discuss "greenhouse effect"? Yes it does. Oh I found another one that also looks really good. What do you think?: https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9781856176613/the-finite-element-method-in-engineering#book-description It's written by Singiresu S. Rao Professor and Chairman, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida, USA And it teaches about Heat Transfer. Doesn't deal with climate stuff though : ( Just the fundamentals but I think for real science/engineering majors from the look of it. Edited on 29-01-2020 06:29
29-01-2020 16:56
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: spot wrote: How does one find out what the theory actually is? Read it for yourself. It's available for all to see. Where? Should I go to wikipedia for that? One of these 12 references maybe?: tmiddles wrote:TWELVE REFERENCES ON BASIC PHYSICS Where? gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: I'm genuinely curious where (ITN) would tell someone to go find the theories of physics. I don't believe you. As I'm convinced there is no source ITN would ever approve of I would be nothing less than amazed. But I'm asking you too gfm. Where would you go as a reference for basic theories of physics? We've covered that it's NOT wikipedia. IBdaMann wrote: spot wrote:How does one find out what the theory actually is? Unless you are the boy in the plastic bubble, you have to be brain dead to ask this question. You deny that many people are duped into trusting Wikipedia? Isn't that the subject of many a post by you? So WHERE should the go INSTEAD! Help them escape the evil clutches of wiki. Where??? Into the Night wrote: I'll make it easy for you: 1st law FALSE AUTHORITY FALLACY ITN is not an identifiable source for anything. Neither am I. This is why you claim Wikipedia is not trustworthy. The only link you provide is to your own website politiplex. That is beyond suspicious. You didn't learn the laws from yourself so I ask again. Where ITN? Into the Night wrote: You cannot use Wikipedia as a reference. Summarily dismissed. This implies that there could be a better reference doesn't it? What? Your questions have already been answered. You are obviously not here to learn. Also, your claim of a False Authority Fallacy is a Fallacy Fallacy. The theory itself is where you should be looking.

29-01-2020 20:14
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14411)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Does the book discuss "greenhouse effect"? Yes it does. Great! Stay focused. For science to apply, Greenhouse Effect must be unambiguously defined. What is the book's unambiguous definition for Greenhouse Effect? The follow-on question: What does the book give for the Greenhouse Effect equation, i.e. the falsifiable model that makes Greenhouse Effect science? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
30-01-2020 02:29
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	gfm7175 wrote: Your questions have already been answered. No that is false to the best of my knowledge. When and where? IBdaMann wrote: What is the book's unambiguous definition for Greenhouse Effect?. So you don't find that it is so you reject the entire book correct? I supplied a 2nd book that doesn't deal with greenhouse effect at all. So let us stay focused on just the fundamental laws of thermodynamics shall we? Let's find a good solid textbook that we can recommend to people like me without a formal education in physics (when a textbook was used). tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Does the book discuss "greenhouse effect"? Yes it does. Oh I found another one that also looks really good. What do you think?: https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9781856176613/the-finite-element-method-in-engineering#book-description It's written by Singiresu S. Rao Professor and Chairman, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida, USA And it teaches about Heat Transfer. Doesn't deal with climate stuff though : ( Just the fundamentals but I think for real science/engineering majors from the look of it. I'm asking for a textbook recommendation from you IBD on thermodynamics and the related physics. Also GFM and ITN I'd truly like to know what textbook you'd recommend to someone. I completely accept it's possible for a text to be corrupted due to political influences not to mention incompetence and a whole host of other factors. So you recommend something you didn't yourself write. Edited on 30-01-2020 02:31
30-01-2020 03:12
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: Your questions have already been answered. No that is false to the best of my knowledge. When and where? RQAA. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: What is the book's unambiguous definition for Greenhouse Effect?. So you don't find that it is so you reject the entire book correct? I supplied a 2nd book that doesn't deal with greenhouse effect at all. So let us stay focused on just the fundamental laws of thermodynamics shall we? Let's find a good solid textbook that we can recommend to people like me without a formal education in physics (when a textbook was used). tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Does the book discuss "greenhouse effect"? Yes it does. Oh I found another one that also looks really good. What do you think?: https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9781856176613/the-finite-element-method-in-engineering#book-description It's written by Singiresu S. Rao Professor and Chairman, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida, USA And it teaches about Heat Transfer. Doesn't deal with climate stuff though : ( Just the fundamentals but I think for real science/engineering majors from the look of it. I'm asking for a textbook recommendation from you IBD on thermodynamics and the related physics. Also GFM and ITN I'd truly like to know what textbook you'd recommend to someone. I completely accept it's possible for a text to be corrupted due to political influences not to mention incompetence and a whole host of other factors. So you recommend something you didn't yourself write. Bulverism fallacy. I didn't create any law of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law. I simply copied out these equations for you. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
30-01-2020 03:18
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: Bulverism fallacy. I didn't create any law of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law. I simply copied out these equations for you. What is your definition for: "Bulverism fallacy" (you should just make an ITN glossary) Copied from where/what?
30-01-2020 03:24
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: Bulverism fallacy. I didn't create any law of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law. I simply copied out these equations for you. What is your definition for: "Bulverism fallacy" (you should just make an ITN glossary) Copied from where/what? A bulverism fallacy is rejecting an argument because who is making it, without addressing the content of the argument itself. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 30-01-2020 03:25
30-01-2020 04:28
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: Bulverism fallacy. I didn't create any law of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law. I simply copied out these equations for you. What is your definition for: "Bulverism fallacy" (you should just make an ITN glossary) Copied from where/what? A bulverism fallacy is rejecting an argument because who is making it, without addressing the content of the argument itself. OK that's the common definition. You could just identify which definitions of fallacies you use are uncommon. When a news reporter verifies information (which in the case of most journalism means the reporter was not a participant/witness to events personally) they typically try to get 3 independent sources. Now you are not rejecting a first source when you seek a 2nd and a 3rd. Looking for corroboration is not a rejection. As has been stated many times the theories of science are falsifiable. While it's possible a theory may be falsified by laypeople I think it's safe to say it's researchers and scientists that would generally test theories rigorously. Research is published and tested by peers. There are journals for this purpose. Valuing the testing and attempts to falsify a theory done by others well qualified to do so is not a fallacy. We can't be skeptical of everything we are presented with so it can help to narrow things down. So yeah, I'd love to know any sources/references you use that aren't you. You did not learn physics and thermodynamics from only yourself. Edited on 30-01-2020 04:30
30-01-2020 16:47
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14411)	tmiddles wrote: When a news reporter verifies information (which in the case of most journalism means the reporter was not a participant/witness to events personally) they typically try to get 3 independent sources. I am totally not buying this. I see reporters rushing with whatever unverified gossip to make the cutoff deadline in two hours. I see ALL of the news involving Trump is negative and totally unsubstantiated and quickly dropped for the next unsubstantiated, uncorroborated, unverified gossip item. This is because there aren't any reporters anymore. All the former giant news outlets have become propaganda agencies and campaign headquarters. The new requirements to perform the function of what used to be a "reporter" is now to be a leftist political activist. Reporters have gone the way of the dinosaur. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
30-01-2020 18:47
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: Your questions have already been answered. No that is false to the best of my knowledge. When and where? In this thread not too long ago. Try to keep up. tmiddles wrote: Also GFM and ITN I'd truly like to know what textbook you'd recommend to someone. No textbook in particular... I'm recommending looking at the theories themselves. You've already been provided with those theories by ITN... I'm not sure why you are having such difficulty finding what is right in front of your face. tmiddles wrote: I completely accept it's possible for a text to be corrupted due to political influences not to mention incompetence and a whole host of other factors. So you recommend something you didn't yourself write. You've been provided with the equations.
30-01-2020 20:27
spot ★★★★☆ (1323)	Resorting to sock puppets to try and give yourself credibility now?
30-01-2020 20:34
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: Bulverism fallacy. I didn't create any law of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law. I simply copied out these equations for you. What is your definition for: "Bulverism fallacy" (you should just make an ITN glossary) Copied from where/what? A bulverism fallacy is rejecting an argument because who is making it, without addressing the content of the argument itself. OK that's the common definition. You could just identify which definitions of fallacies you use are uncommon. Logic or any error in logic do not require consensus. tmiddles wrote: When a news reporter verifies information (which in the case of most journalism means the reporter was not a participant/witness to events personally) they typically try to get 3 independent sources. So reporting the plane crash he witnessed isn't good enough, eh? tmiddles wrote: Now you are not rejecting a first source when you seek a 2nd and a 3rd. Journalism is not logic. False equivalence fallacy. tmiddles wrote: Looking for corroboration is not a rejection. Yes it is. You rejecting logic. Logic doesn't use corroboration. tmiddles wrote: As has been stated many times the theories of science are falsifiable. True. tmiddles wrote: While it's possible a theory may be falsified by laypeople I think it's safe to say it's researchers and scientists that would generally test theories rigorously. Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. tmiddles wrote: Research is published and tested by peers. There are journals for this purpose. Science is not 'research'. It isn't a journal or a magazine. It does not use consensus. tmiddles wrote: Valuing the testing and attempts to falsify a theory done by others well qualified to do so is not a fallacy. False authority fallacy. Science is not credentials. It does not require 'qualification'. Bulverism fallacy. tmiddles wrote: We can't be skeptical of everything we are presented with so it can help to narrow things down. Argument of ignorance fallacy. Science does not use supporting evidence. It is not a journal or a magazine. It does not use consensus. No theory is ever proven True. Holy Blessings of priests are not required in science. tmiddles wrote: So yeah, I'd love to know any sources/references you use that aren't you. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: You did not learn physics and thermodynamics from only yourself. False authority fallacy. RQAA. 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 30-01-2020 20:35

30-01-2020 20:37
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: When a news reporter verifies information (which in the case of most journalism means the reporter was not a participant/witness to events personally) they typically try to get 3 independent sources. I am totally not buying this. I see reporters rushing with whatever unverified gossip to make the cutoff deadline in two hours. I see ALL of the news involving Trump is negative and totally unsubstantiated and quickly dropped for the next unsubstantiated, uncorroborated, unverified gossip item. This is because there aren't any reporters anymore. All the former giant news outlets have become propaganda agencies and campaign headquarters. The new requirements to perform the function of what used to be a "reporter" is now to be a leftist political activist. Reporters have gone the way of the dinosaur. . Occasionally, you still get one, but they are quashed by the propagandists most of the 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 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
30-01-2020 20:37
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	spot wrote: Resorting to sock puppets to try and give yourself credibility now? YALSA. 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
31-01-2020 01:45
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:...a news reporter verifies...3 independent sources. ...I see reporters rushing with whatever unverified gossip... Well I don't know the stats but we all know it can get you fired to cut corners. Just ask Dan Rather. "Stories based on anonymous sources require particularly rigorous cross-checking. We should normally have two or three sources for such information." IBdaMann wrote: ...ALL of the news involving Trump is negative and totally unsubstantiated... Uh? There has NEVER been a substantiated new story about Trump? Or just NEVER a negative one? I am reading "ALL" unsubstantiated as indicating there is "NONE" substantiated. IBdaMann wrote:...there aren't any reporters anymore...."reporter" is now to be a leftist political activist.... So all news is left wing? Seems easily remedied if you're right wing. Start up a news site. Also to distrust all information from all reporters leaves you with what to go on? gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: Your questions have already been answered. No that is false to the best of my knowledge. When and where? In this thread not too long ago. Try to keep up. It is totally inconsistent with our posts to believe that you would not prove me wrong if you could. Yet you are not. So I think you're bluffing. I don't do Easter Egg hunts. gfm7175 wrote:I'm recommending looking at the theories themselves. You've already been provided with those theories by ITN... So you don't have any source other than ITN? Nothing? I hope if you've got kids who want an education at some point he's willing to tutor. Since there are not schools you trust? A post on this board is not a source brought to this board. That's not a reference, that's simply a post. ITN did not learn the theories from himself unless he made them up. Is that what you're saying? He's the author? (cuz that's what I've been saying). Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: You could just identify which definitions of fallacies you use are uncommon. Logic or any error in logic do not require consensus. I asked for the opposite of consensus. You indicated you don't agree with common definitions for fallacies you site. Words require definitions to be useful. I'm asking for your personal definitions for the words you use. You're the one who has said the dictionary and any online sources I found are wrong. So what is the right definitions for what you say? You gave me your definition for Bulverism Fallacy earlier and it's the same as the common one. You should just provide which definition you have that differ. You still haven't defined "False Authority Fallacy" for me. Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: (I looked it up and found 3 consistent definitions for False Authority): "Using an alleged authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument. " "rely on one person who is an expert in one field to defend their argument in a completely separate field." "using an expert of dubious credentials..." Not the meaning of 'false authority'. You say it all the time how is anyone supposed to know what you mean? And no you never defined it. IBD did and his definition seemed consistent with the above. But what is your definition when you say it?
31-01-2020 06:31
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14411)	tmiddles wrote:Uh? There has NEVER been a substantiated new story about Trump? Or just NEVER a negative one? You caught me cutting corners. I omitted the words "... that I can recall." I am not aware of all the news that has ever been fabricated/whatever the term is for what is now called "reporting" over, say, the previous six years. Good catch. Thank you. Keep me honest. tmiddles wrote:So all news is left wing? Seems easily remedied if you're right wing. Start up a news site. InfoWars - founded 1999 Epoch Times - founded 2000 Waxahachie Daily Light - founded 1867 (at the advent of the Communist Manifesto becoming printed in the United States) tmiddles wrote: Also to distrust all information from all reporters leaves you with what to go on? You honestly cannot think of anything beyond propaganda-spewing political activists? Is this more of your facetiousness? You're getting pretty good at it. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
31-01-2020 09:28
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: Also to distrust all information from all reporters leaves you with what to go on? You honestly cannot think of anything beyond propaganda-spewing political activists? Is this more of your facetiousness? You're getting pretty good at it. . I'm asking you what you trust IBD Pretty normal question. Are you saying you trust Infowars?
31-01-2020 18:55
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14411)	tmiddles wrote:I'm asking you what you trust IBD Pretty normal question. Are you saying you trust Infowars? I trust people that I know who I can cross examine. I trust my own bullshit detector when I cross examine someone. For science, I only listen to those who tell me how I can verify what they tell me, and then I go with whatever I verify. Does that answer your "trust" question? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
31-01-2020 21:28
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: Does that answer your "trust" question? This topic is can Wikipedia be trusted. You dismiss it along with a numbet of others: Washington Post, NY Times I think So what sources do you personally trust? The flip side to your distrust. Qualify something. InfoWars, Epoch Times and the Waxahachie Daily Light ?
31-01-2020 21:50
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Does that answer your "trust" question? This topic is can Wikipedia be trusted. It can't. tmiddles wrote: You dismiss it along with a numbet of others: Washington Post, NY Times I think I don't blame him. I personally do not accept those fake news outlets as sources either. tmiddles wrote: So what sources do you personally trust? The flip side to your distrust. Qualify something. InfoWars, Epoch Times and the Waxahachie Daily Light ? He already did. As for me, if we are discussing "Global Warming", then I "put my trust" in the theories of science themselves, as well as the closed functional systems of logic and mathematics.
31-01-2020 23:05
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	tmiddles wrote: I hope if you've got kids who want an education at some point he's willing to tutor. Since there are not schools you trust? I do tutor...but not in Wisconsin. tmiddles wrote: A post on this board is not a source brought to this board. That's not a reference, that's simply a post. RFAF. tmiddles wrote: ITN did not learn the theories from himself unless he made them up. Is that what you're saying? He's the author? (cuz that's what I've been saying). RQAA tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: You could just identify which definitions of fallacies you use are uncommon. Logic or any error in logic do not require consensus. I asked for the opposite of consensus. Lie. You asked for consensus. tmiddles wrote: You indicated you don't agree with common definitions for fallacies you site. RFAF tmiddles wrote: Words require definitions to be useful. Void argument. tmiddles wrote: I'm asking for your personal definitions for the words you use. RQAA tmiddles wrote: You're the one who has said the dictionary and any online sources I found are wrong. So what is the right definitions for what you say? RQAA tmiddles wrote: You gave me your definition for Bulverism Fallacy earlier and it's the same as the common one. RFRRFAF tmiddles wrote: You should just provide which definition you have that differ. You still haven't defined "False Authority Fallacy" for me. RQAA tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: (I looked it up and found 3 consistent definitions for False Authority): "Using an alleged authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument. " "rely on one person who is an expert in one field to defend their argument in a completely separate field." "using an expert of dubious credentials..." Not the meaning of 'false authority'. You say it all the time how is anyone supposed to know what you mean? And no you never defined it. RFAF. RQAA tmiddles wrote: IBD did and his definition seemed consistent with the above. RFAF. RQAA tmiddles wrote: But what is your definition when you say it? RQAA 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
31-01-2020 23:07
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Does that answer your "trust" question? This topic is can Wikipedia be trusted. You dismiss it along with a numbet of others: Washington Post, NY Times I think RQAA tmiddles wrote: So what sources do you personally trust? The flip side to your distrust. RQAA tmiddles wrote: Qualify something. Void question. tmiddles wrote: InfoWars, Epoch Times and the Waxahachie Daily Light ? RQAA 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
31-01-2020 23:25
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14411)	tmiddles wrote: This topic is can Wikipedia be trusted. Wikipedia absolutely cannot be trusted. It is a non-authoritative source that is awash in errors. tmiddles wrote: You dismiss it along with a numbet of others: Washington Post, NY Times I think Yes, the list is long. tmiddles wrote: So what sources do you personally trust? The flip side to your distrust. I trust individuals I can cross-examine. I distrust those who lie to me and who are dishonest. I trust people who share with me their experiences. On the other hand, I distrust people who are desperate to get me to believe something, who pressure me to accept ideas that are not supported beyond their insistence that they are so obvious that I must be STUPID to not accept them, and who simply cite other people/entities who are not present to be cross-examined. tmiddles wrote:InfoWars, Epoch Times and the Waxahachie Daily Light ? These were in response to your comment that it should be easy if all so-called "reporters" are now leftist activists, just form a conservative news outlet. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
31-01-2020 23:36
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: Your questions have already been answered. No that is false to the best of my knowledge. When and where? In this thread not too long ago. Try to keep up. It is totally inconsistent with our posts to believe that you would not prove me wrong if you could. Yet you are not. So I think you're bluffing. I don't do Easter Egg hunts. Neither do I. tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote:I'm recommending looking at the theories themselves. You've already been provided with those theories by ITN... So you don't have any source other than ITN? Nothing? ITN is not my source. The theories themselves are my source. It doesn't matter whether ITN posts them, IBdaMann posts them, I post them, you post them, or the National Enquirer posts them. You're entirely focused on the who instead of the what. tmiddles wrote: I hope if you've got kids who want an education at some point he's willing to tutor. Since there are not schools you trust? There are some schools that I trust. There are many others that I do not trust. tmiddles wrote: A post on this board is not a source brought to this board. That's not a reference, that's simply a post. ITN did not learn the theories from himself unless he made them up. Is that what you're saying? He's the author? (cuz that's what I've been saying). He did not come up with those theories of science. He simply informed you of what they are. You're making this a lot more difficult than it need be. You have literally been provided the theories right in front of your face. Do you agree that ITN correctly relayed the theories, or was he wrong about something? (besides the typo that IBdaMann noticed and corrected). tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: You could just identify which definitions of fallacies you use are uncommon. Logic or any error in logic do not require consensus. I asked for the opposite of consensus. You indicated you don't agree with common definitions for fallacies you site. Words require definitions to be useful. I'm asking for your personal definitions for the words you use. You're the one who has said the dictionary and any online sources I found are wrong. So what is the right definitions for what you say? You gave me your definition for Bulverism Fallacy earlier and it's the same as the common one. You should just provide which definition you have that differ. You still haven't defined "False Authority Fallacy" for me. Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: (I looked it up and found 3 consistent definitions for False Authority): "Using an alleged authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument. " "rely on one person who is an expert in one field to defend their argument in a completely separate field." "using an expert of dubious credentials..." Not the meaning of 'false authority'. You say it all the time how is anyone supposed to know what you mean? And no you never defined it. IBD did and his definition seemed consistent with the above. But what is your definition when you say it? He has already defined it for you. If memory serves me correctly, I have done so at some point as well. Why do you keep asking questions which you have already been provided answers to?
03-02-2020 04:18
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: This topic is can Wikipedia be trusted. It can't. IBdaMann wrote: Wikipedia absolutely cannot be trusted. I get that you're saying that but what does it really mean from you? If you're answer is further that nothing can be trusted then that is the context right? Of course you're not answering that question. gfm7175 wrote:I "put my trust" in the theories of science themselves, as well as the closed functional systems of logic and mathematics. IBdaMann wrote:I trust individuals That's all? So "Nothing other than the theories of science" (source omitted) can be trusted? So Wikipedia shouldn't feel bad about their performance since everything fails right? gfm7175 wrote: He has already defined it for you. If memory serves me correctly, I have done so at some point as well. Why do you keep asking questions which you have already been provided answers to? No neither of you did. I know you all love this joke but it's sooooo boring.
03-02-2020 05:19
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14411)	tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: This topic is can Wikipedia be trusted. It can't. IBdaMann wrote: Wikipedia absolutely cannot be trusted. I get that you're saying that but what does it really mean from you? What? You speak English, right? Try reading again. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:I trust individuals That's all? So "Nothing other than the theories of science" (source omitted) can be trusted? So Wikipedia shouldn't feel bad about their performance since everything fails right? I'm getting the impression that you really can't read English. Your responses have nothing to do with what I wrote. Perhaps you never were ignoring my posts because you were never able to read them. Where does that leave us? tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: He has already defined it for you. If memory serves me correctly, I have done so at some point as well. Why do you keep asking questions which you have already been provided answers to? No neither of you did. I know you all love this joke but it's sooooo boring. My presumption at this point is that you don't consider your questions answered because you couldn't read what others wrote. Who has been writing your posts for you? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-02-2020 06:08
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:So Wikipedia shouldn't feel bad about their performance since everything fails right? I'm getting the impression that you really can't read English I was responding to both of you. That question's pretty clear. The admonishment that A source is crap should definitely include the disclosure that ALL sources are considered crap. Edited on 03-02-2020 06:08

03-02-2020 15:49
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14411)	tmiddles wrote: The admonishment that A source is crap should definitely include the disclosure that ALL sources are considered crap. Nope. There is no "should" because it is not true. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-02-2020 17:33
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: This topic is can Wikipedia be trusted. It can't. IBdaMann wrote: Wikipedia absolutely cannot be trusted. I get that you're saying that but what does it really mean from you? If you're answer is further that nothing can be trusted then that is the context right? Of course you're not answering that question. It means precisely what we said. There is no "hidden meaning". We are speaking English, not Liberal. Since when does not trusting Wikipedia and various smear merchant fake news sources mean that I trust nothing? Your question has already been answered. tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote:I "put my trust" in the theories of science themselves, as well as the closed functional systems of logic and mathematics. IBdaMann wrote:I trust individuals That's all? So "Nothing other than the theories of science" (source omitted) can be trusted? So Wikipedia shouldn't feel bad about their performance since everything fails right? The theories of science ARE the sources, ipiddle. You have already been told what doesn't "fail", time and time again, yet you can't seem to retain vital bits of information that you are told. Why is this? Do you have memory issues? tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: He has already defined it for you. If memory serves me correctly, I have done so at some point as well. Why do you keep asking questions which you have already been provided answers to? No neither of you did. I know you all love this joke but it's sooooo boring. You keep asking the same questions which have already been answered, even immediately after they were answered for you.
03-02-2020 17:38
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:So Wikipedia shouldn't feel bad about their performance since everything fails right? I'm getting the impression that you really can't read English I was responding to both of you. That question's pretty clear. The admonishment that A source is crap should definitely include the disclosure that ALL sources are considered crap. Continued lies and fallacies. Just because a person finds one source to be crap doesn't mean that they find all sources to be crap. You have already been given examples of sources that we do not find to be crap. Are you confusing Liberal with English? Can you not comprehend what you read?
03-02-2020 20:02
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: This topic is can Wikipedia be trusted. It can't. IBdaMann wrote: Wikipedia absolutely cannot be trusted. I get that you're saying that but what does it really mean from you? If you're answer is further that nothing can be trusted then that is the context right? Of course you're not answering that question. gfm7175 wrote:I "put my trust" in the theories of science themselves, as well as the closed functional systems of logic and mathematics. IBdaMann wrote:I trust individuals That's all? So "Nothing other than the theories of science" (source omitted) can be trusted? So Wikipedia shouldn't feel bad about their performance since everything fails right? gfm7175 wrote: He has already defined it for you. If memory serves me correctly, I have done so at some point as well. Why do you keep asking questions which you have already been provided answers to? No neither of you did. I know you all love this joke but it's sooooo boring. Lie. RQAA. 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
04-02-2020 11:53
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: The admonishment that A source is crap should definitely include the disclosure that ALL sources are considered crap. Nope. There is no "should" because it is not true. "it is not true" that "all sources are considered crap" by you means some sources are considered reputable. So why the secrecy? Compare and contrast Wiki with a good source. gfm7175 wrote: Your question has already been answered. No it never has. That you would not enjoy rubbing my nose in being wrong is not believable. Also the answer belongs in this thread and it's definitely not here. gfm7175 wrote: The theories of science ARE the sources, Do you pray for enlightenment? Where do you find them?. You gfm Do you guys mean INFOWARS was the answer to this question? Do you three trust INFOWARS as a source? Edited on 04-02-2020 12:15
04-02-2020 17:23
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: The admonishment that A source is crap should definitely include the disclosure that ALL sources are considered crap. Nope. There is no "should" because it is not true. "it is not true" that "all sources are considered crap" by you means some sources are considered reputable. Very observant of you. tmiddles wrote: So why the secrecy? There hasn't been any. tmiddles wrote: Compare and contrast Wiki with a good source. I already did. I dismissed Wiki as an invalid source and told you that I would instead accept the theories of science themselves as a valid source. tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: Your question has already been answered. No it never has. That you would not enjoy rubbing my nose in being wrong is not believable. Also the answer belongs in this thread and it's definitely not here. Yes it has. I even answered it again. Let's see if you're capable of picking up on it this time... tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: The theories of science ARE the sources, Do you pray for enlightenment? Yes, from time to time. tmiddles wrote: Where do you find them?. Within this very thread is one location. This website is another location. http://politiplex.freeforums.net/board/11/science-references Numerous other websites/books/publications. This question has already been answered, and I just answered it again. Let's see if you're capable of picking up on it this time... tmiddles wrote: You gfm Yes, me gfm... you tmiddles... Glad we at least have THAT established... Wait, where did you find that? What's your source? rolls eyes tmiddles wrote: Do you guys mean INFOWARS was the answer to this question? Infowars was brought up in a different context. Try to keep up. tmiddles wrote: Do you three trust INFOWARS as a source? I can't speak for them; I can only speak for myself. As for myself, I do not use InfoWars as a source of science. I have already told you my source regarding science. Edited on 04-02-2020 17:24
04-02-2020 20:25
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: Where do you find them?. Within this very thread is one location. This website is another location. http://politiplex.freeforums.net/board/11/science-references As you know this is IBD's private site. He has come up with his own theories not found anywhere else so of course I don't trust that source. You do realize how dishonest and corrupt that looks? "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
04-02-2020 21:03
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: The admonishment that A source is crap should definitely include the disclosure that ALL sources are considered crap. Nope. There is no "should" because it is not true. "it is not true" that "all sources are considered crap" by you means some sources are considered reputable. So why the secrecy? Compare and contrast Wiki with a good source. RFAF RQAA. tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: Your question has already been answered. No it never has. Lie. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: That you would not enjoy rubbing my nose in being wrong is not believable. Fallacy fallacy. tmiddles wrote: Also the answer belongs in this thread and it's definitely not here. RFAF. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: The theories of science ARE the sources, Do you pray for enlightenment? Where do you find them?. You gfm Do you guys mean INFOWARS was the answer to this question? Do you three trust INFOWARS as a source? RFAF. RQAA. 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
04-02-2020 21:05
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: Where do you find them?. Within this very thread is one location. This website is another location. http://politiplex.freeforums.net/board/11/science-references As you know this is IBD's private site. He has come up with his own theories not found anywhere else so of course I don't trust that source. You do realize how dishonest and corrupt that looks? Not his theories. Bulverism fallacy. RQAA. 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 04-02-2020 21:05
04-02-2020 21:10
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: Not his theories. where did he get them?

Page 2 of 3

Join the debate wikipedia accuracy:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Thwarting the Warmizombies' Rush to Wikipedia	64	08-08-2021 05:10
Wikipedia is Locked Down by Marxists	32	28-04-2020 03:37
Accuracy of climate model predictions: links	2	11-05-2011 23:28