wikipedia accuracy

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > wikipedia accuracy > Page 3

Page 3 of 3

04-02-2020 21:24
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Into the Night wrote:Not his theories. Bulverism fallacy. RQAA. He thinks they are my theories because he doesn't know the difference between science and a website. Since no one is disputing that the site is mine he mentally processes that science is mine, and that since no one is disputing that Global Warming is discussed on websites that it is therefore science. I'm not saying I know how to get through to him, just that conventional discussion about science not being the website that holds it won't work in his case. I don't know what to do. Any suggestions? . 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
04-02-2020 21:32
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote: where did he get them? This is my last-ditch effort. Maybe you can answer your own question. What is the correct, tmiddles-accepted answer to the question of "where someone gets" an understanding that is developed over many years through many diverse experiences? Your answer to that question is my answer to you. Otherwise I don't know what to tell you other than you don't seem smart enough to be engaging in discussion on this topic. Attempts to explain to you have failed. Attempts to sufficiently dumb-down the material have failed. I'm out of options. . 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
04-02-2020 22:33
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	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. Correct. tmiddles wrote: He has come up with his own theories not found anywhere else so of course I don't trust that source. He did not come up with those theories. He is simply relaying them. tmiddles wrote: You do realize how dishonest and corrupt that looks? What exactly is "dishonest" and "corrupt" about it? Edited on 04-02-2020 23:24
04-02-2020 22:35
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: Not his theories. where did he get them? Already answered.
04-02-2020 22:54
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	I don't understand why ITN and IBDM won't do an admirable job of explaining their sources . I can't think of a reason other than things like fear, shame, inadequacy, obnoxiousness, the need to be difficult, or just general bad- a-s attitudes.

04-02-2020 23:15
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:Not his theories. Bulverism fallacy. RQAA. He thinks they are my theories because he doesn't know the difference between science and a website. Since no one is disputing that the site is mine he mentally processes that science is mine, and that since no one is disputing that Global Warming is discussed on websites that it is therefore science. I think you have a good take on his line of reasoning. IBdaMann wrote: I'm not saying I know how to get through to him, just that conventional discussion about science not being the website that holds it won't work in his case. I don't know what to do. Any suggestions? . I don't know what to do either. He sort of strikes me as a "theist without a god", having strong faith that a god definitely exists somewhere, but also having strong faith that "god" isn't any of the specific gods that various people have proposed to him... Thus, he is still on a quest to "find god", wherever "god" may be located... Edited on 04-02-2020 23:31
04-02-2020 23:17
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	keepit wrote: I don't understand why ITN and IBDM won't do an admirable job of explaining their sources . I can't think of a reason other than things like fear, shame, inadequacy, obnoxiousness, the need to be difficult, or just general bad- a-s attitudes. They've been explained already.
04-02-2020 23:23
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	Cop out.
04-02-2020 23:32
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	keepit wrote: Cop out. No, they've literally been explained already, even by myself.
05-02-2020 00:19
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	More copout.
05-02-2020 00:31
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	keepit wrote: ...deleted Mantras 2...1... 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
05-02-2020 00:33
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	keepit wrote: ...deleted Mantra 21... No argument presented. 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
05-02-2020 03:01
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: He thinks they are my theories because he doesn't know the difference between science and a website. Yet if the theories were reference on Wikipedia you would object. You would "summarily dismiss" the contents. keepit wrote: I don't understand why ITN and IBDM won't do an admirable job of explaining their sources . We know what game we are playing here: You guys have departed from the scientific community in your personal, bastardized, corrupted version of the a lot of scientific theories, most specifically the 2nd LTD. So much so that ANY reference from a remedial high school Physics book to any type of research, would contradict you. So you all avoid admitting that any source other than yourselves has recorded the theories correctly. IBdaMann wrote:...he mentally processes that science is mine,... Your custom work is your own IBD. Take credit where credit is due: IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object. 2) what the photons actually do is governed more by uncertainty than by any science that predicts what will happen. Like I said before, photons can deflect, do back-flips, take selfies and interact in any way other than being absorbed. You're very creative. gfm7175 wrote: They've been explained already. Lie To say you got information from the information itself is not an answer. It's a cop out. "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
05-02-2020 05:19
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote: Yet if the theories were reference on Wikipedia you would object. You would "summarily dismiss" the contents. Science and math are different animals from natural language accounts. Anything written, to include conclusions, from Wikipedia are summarily dismissed, yes. I know this offends you because Wikipedia is your source for the declaration that "The planet Venus experienced* runaway greenhouse effect" aspect of your dogma and impugning Wikipedia necessarily impugnes your dogma. I presume that Wikipedia learned this from Venus probes. By the way, I want to take the opportunity to interject a question. Do you think it is honest for a "reasearcher" to claim that he observed* a temperature increase ... that occurred before he was alive ... because he strongly believes that an enlarged tree ring implies such? Does that work on you? It happens to be what Wikipedia has to say about Global Warming. Anyway, science models, in mathematical form, from Wikipedia are immediately suspect for me because Wikipeida has intentionally fugged with them in the past. You are well aware of Wikipeida's egregious conflation of emissivity with radiativity, thus presenting emissivity with a wavelength/frequency term. I'm looking at it right now. This is wrong. The answer is yes, for science and math Wikipedia has earned the "should be summarily dismissed" label because it simply cannot be trusted, even to just regurgitate science. The other part of the equation is that Wikipedia does this intentionally. If I were to "point out" this error to them they will tell me to shut up, that they aren't changing it. They will lock it down so that more and more people like you will become confused and become ever increasingly dependent upon them to do your thinking for you. Now, let's talk about me. Where have I gotten it wrong and refused to fix it? I'll grant that Wikipedia should be expected to have errors ... but they should be constantly fixing those errors and converging on correctness. Instead, they keep the errors and simply refine the errors for maximum confusion and for maximum propaganda value. This is why people who have allowed themselves to be duped into treating Wikipedia as an inerrant reference are as fugged up as keepit is. Do you think I would ever allow that to happen to my children? tmiddles wrote: You guys have departed from the scientific community in your personal, bastardized, corrupted version of the a lot of scientific theories, most specifically the 2nd LTD. So much so that ANY reference from a remedial high school Physics book to any type of research, would contradict you. Bring it on. For your convenience here is my page on The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics What highschool physics textbook contradicts this page ... correctly? tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:...he mentally processes that science is mine,... Your custom work is your own IBD. Take credit where credit is due: IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object. 2) what the photons actually do is governed more by uncertainty than by any science that predicts what will happen. Like I said before, photons can deflect, do back-flips, take selfies and interact in any way other than being absorbed. You're very creative. ... and you specifically ignored what I wrote. The above should either answer your questions or prompt you to ask what it means. Instead, you continued to repeat the same questions that had already been answered and to double down on your religious faith that some thermal energy flows from cooler to warmer. You were as bright as an impetuous rebel teenager getting a swastika tattoo. Yes, I chuckle every time I see your latest avatar. Too funny. But hey, you're locked in. There's nothing you can do about it now. . 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
05-02-2020 05:23
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	tmiddles wrote: ...deleted Mantras 4...27...18...4...22...10...bulverism...26...4...5...4...27...5...4...27...4...27...denial of 2nd LOT... No argument presented. 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

05-02-2020 05:38
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: For your convenience here is my page on The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics What highschool physics textbook contradicts this page ... correctly? And here you are. You wrote your "page" and it's not distinguishable from your posts in any way. I've been clear that when you, ITN or anyone else claim that radiance from a cooler object cannot be absorbed by a warmer one is a violation of the 2nd LTD you have made that up out of whole cloth. It is contradicted by every source I can find, here are 12: TWELVE REFERENCES ON BASIC PHYSICS as well as by common sense. IBdaMann wrote: The above should either answer your questions or prompt you to ask what it means. I'm still asking Here's you full post so you know all the context is there: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:So this is an unclear presentation by hockeyshtick in my view. I agree. tmiddles wrote: That if EM radiation reaches an object and fails to achieve the necessary energy level it will not be thermalized. That is correct; it is the 2nd law of thermodynamics hardcoded into Planck's tmiddles wrote:But what happens to it? You are going to have a difficult time finding a satisfying answer. This is all I can tell you without researching it further: 1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object. 2) what the photons actually do is governed more by uncertainty than by any science that predicts what will happen. Like I said before, photons can deflect, do back-flips, take selfies and interact in any way other than being absorbed. Disappointing, eh? Now don't tell anyone I said this, and I'll deny it if you do ... but as much as I claim to know absolutely everything, there are actually a couple of things I don't know. This is one of them. There might be someone out there who has a model for the activity of thermal photons that are insufficient to be absorbed under Planck's, but I haven't seen it. tmiddles wrote:Also would A shed energy through radiance just the same, just as quickly, without the plates B being there? Yes. Radiance is driven by absolute temperature alone. So where did this notion that radiance from a cooler object can't be absorbed by a hotter one come from? If true it ends the global warming theory instantly. Done, no question. So why wouldn't you really drive the point home with an explanation and as much support as possible? "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 Edited on 05-02-2020 06:12
05-02-2020 05:56
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	tmiddles wrote: ...deleted Mantra 27...27...27...27...4... No argument presented. No new questions asked. 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

Page 3 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