T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
You should start by actually learning the science you are claiming to use because right now, you're not using it and just spewing nonsense.
Science from the other side of Climate Change
- Thread starter ZenMode
- Start date
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
And here's what climate deniers and the "scientist" on the Big Oil pay rolls STILL can't deal with:
ZenMode
Well-known member
I accept both. That doesn't mean I accept YIUR interpretation or application of them. You and ITN have a version of science which you claim is correct and you claim it's correct based on YOUR understanding and application which I have absolutely no reason to accept as accurate. The mental gymnastics you both have to go through to make your interpretation and application work is honestly embarrassing, which is why you consistently have to a) avoid questions b) stop the conversation at specific points.
ITN believes, apparently based on nothing but his own imagination, that the Earth's atmosphere currently has no impact on high and low temps. That claim flies in the face of what actual scientists around the world believe to be true, not only about the Earth but other planets.
If you're going to make that claim, you need to back it up, because what sane person is going to believe a baseless claims made by some internet forum keyboard jockey or what ACTUAL scientists believe? Nobody would, unless you're gullible or just not very smart.
That claim is one of 20 he, and you, state as fact without support. That's not how this works.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Were you ever planning on getting around to making a Global Warming assertion and then supporting it? All you Global Warming defense has been to talk about me.
Scientific illiterates convince each other that "albedo", not "emissivity" is the black body science term. You are allowing stupid people to do your thinking for you.
What I am specifically saying is that you cannot read English to save your life.
You are truly humiliated at finding out that you have been regurgitating WACKY religious dogma under the mistaken notion that it was somehow thettled thienth.
Let me make another specific statement: Your are logically inept. There are plenty of uses for satellites beyond channeling the Climate goddess' loving warmth to humanity.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Nope. You claim you accept both, but you discard both in practice.
There is no such thing as an "interpretation" of science. You are again thinking of religion. You certainly get religion and science confused frequently.
Scientifically illiterate morons, such as yourself, refer to science as being "misinterpreted" as if the laws of science are omens from the gods. Whenever you pretend to discuss science, all you can muster are really stupid comments.
Thermodynamics and Stefan-Boltzmann apply to all bodies of matter, always, everywhere. Your attempts to render thermodynamics non-applicable to Earth is highly amusing. Even more amusing is your use of the wondrous, magical superpowers of "greenhouse gas" as the justification for Earth's immunity to the laws of science that you discard.
Too funny.
There is only one version of science, and that is the one both Into the Night and I use.
... because you don't understand any science. I totally get you.
You believe this because you have no idea how to express any sort of science position, not your own and especially not anyone else's.
You neither know what "scientists around the world" believe nor do you speak for them.
So when are you going to begin supporting your Global Warming beliefs?
IBDaMann
Well-known member
I'm an expert on it, and you are a scientifically illiterate, mathematically incompetent and logically inept moron who is absolutely embarrassed at being called out on his stupid religious beliefs that are all based on physics violations.
I'll give you a do-over since you failed so miserably the first time. Refute my signature. Use science. If you can't because you don't know any, I'll totally understand.
ZenMode
Well-known member
You've given me no reason to believe you understand 1)climate change, 2) Any of the law of thermodynamics or 3) any of the other scientific laws you reference. Since you've provided nothing but repeated, unsupported claims, I will continue to not believe your claims. You can't prove, as you have done repeatedly, that you don't understand how Climate Change is believed to work and then also claim that it violates any of the laws you claim it does. You're just piling ignorance upon ignorance.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
No. I don't buy Gorebal Warming either. That is, I don't accept that anthropogenic CO2 is causing a serious and runaway increase in global temperatures.
Albedo and emissivity of black bodies encompasses the same science. It is you that is listening to the actual science here.
What I am specifically saying is you are a scientific illiterate.
No, I'm not humiliated at all. Gorebal Warming is almost certainly a farce. And while human activity probably does have some impact on planetary climate, it isn't due to a single cause and the solution shouldn't be based on equally bad science, economics, and politics. That's what the Gorebal Warming crowd is doing.
You clearly don't understand logic either. Nor do you understand the use of satellites for observing climate, environment, etc. They have seriously good uses in those areas while you dismiss them out of hand as worthless without evidence.
The sad truth is pseudoscience was given equal footing with real science on TV and the news. I remember when PBS was giving anti-vaxxers equal time with real medical professionals. I thought it was dangerous, but did not realize how dangerous it would be. Fuck, Daffy Donald is nominating a weird anti-vaxxer to run our healthcare. Over 97 percent of scientists say global wanting is real and a bad problem. That goofball 3 percent gets the floor to express their crazy beliefs. It was a mistake.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
I've given you no reason to believe I understand how classifier behavior is applied to blocks in SysML, but that doesn't support your affirmative beliefs in your Climate religion either. You still haven't been able to express anything ablut your beliefs that doesn't violate science, math or logic.
I haven't made any affirmative claims. You are the one who asserts a WACKY religious dogma ... that you just can't seem to be able to clearly and unambiguously express, or properly support with a rational basis.
I am not the only one who will continue to not believe your claims.
You inability to express the tenets of your faith is not my fault. Your motivation to not express them is to avoid humiliating yourself.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Nope. The sad truth is that too many scientifically illiterate morons cannot discern science from gibber-babble.
You are one of said scientifically illiterate morons. Any rational adult is perfectly justified in deciding to not participate in government-enforced medical experiments on the people. Sadly, you consider anyone who avoids being a government Guinea pig as being "anti science" ... mostly b ecause you don't know what science even is.
Zero percent of science says this, however.
ZenMode
Well-known member
I can explain tenets just fine. People who aren't pretending to be dumb can still understand them even if they don't agree.
ADreamOfLiberty
Verified User
Question to the room, do you think progress is being made here?
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Apparently you do. You strangely believe the following:
1. That the earth's average global equilibrium temperature is spontaneously increasing due to the magical power of greenhouse gas.
2. The someone has, at some point, computed earth's average global equilibrium temperature to a useable degree of accuracy, and then did the same thing a second time, after which he performed a mathematical subtraction operation and discovered that the earth's temperature has increased.
Neither of these are true.
So you believe in Global Warming. What you don't believe is that it is "catastrophic." The Tooth Fairy isn't "catastrophic" either.
Nope. Only emissivity is a component of concern. Albedo doesn't even exist. Science illiterates invented the term as that which is "reflected away" and not of concern, and hence is not included in black body science. Anything involving "albedo" can be ignored as not being pertient.
Bozos identify themselves by diving into black body science and discussing albedo while omitting emissivity. They broadcast their scientific illiteracy and then wonder how everyone knows.
... and never will you unambiguously define "human activity" or "planetary climate" ... exactly as though they are unfalsifiable religious terms. If you had intended them to be items of scientific discussion you would have unambiguously defined both, as required for scientific scrutiny. Instead, you recognize that you are simply engaging in a strange religious belief that I don't happen to share.
You have not defined any problem whatsoever. There cannot be any "solution."
Clearly I intimidate the shit out of you in all the fields and disciplines you feel you need to preemptively declare that I don't understand. Anytime you want to go toe-to-toe, I find a few minutes of free time to rake you over the coals. Anytime.
There is no planetary climate to observe.
... which is what I said, in rebuttal to your comments that no one would ever find any use for satellites except to observe your nonexistent planetary climate.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
@the room, is @ADreamOfLiberty beginning to panic, to the point of becoming unhinged, because I am hitting just a little too close to home? Is @ADreamOfLiberty actively working to derail the conversation and not contribute to it?
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
The reality is that vaccines are not all equally effective. Not all vaccines come without side effects either. Many vaccines are well worth getting and should be gotten. There are others that you should only get if you're high risk or something like that. For example, there's like 3 different vaccines for hepatitis. There's one of those three that everybody should get. The other two are really only necessary if you are in a risk group like a medical provider.
The military at one point wanted to make service member take an anthrax vaccine. The side effects could be serious, even in some rare cases disabling. It was intended only for those at high risk of exposure. When the side effects started showing up, the military dropped the requirement quietly as it really wasn't needed to begin with.
The simplistic view that vaccines are good and you shouldn't question or resist getting one is just that: Simplistic. People should, for the most part, make informed decisions on getting one or not, not just accept that it's automatically necessary and good for you. Of course, there will be those that blindly accept the need and others that will refuse regardless. Those extremes can't be helped as it's part of human nature and the bell curve.
ADreamOfLiberty
Verified User
You want me to engage in this one side monument to obtusity?
Fine:
You committed a strawman, or else your mind operates on a narrow scope (as I said of autistic people) so you can't keep two physical laws in your head at the same time.
Gardner never claimed albedo appeared in the stefan boltzmann equation. He was expanding on a basic point you and ITN can't seem to grasp which is that there are other equations, other analyses, other phenomenon that must be considered to understand the behavior of the system.
You are the kid who heard "assume the surface is frictionless" in one problem (shortly before failing and dropping out of the school) and then declared that car brakes are myths.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
I would prefer you just write in straightforward English.
Nope. All I can say is "pay attention next time."
Cut the "X never claimed ..." statements. Tell me what he claimed Then I can point to how I responded to what he claimed. Your pivots to what he never claimed is exactly the same error made by those who refer to "albedo."
What you don't seem to understand is that Stefan-Boltzmann, black body science and thermodynamics refute his affirmative argument. He has to address those specifically. Addressing anything else is moot.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
You really lack reading comprehension skills. I stated that the Earth's temperature is changing. Why is open to question and research. I clearly, and repeatedly stated, that I doubt it is due to anthropogenic CO2. I'll add, that I further question if it is due to changes in CO2 levels from all causes.
That doesn't even make sense. Can you get someone to translate that from gibberish to English?
I know the planet's climate changes over time. That's clearly demonstrable. What I believe beyond that is that the cause(s) of that change are poorly understood and that there is no single cause that can be pointed out.
Both are. Albedo is a well understood scientific principle. Emissivity is related to albedo when the energy being transferred to a body is external to that body. Only a complete scientific illiterate would state "Albedo doesn't even exist."
Hello Bozo.
This is just dissembling in the form of an equivocation fallacy.
Now you try a demand for more proof fallacy also known as argument from ignorance.
Do break your arm patting yourself on the back. You're an idiot and proud of it. Good for you!
ADreamOfLiberty
Verified User
I already did, his claim now in bold:
You committed a strawman, or else your mind operates on a narrow scope (as I said of autistic people) so you can't keep two physical laws in your head at the same time.
Gardner never claimed albedo appeared in the stefan boltzmann equation. He was expanding on a basic point you and ITN can't seem to grasp which is that there are other equations, other analyses, other phenomenon that must be considered to understand the behavior of the system.
You are the kid who heard "assume the surface is frictionless" in one problem (shortly before failing and dropping out of the school) and then declared that car brakes are myths.