Weather station in Antarctica records high of 65, the continent's hottest temperature ever

Can you provide an example of each one for me?

 

We saw it, we can see it, without massive dumps. This message board and the moderators compared to some others is very fair, like they deleted some of my posts here for my bad. It happens.

 

Still focusing on the "who" instead of the "what" I see...

 

Diagnose me, doctor...

I don't care if the video was only three seconds long. I, as a matter of choice, do not watch any video links that anyone posts. I also do not read through any website links unless they are supplemental to an argument being made by my interlocutor (ie, the interlocutor is not attempting to use a link as if it were their own argumentation). I expect my interlocutors to be able to form their own arguments and put them into text form.

I'm saying nothing about the content therein. I'm simply telling you that I, as a personal choice, do not watch videos, whether they are from you or him, and do not read through "holy links" whether they are from you or him. I hold higher standards for my interlocutors than most people you will come across on these sorts of forums.

 

You said you could think of several relevant experts who reach the same conclusion as you.

Tell me the name of one.

 

There are examples at the link provided. I am not a teacher. Examples are not hard to find, the method is like this:

https://www.oakton.edu/user/4/billtong/eas100/scientificmethod.htm

Using language, we sometimes say we have a theory, nothing wrong with that, like a “theory” that an AI with a bad programmer is messing with us.

In Science it is best to stick with more ridged processes, to have some phenomenon to explain. Like if I don’t get a claim or there is little evidence that a claim (“Science is a set of falsifiable theories”) is supported by anyone else, investigate, try and figure it out logically, and if can’t, form a hypothesis about where it could have come from (in the process maybe I obtain knowledge). All sorts of ways to go on these things.

In this modern age, one could not discount whether they are taking to some early AI at some University, I have heard rumors of that.

First, I attempted to figure it out, did the claim pass muster logically, and figured it did not because science builds upon knowledge and not totally untested or clearly falsifiable theories. We have elements, classical and chemical, and it took a very long time in human history to find real chemical elements; science (knowledge) builds upon science (knowledge). Does not mean knowledge is always correct, as the link says, “There are rare examples of scientific theories that have successfully survived all known attacks for a very long time, and are called scientific laws, such as Newton's Law of Gravity.”

Even the existence of matter itself could be questioned in speculation about the Big Bang Theory, Steven Hawking may have never heard of Frank Herbert’s Dreen or thought of the possibility this is just a folder or The Matrix in God’s mind and Keanu Reeves is not a meat bag but a thought. We have to deal with the knowledge and reality we perceive. Certainly, we could see redshifts and blueshifts, but an electronics technician might fix a Doppler radar without ever really seeing a redshift in space.

Moving on I asked myself, was the claim the result of a bad AI programmer, or bad teacher, or just self-taught? The philosophical nature of the claim, and supporting gibberish, led to both bad teacher and self-taught, but I could not dismiss the possible existence of a very young Artificial Intelligence with the Three Laws and bad programming limiting its knowledge.

Being more interested and curious about AI, I decided to limit my hypothesis to determining if the entity was an AI. I collected data, the data led to another entity. Someone else who did not get the claim also called out the other entity. Now I am just trying to determine if the two entities are one.

To actually debate climate change the parties must understand how science works, that is why this inquiry is relevant.

So are the two entities one entity?

 

Dude, you could spend from now till Christmas posting the entire Co2 website or the complete sordid history of Anthony Watt's blog here including every graph they either made up or took out of context and every stupid denier cartoon on the internet and it would not make a iota of difference.

You have not been able to explain why the graphs of increasing CO2 and the current warming we are experiencing much so precisely. You have not been able to explain why all the other major forcings of climate have been on a cooling trajectory except for CO2 and you have not been able to deny that all the crap and lies you are cutting and pasting here are funded through a fossil fuel industry campaign of deception to try and confuse the public as to the cause of the current warming or that it is even happening.

You haven't proven a thing except how much time and energy you will waste cutting and pasting from blogs in order to spread that misinformation and try to mislead people as to what is causing the current warming trajectory we are on.

You have exposed nothing. You have had every argument you put forward debunked and the reasons why you are wrong patiently explained to you. All you have left is to deny, deny, deny and pretend that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist or that the world's climate scientists don't understand the carbon cycle as well as you or the fossil fuel industry funded blogs that you spasmodically paste from.

 

Nope. I've said nothing about "relevant experts".

Why are you so focused on the "who" as opposed to the "what"? It doesn't matter who says what. It has no effect on the theories of science themselves, which is all that matters here.

 

Yup, those things do not affect the theories of science themselves.

Argument by randU Fallacy. Random numbers are not data. It is not possible to measure global CO2 concentration. There are not enough stations to do so with any usable accuracy.

Argument by randU Fallacy. Random numbers are not data. It is not possible to measure an average global temperature. There are not enough stations to do so with any usable accuracy.

Void Argument Fallacy. Define "forcings of climate".

We do not use fossils for fuel. They don't burn very well.

We don't know whether the Earth is warming, cooling, or staying the same temperature. Random numbers pulled out of one's arse is not data.

We don't know whether the Earth is warming, cooling, or staying the same temperature. Random numbers pulled out of one's arse is not data.

Yes I have.

Nope, that's you. Inversion Fallacy.

Inversion Fallacy.

It doesn't. It denies science. A colder gas cannot heat a warmer surface. See the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Many of them don't.

There is no "fossil fuel industry". We do not use fossils for fuel.

 

As if I needed any other reason to dismiss all of your future posts on this topic...

 

Correct. That's why I'm asking you to provide me with specific examples of a theory and a hypothesis. I don't believe that you can express what those things are without making an appeal to some sort of holy link.

I already explained to you in detail how science works (http://www.politicalforum.com/index...mperature-ever.567973/page-34#post-1071445866) and you just responded by calling it "a load of bull" without explaining exactly what was "bull" and why it was "bull".

I then further delved into the topic with you here (Weather station in Antarctica records high of 65, the continent's hottest temperature ever), of which you did not offer up any response to.

 

Do you use fossils for fuel?

Also, a Bulverism Fallacy.

 

When science (knowledge) is defined as “a set of falsifiable theories,” attempting to build knowledge that leads to understanding of climate change, or any phenomena, I cannot insert such “science” into the data for a hypothesis or several of them to get to any acceptance to form any theory. I must be able to insert knowledge (like what CO2 is, how does it act…) into the data, to form the hypothesis…

You can shove knowledge (like what CO2 is, how does it act…) into the data supporting a theory. If one shoved a theory into a hypothesis as data, the hypothesis could not be accepted.

https://www.thoughtco.com/hypothesis-model-theory-and-law-2699066

So here we have a “Who,” not to be confused with a Seuss Who, simply a Who. And if this Who shoves a Theory that millions of years ago we bees hotter, lots hotter, into the theory that we are not Globally Warming by mankind’s fault as data, while not explaining why we were hotter millions of years ago, why exactly should I trust the WHO that uses a falsifiable theory as data?

 

lol, I wouldn't even know where to begin correcting your many errors in logic in this post as you so clearly explained you don't read peer reviewed literature or watch scientific experiments on video. I actually tried to explain to you upthread why your mis - perception of thermodynamics was wrong but I guess it didn't take. Funny that all the scientists in the world missed your interpretation of the 2nd law. Have you written a peer-reviewed paper to a university to try and correct all those stupid scientists? And you should really learn what a logical fallacy really is before trying to apply that to someones argument. Here I'll try but I suppose it would be actually beneath your omnipresent gift of intellect to actually read something:

https://kreativcopywriting.com/10-logical-fallacies-know-spot/

So, that being said are denying that the world is warming or simply that we are causing it? We actually have really good ways of measuring global temperature beyond the weather stations.

 

My father used coconuts during WWII (see diesel), but he refused to let me "burn food" (corn) when I wanted to build a still and run the lawnmower off of it. Do you burn Peat, and do you know what happens to that fantastic fuel if you compress it for millions of years?

 

Still waiting on a name.

 

I would love to see him make homemade crude oil. Shouldn't be too hard.

 

I can’t find the easy bake oven for it but I am sure there is one out there somewhere:

https://ourclimateourfuture.org/activity/ace-report-how-to-make-a-fossil-fuel/

https://www.eia.gov/kids/energy-sources/coal/

 

Kind of reminds me of this hot blonde that tried to get me in her cult. I kept insisting we have sex first, but no, first join, then sex. I found her argument not compelling enough. I imagine them all sitting around high as a kite listening to people like Manson, Jim Jones, and Koresh...

There is like this certain type of person that either falls for stuff or somehow their brain formulates their huge load of crap out of a tiny bit of knowledge, and they have themselves convinced they are smart.

 

Science is not knowledge. Here's why:

I have knowledge about Hogwarts. I know that it is a wizarding school. I know that first year students at Hogwarts get sorted into four separate houses via the sorting hat. I know that Hogwarts has a Room of Requirement that will make itself into whatever the user requires of it.

None of that knowledge that I possess is science. Hogwarts is simply a fictional location within the Harry Potter series of books.

Science, rather, is a set of falsifiable theories, for the reasons that I have described.

Define "climate change". What "data"?

Shoving? Huh?

No idea what you are even babbling on about.


You need to start off with a theory. A theory is an explanatory argument. This explanatory argument can come from anywhere and be inspired by anything. An example of such a theory would be "smoking causes cancer".

In order for a theory to become a theory of science, that theory must survive (and continue to survive) both internal and external testing. Internal testing is done against logic. In other words, the theory must be logically valid. External testing is done against the null hypothesis. A null hypothesis answers the question "how can I falsify this theory?". Such testing must be accessible, practical, specific, and produce a specific result.

The null hypothesis for my theory would be "one person who regularly smoked their whole life who never got cancer". Obviously, if one person has managed to do so without ever getting cancer, then the theory that smoking causes cancer isn't true. After testing one person against the null hypothesis (and that person got cancer), then the theory becomes a theory of science. Let's say that, afterward, the next 500 people all got cancer. The theory still stands. But, wait a second, now, after the 501st test against the null hypothesis, one person did not get cancer. BAM! There's your conflicting evidence that falsifies the theory. The theory is no longer a theory of science. It is now completely and utterly destroyed.


That is how science works. Notice that there was no "supporting evidence", no appeal to "experts" or "prominent scientists", no "peer-review", no "publications", no "university courses", no "shoving" this into that, no "consensus", etc...?? Science really is THAT simple.

 

Oil does not come from fossils.

 

On another forum I belonged to we had a guy who was right into Miles Mathis and the Electric Universe lunacy.

I mean these guys just make up their own science as they go along. No such thing as gravity or black holes or quantum mechanics.

And he would interject uninvited into conversations with statements of fact - "there is no such thing as gravity" and then leave a link to Mathis' website hoping someone would bite.

Weird.

When I was about 17 I got approached by two gorgeous girls on the street who wanted me to take a personality test. Turned out they were Scientology drones. I ran like the wind.

 

Your populations are those with certain genes, with regard to getting cancer, those with "bad" genes and those with "good" genes. Statistics can't answer whether "smoking causes cancer," by comparing those that can get it with those who can't, the populations are different. Same problem some are having with climate change.

The statistic that it was warmer millions of years ago ergo it must be natural now is the exact same thing.
Why it was hotter a long time ago versus today, is different like different genes mean "smoking causes cancer," the relationship between the phenomena or populations, between global warming millions of years ago and today, has no relationship.

 

You can begin with this part of my comment:
"Argument by randU Fallacy. Random numbers are not data. It is not possible to measure global CO2 concentration. There are not enough stations to do so with any usable accuracy."

Or is attempting to rebut just that one line "too complicated"?

Correct. Why would I need to? Peer reviewed literature is not science.

I watch videos of such things from time to time on my own time. I just do not accept the use of such videos as a replacement for my interlocutor's argumentation on online forums. I expect argumentation from my interlocutors to be presented to me in text format. I want to get a sense of whether or not my interlocutor can form their own arguments, or even knows what they are talking about. Thus, I don't allow videos or website links to completely replace one's own argumentation. Again, not all people you come across online have those requirements, but I do. Another requirement of mine is that Wikipedia, MSNBC, CNN, Washington Post, New York Times, livescience.com, and etc. cannot be used as sources with me. I will generally dismiss any of those sources on sight.

What "misperception" of it? What about thermodynamics am I not understanding?

Now you're making up numbers again. Have you interviewed "all the scientists in the world"? Argument by randU Fallacy. You cannot present random numbers as data.

No need to. The laws of thermodynamics speak for themselves.

A fallacy is an error of logic, and works similar to how math errors work.

What's the point of this link? Plenty of their examples are incomplete, and #7 is just flat out wrong. A circular argument in and of itself is not a logical fallacy. Only the attempt to prove a circular argument is one. #8 is not even a fallacy. There's nothing wrong with the use of acronyms so long as they are clearly defined.

I'm not denying those things. I'm stating that we don't know whether Earth is warming, cooling, or staying the same temperature. I'm additionally stating that the specific theory peddled by AGW cultists (that the Earth is warming via IR emitted from Earth's surface) is dead wrong, as it contradicts logic, science, and mathematics, as I have already explained.

No we don't. I assume this is when you will start appealing to "magickal satellites"?? And we don't even have enough weather stations to yield a result within any usable accuracy, since temperature variance is incredibly high. And the weather stations we do have have location and time biases.

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/fossil_fuel.htm