By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
What it "tells you" is obviously your own subjective interpretation of my post and declining to watch two silly videos.
What tells me a lot about you is that you believe the several fairy tales that make up "the big bang theory."
I'd guess you believe in global warming, too. At least they're not fairy tales, but out-and-out unscientific falsehoods.
Again brilliant!
You won't watch 2 videos, that would take all of 5 minutes of your time, because they might challenge your beliefs.
Yep I believe in those made up fairy tales like General and Special Relativity (used GPS lately?) that make up the big bang theory (which you would know would be better described as the 'everywhere stretch theory' if you'd watched the videos.)
As for global warming...
Up means cooler right?
If man evolved from monkeys why do we still have monkeys?
Secondly much like "the big bang" is a poor phrase to describe the so called start of our universe, the phrase "global warming" is in a poor phrase used to describe accelerated climatic variations.
If you want to prove human influence on climate change you can do a whole lot better than a mean global temperature graph. You would see a similar trend from 950-1250 during the medieval warm period. Rather irrelevant when it comes to the issue of human influence on our climate which is what I believe Davillin is referring to when he says that it's a "myth".
Why do I have to waste my time trying to educate some people on the failings of some areas of "science" and "scientists" who make stuff up and then make stuff up based on that?
Do some research on thermometers and then compare what you find with those delightfully colorful charts.
When was the first reliable thermometer invented? How long did it take to spread those reliable thermometers around the planet in sufficient numbers to result in reliable data? Who did the early research on temperatures in the era of reliable thermometers? When [if ever] has reliable data been accumulated on a global scale - meaning in all of the climate zones, in all of the different significant sub-climate zones?
And then, just for the fun of it, go to your local hardware store's thermometer department, look at all of the thermometers on display, record their readings, and then tell me what the temperature is - just in that one location.
Anyone can make derisive comments about people who haven't been fooled by "scientists" whose results fit the requirements of the groups who fund their work in massive amounts, and by the Al Gores of the world who are benefiting financially beyond your and my wildest dreams from "global warming."
Do the research on thermometers as I outline above, and think about the geographical distribution of persons keeping accurate scientific records of temperatures around the world, and then tell me how accurate the figures are for any time in History. And the "scientists" are comparing these fanciful records with equally fanciful records kept using computerized recordings. Nonsense.
But those of you who want to indulge in derision may continue doing so. It doesn't hurt me. I know I'm right on this one.
Why do I have to waste my time trying to educate some people on the failings of some areas of "science" and "scientists" who make stuff up and then make stuff up based on that?
Do some research on thermometers and then compare what you find with those delightfully colorful charts.
When was the first reliable thermometer invented? How long did it take to spread those reliable thermometers around the planet in sufficient numbers to result in reliable data? Who did the early research on temperatures in the era of reliable thermometers? When [if ever] has reliable data been accumulated on a global scale - meaning in all of the climate zones, in all of the different significant sub-climate zones?
And then, just for the fun of it, go to your local hardware store's thermometer department, look at all of the thermometers on display, record their readings, and then tell me what the temperature is - just in that one location.
Anyone can make derisive comments about people who haven't been fooled by "scientists" whose results fit the requirements of the groups who fund their work in massive amounts, and by the Al Gores of the world who are benefiting financially beyond your and my wildest dreams from "global warming."
Do the research on thermometers as I outline above, and think about the geographical distribution of persons keeping accurate scientific records of temperatures around the world, and then tell me how accurate the figures are for any time in History. And the "scientists" are comparing these fanciful records with equally fanciful records kept using computerized recordings. Nonsense.
But those of you who want to indulge in derision may continue doing so. It doesn't hurt me. I know I'm right on this one.
[Post edited 27 Aug 2013 15:57]
Guess I'll have to hitch up the horse and ride down to the apothecary and check out those darned new-fangled thermo-meters...
According to NASA,the biggest influence on earths climate is the sun? Maybe not?
"Even typical short term variations of 0.1% in incident irradiance exceed all other energy sources (such as natural radioactivity in Earth's core) combined."
Today's poem is by the great American Robert Frost....ahem...
Fire and Ice
Some say the world will end in fire, Some say in ice. From what I've tasted of desire I hold with those who favor fire. But if it had to perish twice, I think I know enough of hate To say that for destruction ice Is also great And would suffice. Robert Frost
[Post edited 28 Aug 2013 5:43]
PROUD RECIPIENT OF THE THIRD PLANET SWANS LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT AWARD.
"Per ardua ad astra"
"When was the first reliable thermometer invented?"
The first accurate thermometer was invented around 1724 by Fahrenheit, Celsius had invented his centigrade scale by 1742 and the Kelvin scale had been invented by 1848.
"How long did it take to spread those reliable thermometers around the planet in sufficient numbers to result in reliable data?"
As the graph I posted above starts at 1850, some 125 years after the invention of the first accurate thermometer and over 100 years after Celsius (Kelvin uses the same units as Celsius) then I think its safe to assume that accurate thermometers were available widely at that time.
"Who did the early research on temperatures in the era of reliable thermometers?"
Fahrenheit, Celsius and Kelvin.
"When [if ever] has reliable data been accumulated on a global scale - meaning in all of the climate zones, in all of the different significant sub-climate zones?"
"And then, just for the fun of it, go to your local hardware store's thermometer department, look at all of the thermometers on display, record their readings, and then tell me what the temperature is - just in that one location."
I would be able to tell you what the average temperature is in that location which would most probably be very close to the actual temperature. A thermometer only has to be consistent with its own readings for the data to be valid.
"Do the research on thermometers as I outline above, and think about the geographical distribution of persons keeping accurate scientific records of temperatures around the world, and then tell me how accurate the figures are for any time in History. And the "scientists" are comparing these fanciful records with equally fanciful records kept using computerized recordings. Nonsense."
I have done the research on thermometers as requested and I have found no evidence to suggest that the data that shows that global temperatures are in any way wrong, junk science or nonsense all it has done is highlight how weak your argument was. The Earth today is warmer than it was 150 years ago, this is undisputable.
If man evolved from monkeys why do we still have monkeys?
Just out of interest what, if any, science do you actually believe in?
You call the science that supports the big bang theory fairy tales despite there being many practical, everyday applications for the theories that support it e.g GPS, lasers, transistors, microchips etc.
Global warming is junk science and I seem to remember you disputing geology, how oil is formed and evolution on the old forum.
So where is the good science?
If man evolved from monkeys why do we still have monkeys?
Just out of interest what, if any, science do you actually believe in?
You call the science that supports the big bang theory fairy tales despite there being many practical, everyday applications for the theories that support it e.g GPS, lasers, transistors, microchips etc.
Global warming is junk science and I seem to remember you disputing geology, how oil is formed and evolution on the old forum.
So where is the good science?
It appears to me that I'm wasting my time trying to get you to see why you're wrong about climate change, and I haven't even touched on the admitted faking of "evidence" by proponents, or the large number of reputable scientists who have debunked key aspects about climate change, but I can't let you misrepresent what I have written on here.
I have not "disputed geology," and never discussed how oil is formed.
What I have said that could be seen as "disputing" the theory of evolution is that in some [many?] cases it can explain how life has evolved, but it cannot explain how life came to be.
There is plenty of "good science," and all of it has to do with concrete research and factual results. If you cannot see that the big bang theory is all imaginary, as is any attempt to force the theory of evolution to explain how life came to be, then there's no hope for either of us.
Curiously, I kept a record of your observations on the big bang, but don't have the energy or desire to put them together to show that your own words make that theory out to be a collection of fairy tales.
It appears to me that I'm wasting my time trying to get you to see why you're wrong about climate change, and I haven't even touched on the admitted faking of "evidence" by proponents, or the large number of reputable scientists who have debunked key aspects about climate change, but I can't let you misrepresent what I have written on here.
I have not "disputed geology," and never discussed how oil is formed.
What I have said that could be seen as "disputing" the theory of evolution is that in some [many?] cases it can explain how life has evolved, but it cannot explain how life came to be.
There is plenty of "good science," and all of it has to do with concrete research and factual results. If you cannot see that the big bang theory is all imaginary, as is any attempt to force the theory of evolution to explain how life came to be, then there's no hope for either of us.
Curiously, I kept a record of your observations on the big bang, but don't have the energy or desire to put them together to show that your own words make that theory out to be a collection of fairy tales.
Now you're being disingenuous. Evolution is nothing to with how life was first formed and as an intelligent person (or so you put yourself forward) you would know that. So I can only assume you accept you cannot disprove evolution and are instead trying to widen the argument.
The theory of evolution doesn't depend on how the first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis wouldn't affect evolution in the least.
Now you're being disingenuous. Evolution is nothing to with how life was first formed and as an intelligent person (or so you put yourself forward) you would know that. So I can only assume you accept you cannot disprove evolution and are instead trying to widen the argument.
The theory of evolution doesn't depend on how the first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis wouldn't affect evolution in the least.
Respectfully, you have not reported my post correctly. I said exactly what you said:
"What I have said that could be seen as "disputing" the theory of evolution is that in some [many?] cases it can explain how life has evolved, but it cannot explain how life came to be."
And I said nothing about "abiogenesis" that reflects on the theory of evolution.
[p.s. There was no need for you to have made an ad hominem comment.]
It appears to me that I'm wasting my time trying to get you to see why you're wrong about climate change, and I haven't even touched on the admitted faking of "evidence" by proponents, or the large number of reputable scientists who have debunked key aspects about climate change, but I can't let you misrepresent what I have written on here.
I have not "disputed geology," and never discussed how oil is formed.
What I have said that could be seen as "disputing" the theory of evolution is that in some [many?] cases it can explain how life has evolved, but it cannot explain how life came to be.
There is plenty of "good science," and all of it has to do with concrete research and factual results. If you cannot see that the big bang theory is all imaginary, as is any attempt to force the theory of evolution to explain how life came to be, then there's no hope for either of us.
Curiously, I kept a record of your observations on the big bang, but don't have the energy or desire to put them together to show that your own words make that theory out to be a collection of fairy tales.
Global warming is real, only quacks and tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists dispute this. However there is an argument to be had over whether it is natural or due to man made influences.
I would love for you to point me in the direction of the reputable scientists that are debunking global warming, if any of them are using your thermometer argument then I will be questioning their reputation.
I like good science with concrete research and factual results as well its why I'm so interested in quantum mechanics. Without it I wouldn't be able to use my laptop with USB flash and optical disc drives because they all rely on quantum theory being correct in order to work, it also explains what happened to the universe in the moments after the big bang.
If man evolved from monkeys why do we still have monkeys?
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
