Jump to content


Science question for smart people


  • Please log in to reply
112 replies to this topic

Markd73 #61 Posted May 25 2017 - 22:21

    Major

  • Players
  • 32795 battles
  • 5,547
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011

View PostKlaatu_Nicto, on May 25 2017 - 20:22, said:

 

In case you missed it a couple of years ago, Mike, AKA Mattwong, stated he is the only person on this forum who has the background and intelligence necessary to understand science related issues.

 

What does that have to do with your own use of a logical fallacy? You cannot use a Fallacious Argument to counter another Fallacious Argument.

 

He may be wrong as well, but that has zero relevance to your own use of a fallacious argument.

 



Klaatu_Nicto #62 Posted May 25 2017 - 23:14

    Major

  • Players
  • 44044 battles
  • 10,870
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

View PostMarkd73, on May 25 2017 - 13:21, said:

 

What does that have to do with your own use of a logical fallacy? You cannot use a Fallacious Argument to counter another Fallacious Argument.

 

He may be wrong as well, but that has zero relevance to your own use of a fallacious argument.

 

 

What does that have to do with me, two years ago, posting a picture of my textbooks from my college science courses and stating I had worked with scientists then two years later mentioning that again to Mike/Matt?

 

It has to do with Mike/Matt also saying a couple of years ago that I, along with everyone else on this forum, are too stupid to understand science issues because only Mike/Matt has the science background necessary to understand such things.

 

Rather than an 'appeal to authority, what I posted was a refutation of Mike/Matt's claim.

 

I also took a course in formal logic in college.

 

I do believe you have committed the fallacy of 'jumping into an argument, that has been brewing for two years between two people, without knowing all the facts.'  ;)


Edited by Klaatu_Nicto, May 25 2017 - 23:22.


mattwong #63 Posted May 26 2017 - 14:23

    Major

  • Players
  • 30470 battles
  • 17,333
  • Member since:
    03-03-2012

View PostKlaatu_Nicto, on May 25 2017 - 15:22, said:

 

In case you missed it a couple of years ago, Mike, AKA Mattwong, stated he is the only person on this forum who has the background and intelligence necessary to understand science related issues.

 

You're a liar.  I never said that.  There are thousands of people on this forum, some of whom may be much more qualified than myself for all I know.  What I did say is that unlike you, I am actually qualified to present expert opinions on thermodynamics in a court of law, because I'm a licensed engineer with training in thermo, and despite your complete incomprehension of this, the CO2 greenhouse gas theory is in fact a thermodynamic theory, not a meteorological one.

 

But of course, EVERY SINGLE TIME I point this out, you just ignore it and keep talking about the weather.  Because not only do you not understand the theory, you don't even WANT to understand the theory.  Every time I point out the holes in your arguments, you just ignore my rebuttals and repeat those same arguments, because you obviously don't understand the rebuttals.  And then you preposterously claim that you're an expert because you "worked with" scientists: a classic resume-inflation trick that any adult will recognize instantly.

 

Your arguments aren't even current.  Global warming has gotten so severe that the permafrost is melting all over the world.  The Northwest Passage is open.  The seed vault has been flooded.  10,000 year old glaciers are disintegrating.  Houses in Alaska are tilting over to one side because the permafrost beneath them is melting.  Oil companies are gearing up to explore in areas they could never explore before.  Scientists are discovering 50,000 year old bacteria that have been frozen in glaciers until now.  But you keep quoting old talking points about a "pause", all based on the fact that there was a spike in temperature in the late 90s, so if you cherry-pick your data window starting in that year, you can make it seem as if the warming trend stopped for a while.  Any data analytics expert will know that this is dishonest as hell, but you actually think it's a good talking point.

 

You're also so ignorant of science that you think any kind of data adjustment indicates fraud, even if the scientists are completely open about the documentation of the data adjustment and why they did it.  But whenever anyone tries to explain that to you, you just stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la la la la I can't hear you it's fraud".

 

You have what George Will once described as an untrained mind matched with stratospheric self-confidence: you act as if you're an expert in this area, when you have in fact not only learned nothing, but have exhibited no interest in learning anything.  Attempts to explain how the CO2 theory actually works just fall on deaf ears with you, because you're not even interested.  In your mind, you resolved the whole issue a long time ago with this shopworn talking point about the warming not even happening at all, which is simply denial of reality.  The more sophisticated global warming deniers at least admit it's happening, they just pretend it's entirely natural despite being vastly more rapid than any other warming trend in geologic history.


Edited by mattwong, May 26 2017 - 14:27.


Klaatu_Nicto #64 Posted May 26 2017 - 15:10

    Major

  • Players
  • 44044 battles
  • 10,870
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

You know you said it. Everyone here back then knows you said it.

 

You are the only person on this forum who thinks they are an expert and who berates people while making dishonest statements about them like you have just done, again. 


Edited by Klaatu_Nicto, May 26 2017 - 15:15.


mattwong #65 Posted May 26 2017 - 15:15

    Major

  • Players
  • 30470 battles
  • 17,333
  • Member since:
    03-03-2012

View PostKlaatu_Nicto, on May 26 2017 - 09:10, said:

You know you said it. Everyone here back then knows you said it.

 

No, I never said I was more qualified than every other person on this forum, and if you weren't lying, you could just dig back in the forum history and find the post where I did.  I just said I was more qualified than YOU.  It's not my fault you're so monstrously egostistical that you think you somehow stand for everyone.

 

PS. It's nice how I said you just ignore points you have no answer for, and then you proved my point by doing exactly that in your reply.


Edited by mattwong, May 26 2017 - 15:24.


Klaatu_Nicto #66 Posted May 26 2017 - 15:43

    Major

  • Players
  • 44044 battles
  • 10,870
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

View Postmattwong, on May 26 2017 - 06:15, said:

 

No, I never said I was more qualified than every other person on this forum, and if you weren't lying, you could just dig back in the forum history and find the post where I did.  I just said I was more qualified than YOU.  It's not my fault you're so monstrously egostistical that you think you somehow stand for everyone.

 

PS. It's nice how I said you just ignore points you have no answer for, and then you proved my point by doing exactly that in your reply.

 

I have answered your points numerous times. I see no need to repeat myself.

Markd73 #67 Posted May 26 2017 - 16:19

    Major

  • Players
  • 32795 battles
  • 5,547
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011

View PostKlaatu_Nicto, on May 25 2017 - 22:14, said:

 

What does that have to do with me, two years ago, posting a picture of my textbooks from my college science courses and stating I had worked with scientists then two years later mentioning that again to Mike/Matt?

 

It has to do with Mike/Matt also saying a couple of years ago that I, along with everyone else on this forum, are too stupid to understand science issues because only Mike/Matt has the science background necessary to understand such things.

 

Rather than an 'appeal to authority, what I posted was a refutation of Mike/Matt's claim.

 

I also took a course in formal logic in college.

 

I do believe you have committed the fallacy of 'jumping into an argument, that has been brewing for two years between two people, without knowing all the facts.'  ;)

 

Please point out which fallacy I am committing by criticizing the structure of your argument?

https://en.wikipedia...st_of_fallacies

 

It still doesn't change the fact that you used an appeal to authority. Construct better arguments and I will stop pointing out the flaws in them.

 



Markd73 #68 Posted May 26 2017 - 16:21

    Major

  • Players
  • 32795 battles
  • 5,547
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011

View Postmattwong, on May 26 2017 - 14:15, said:

 

No, I never said I was more qualified than every other person on this forum, and if you weren't lying, you could just dig back in the forum history and find the post where I did.  I just said I was more qualified than YOU.  It's not my fault you're so monstrously egostistical that you think you somehow stand for everyone.

 

PS. It's nice how I said you just ignore points you have no answer for, and then you proved my point by doing exactly that in your reply.

 

I noticed that as well.



Markd73 #69 Posted May 26 2017 - 16:25

    Major

  • Players
  • 32795 battles
  • 5,547
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011

View PostKlaatu_Nicto, on May 26 2017 - 14:43, said:

 

I have answered your points numerous times. I see no need to repeat myself.

 

So is it that you cannot or will not address his actual argument?



Klaatu_Nicto #70 Posted May 26 2017 - 17:15

    Major

  • Players
  • 44044 battles
  • 10,870
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

View PostMarkd73, on May 26 2017 - 07:19, said:

View PostKlaatu_Nicto, on May 25 2017 - 22:14, said:

 

What does that have to do with me, two years ago, posting a picture of my textbooks from my college science courses and stating I had worked with scientists then two years later mentioning that again to Mike/Matt?

 

It has to do with Mike/Matt also saying a couple of years ago that I, along with everyone else on this forum, are too stupid to understand science issues because only Mike/Matt has the science background necessary to understand such things.

 

Rather than an 'appeal to authority, what I posted was a refutation of Mike/Matt's claim.

 

I also took a course in formal logic in college.

 

I do believe you have committed the fallacy of 'jumping into an argument, that has been brewing for two years between two people, without knowing all the facts.'  ;)

 

Please point out which fallacy I am committing by criticizing the structure of your argument?

https://en.wikipedia...st_of_fallacies

 

It still doesn't change the fact that you used an appeal to authority. Construct better arguments and I will stop pointing out the flaws in them.

 

 

You're argument is flawed. The point of my previous comment was to refute comments made about me. It was not a claim that I am an authority on science issues.

 

 

View PostMarkd73, on May 26 2017 - 07:25, said:

View PostKlaatu_Nicto, on May 26 2017 - 14:43, said:

 

I have answered your points numerous times. I see no need to repeat myself.

 

So is it that you cannot or will not address his actual argument?

 

I've have addressed his arguments many times already in the following topic and others.

 

http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/453980-the-universe/#topmost

 

 

.  


Edited by Klaatu_Nicto, May 26 2017 - 17:16.


Mudman24 #71 Posted May 26 2017 - 20:57

    Major

  • Players
  • 36582 battles
  • 12,162
  • Member since:
    04-06-2012
Waiting for link spam now...

Klaatu_Nicto #72 Posted May 26 2017 - 21:22

    Major

  • Players
  • 44044 battles
  • 10,870
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

View PostMudman24, on May 26 2017 - 11:57, said:

Waiting for link spam now...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anwy2MPT5RE

 

 



mattwong #73 Posted May 29 2017 - 16:32

    Major

  • Players
  • 30470 battles
  • 17,333
  • Member since:
    03-03-2012

A guy who thinks he can engage in a debate about a thermodynamic energy balance theory by posting YouTube links is a guy who is not capable of self-reflection.

 

Thermodynamics is a complex subject.  But you think this whole thing is incredibly simple, because you don't know enough to know how little you know.



Klaatu_Nicto #74 Posted May 29 2017 - 17:18

    Major

  • Players
  • 44044 battles
  • 10,870
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012
:(

Edited by Klaatu_Nicto, May 29 2017 - 17:19.


mattwong #75 Posted May 29 2017 - 17:18

    Major

  • Players
  • 30470 battles
  • 17,333
  • Member since:
    03-03-2012

OK, here's a little test: since you act as if you have actually researched this subject, why don't you answer a simple question, just to show that you have some knowledge of the subject?

 

A popular global warming denial argument is that upper-atmospheric CO2 levels are irrelevant because there is already so much greenhouse gas at lower altitude (from clouds, methane, etc) that 100% absorption of infrared emission takes place.  Do you understand what this means, and do you know what the obvious scientific rebuttal to this argument would be, regardless of whether 100% absorption actually occurs?

 

Please answer in your own words, not by posting links.  Note: the answer is extremely simple: it can be answered in one sentence.



Klaatu_Nicto #76 Posted May 29 2017 - 17:21

    Major

  • Players
  • 44044 battles
  • 10,870
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

View PostMudman24, on May 26 2017 - 11:57, said:

Waiting for link spam now...

 

View PostKlaatu_Nicto, on May 26 2017 - 12:22, said:

 

View Postmattwong, on May 29 2017 - 07:32, said:

A guy who thinks he can engage in a debate about a thermodynamic energy balance theory by posting YouTube links is a guy who is not capable of self-reflection.

 

Thermodynamics is a complex subject.  But you think this whole thing is incredibly simple, because you don't know enough to know how little you know.

 

:D

mattwong #77 Posted May 29 2017 - 17:27

    Major

  • Players
  • 30470 battles
  • 17,333
  • Member since:
    03-03-2012
That's your an idea of an answer?  I think that says all we need to know about your knowledge level.

Klaatu_Nicto #78 Posted May 29 2017 - 17:34

    Major

  • Players
  • 44044 battles
  • 10,870
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

View Postmattwong, on May 29 2017 - 08:27, said:

That's your an idea of an answer?  I think that says all we need to know about your knowledge level.

 

This is my idea of an answer.

 

I don't think something that represents 0.04% of our atmosphere is going to have a great effect on our climate.

 

 



mattwong #79 Posted May 29 2017 - 17:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 30470 battles
  • 17,333
  • Member since:
    03-03-2012
Thanks for proving me 100% about your deplorable lack of knowledge on the subject.  If you had ACTUALLY done research on this subject, you would have given an actual answer.  Frankly, I don't even think you understood the question.  I think it just sounded like mumbo-jumbo to you.

mattwong #80 Posted May 29 2017 - 17:40

    Major

  • Players
  • 30470 battles
  • 17,333
  • Member since:
    03-03-2012

It's pretty sad that you are so arrogant about a subject you so clearly do not understand.  Your logic literally seems to be "0.04% sounds like a really small number, so it can't possibly have an effect".  No need to understand the theory, eh?  That's all you need to know, right?  Who needs to learn about things like Stefan-Boltzmann constants, black-body radiation, albedo, or any of that complicated stuff?  All you need is "duuuh, 0.04% sounds really small to me, so I win".






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users