|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 24, 2020 13:42:31 GMT
I note how you evade describing how you took the temperature of the atmosphere throughout it's several miles of height. And of course anything else that requires you using English. Why would I need to describe how I "took the temperature" for it to be true? That would be like if I cited studies by geographers on the shape of the earth and a flat earther wrote them off because I didn't do the studies myself. Again, this is beyond idiotic. What I told FilmFlaneur goes the same for you ...
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Nov 24, 2020 13:59:48 GMT
Why would I need to describe how I "took the temperature" for it to be true? That would be like if I cited studies by geographers on the shape of the earth and a flat earther wrote them off because I didn't do the studies myself. Again, this is beyond idiotic. What I told FilmFlaneur goes the same for you ... "I would assure you that I am among the few people who have time for your nonsense." Probably because you have nothing else to do other than write a shitty blog nobody reads "Intelligent people switched the topic to the pandemic knowing full well Trump would have won easily if Democrats wallowed in that "temperature of the planet" blather all day." This has absolutely nothing to do with what I said, another goofy pivot about nothing "It is convincing to you because you are an idiot who accepts anything superficially scientific." Notice how you haven't actually refuted any of the data I gave you? "That's where actually understanding it becomes necessary to convince anyone." Translation: I can't refute the data you sent, so I'm just gonna resort to pathetic ad homs "In real schools where people actually learn anything teachers tell their students exactly what I'm telling you." If you taught any class the nonsense you spewed on here, you would be fired on the first day. "You cannot expect to be effective by simply linking arguments you obviously do not understand." Pathetic ad homs don't count as an argument, you still haven't refuted the data.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 24, 2020 16:14:07 GMT
FilmFlaneur said: [ full text here] < clip >
As for putting things in my own words, well I leave that sort of creative writing to you. I prefer to link to people who know what they are saying just as you have been provided with earlier on this thread. I would assure you that I am among the few people who have time for your nonsense. Sadly, though, not time enough to offer a rebuttal through any authoritative sources justifying climate change denial, it would seem. Evasion noted, again.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 26, 2020 0:41:23 GMT
lowtacks86 said: [ full text here] < clip >
Notice how you haven't actually refuted any of the data I gave you? I notice you haven't understood a word anyone said including yourself the few times you ever tried to say anything. Maybe that advice about saying more on your own to ensure you understand it would work out for you. Yes, it is what teachers advise.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 26, 2020 0:45:25 GMT
Sadly, though, not time enough to offer a rebuttal through any authoritative sources justifying climate change denial, it would seem. Evasion noted, again. Let's suppose just for the sake of discussion that I did offer a better scientific analysis and you choose to follow a misguided herd anyway. What can I do about that?
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Nov 26, 2020 0:52:09 GMT
lowtacks86 said: [ full text here] < clip >
Notice how you haven't actually refuted any of the data I gave you? I notice you haven't understood a word anyone said including yourself the few times you ever tried to say anything. Maybe that advice about saying more on your own to ensure you understand it would work out for you. Yes, it is what teachers advise. Petty ad homs don't count as an argument. Still waiting for you to actually refute the data I sent you. Evasion noted.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 26, 2020 2:09:15 GMT
Sadly, though, not time enough to offer a rebuttal through any authoritative sources justifying climate change denial, it would seem. Evasion noted, again. Let's suppose just for the sake of discussion that I did offer a better scientific analysis and you choose to follow a misguided herd anyway. What can I do about that? Evasion still noted. There's certainly something you can do about that.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 26, 2020 9:14:24 GMT
Let's suppose just for the sake of discussion that I did offer a better scientific analysis and you choose to follow a misguided herd anyway. What can I do about that? Evasion still noted. There's certainly something you can do about that. In your case evading you would be better than what I am doing.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 26, 2020 9:15:48 GMT
lowtacks86 said: [ full text here] I notice you haven't understood a word anyone said including yourself the few times you ever tried to say anything. Maybe that advice about saying more on your own to ensure you understand it would work out for you. Yes, it is what teachers advise. Petty ad homs don't count as an argument. Still waiting for you to actually refute the data I sent you. Evasion noted. In your case the fact that you are the problem is most necessary to note. Furthermore you don't make the rules.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 26, 2020 10:45:48 GMT
Evasion still noted. There's certainly something you can do about that. In your case evading you would be better than what I am doing. QED
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 26, 2020 11:18:07 GMT
In your case evading you would be better than what I am doing.QED I'm sorry, I'm not aware of anything you have ever tried to prove. What was that?
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Nov 26, 2020 11:28:12 GMT
Petty ad homs don't count as an argument. Still waiting for you to actually refute the data I sent you. Evasion noted. In your case the fact that you are the problem is most necessary to note. Furthermore you don't make the rules. Petty ad homs still don't count as an argument. Still waiting for you to actually refute the data I sent you. Evasion still noted.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 26, 2020 15:30:06 GMT
In your case the fact that you are the problem is most necessary to note. Furthermore you don't make the rules. Petty ad homs still don't count as an argument. Still waiting for you to actually refute the data I sent you. Evasion still noted. I think we both know you claimed a 1.5 degree change in the temperature of the atmosphere of the entire planet spelled doom in 12 years. When you were asked how you got the temperature of the atmosphere throughout its over 5 mile height you admittedly freely you have no idea. What do you believe I need to do at this point? After you finally get what the temperature change was are you going to explain where you got the 12 year figure?
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Nov 26, 2020 15:46:35 GMT
Petty ad homs still don't count as an argument. Still waiting for you to actually refute the data I sent you. Evasion still noted. I think we both know you claimed a 1.5 degree change in the temperature of the atmosphere of the entire planet spelled doom in 12 years. When you were asked how you got the temperature of the atmosphere throughout its over 5 mile height you admittedly freely you have no idea. What do you believe I need to do at this point? After you finally get what the temperature change was are you going to explain where you got the 12 year figure? I never said "doom" stop strawmanning me. And I also did not say I "have no idea", another garbage strawman. You accused me of not measuring the temperature myself, which is absurd, how would I do that myself? You realize that would probably require costly equipment? That's what actual climate scientists are for, I've already addressed this point. Now instead of doing more silly ad homs and strawmans, this is the part where you say, "Well that data point is wrong because (cite a study)". But let's face it your not gonna do that because you don't have any actual data, so the next best thing you can do is avoid actually addressing the data and resort to more pathetic ad homs.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 26, 2020 15:55:21 GMT
I think we both know you claimed a 1.5 degree change in the temperature of the atmosphere of the entire planet spelled doom in 12 years. When you were asked how you got the temperature of the atmosphere throughout its over 5 mile height you admittedly freely you have no idea. What do you believe I need to do at this point? After you finally get what the temperature change was are you going to explain where you got the 12 year figure? I never said "doom" stop strawmanning me. And I also did not say I "have no idea", another garbage strawman. You accused me of not measuring the temperature myself, which is absurd, how would I do that myself? You realize that would probably require costly equipment? That's what actual climate scientists are for, I've already addressed this point. Now instead of doing more silly ad homs and strawmans, this is the part where you say, "Well that data point is wrong because (cite a study)". But let's face it your not gonna do that because you don't have any actual data, so the next best thing you can do is avoid actually addressing the data and resort to more pathetic ad homs. I call them as I see them. You do need to show your work or don't even bother at all.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Nov 26, 2020 16:02:49 GMT
I never said "doom" stop strawmanning me. And I also did not say I "have no idea", another garbage strawman. You accused me of not measuring the temperature myself, which is absurd, how would I do that myself? You realize that would probably require costly equipment? That's what actual climate scientists are for, I've already addressed this point. Now instead of doing more silly ad homs and strawmans, this is the part where you say, "Well that data point is wrong because (cite a study)". But let's face it your not gonna do that because you don't have any actual data, so the next best thing you can do is avoid actually addressing the data and resort to more pathetic ad homs. I call them as I see them. You do need to show your work or don't even bother at all. Wait are you unironically arguing I have to actually do scientific studies myself for them to be valid? Holy shit are you really this stupid? So if someone argues with you about how brain surgery works and shows you medical studies, and your response is "Well you didn't actually do the brain surgery yourself, you didn't show your own work!" you think that's a perfectly valid response? OK, you're trolling, no one is seriously this stupid. You got me.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 26, 2020 16:44:12 GMT
I never said "doom" stop strawmanning me. And I also did not say I "have no idea", another garbage strawman. You accused me of not measuring the temperature myself, which is absurd, how would I do that myself? You realize that would probably require costly equipment? That's what actual climate scientists are for, I've already addressed this point. Now instead of doing more silly ad homs and strawmans, this is the part where you say, "Well that data point is wrong because (cite a study)". But let's face it your not gonna do that because you don't have any actual data, so the next best thing you can do is avoid actually addressing the data and resort to more pathetic ad homs. I call them as I see them. You do need to show your work or don't even bother at all. LOL
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 26, 2020 18:55:05 GMT
I call them as I see them. You do need to show your work or don't even bother at all. LOL I know. I do show my work in exquisite detail. I know you can't remember anything longer than three minutes so here is a reminder. Showing my work.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 26, 2020 18:58:37 GMT
I call them as I see them. You do need to show your work or don't even bother at all. Wait are you unironically arguing I have to actually do scientific studies myself for them to be valid? Holy shit are you really this stupid? So if someone argues with you about how brain surgery works and shows you medical studies, and your response is "Well you didn't actually do the brain surgery yourself, you didn't show your own work!" you think that's a perfectly valid response? OK, you're trolling, no one is seriously this stupid. You got me. Let's say just for the purposes of discussion that the site you linked is a fraud. How would you know? Another thing, suppose the site you linked is a deliberate trap for lazy kids on the internet. How would you know? How would you avoid being caught in the trap?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Nov 26, 2020 19:05:51 GMT
I know. I do show my work in exquisite detail. I know you can't remember anything longer than three minutes so here is a reminder. Showing my work. Just yet another non-sequitur then as there is nothing there offering any independent scientific substantiation for your climate change denial which is, still, what is asked for. Evasion still noted.
|
|