When Did NASA Become A Bastion Of Liberal Propaganda?

[wirebender]

Let's see, talking about heat when we're discussing photons didn't work, so now you're going to bring in force?!?! What force? We're talking about particles called PHOTONS and their abiltiy to interact with each other. Quit trying to change the topic. Heat isn't photons. Force isn't photons. Work isn't photons. The ONLY explanation I will accept will be when you demonstrate how one photon stops another from heading toward earth.

Clearly konradv, you don't know what you are talking about on any topic. You don't have the faintest notion of what the word photon means or how it relates to the laws of physics. Here, ONCE AGAIN is the defiiton of photon from various science dictionaries:

Photon | Define Photon at Dictionary.com

Look down the page to the science dictionary.

photon - The subatomic particle that carries the electromagnetic force and is the quantum of electromagnetic radiation.

Photon - Physics Terms and Definitions by Health Dictionary

photon - A discrete quantity of electromagnetic energy. Short wavelength (high frequency) photons carry more energy than long wavelength (low frequency) photons. See Electromagnetic Radiation.

photon - Definition of photon

photon - Particle Physics a subatomic particle, having energy and momentum but no mass or electric charge, that is the quantum unit of electromagnetic radiation

And since you are so farr off in your mind on what a photon is, I doubt that you know what the word quantum means.

quantum - A discrete, indivisible manifestation of a physical property, such as a force or angular momentum. Some quanta take the form of elementary particles; for example, the quantum of electromagnetic radiation is the photon, while the quanta of the weak force are the W and Z particles.

That being said, and shown, and duely proven, I still doubt that you can grasp, that we are talking about electromagnetic radiation and electromagnetic fields. Not free agents zipping about the universe. A photon is nothing more than theoretical smallest bit of measurable energy within an electromagnetic field and EM fields obey certain laws of physics and behave as I have been describing to you for months.

If you want to try and prove your case, show me a legitimate dictionary definition of a photon as a free agent that zips about the universe and never stops till it hits some solid bit of matter; or name the physical law that actually predicts and supports your claims.

You can go on ad nauseum (which you have) about my strange ideas and my strange theories but don't you find it odd that the science dictionary defines the terms being used as I use them and my claims are in accordance with the laws of nature? It is you who is off the reservation.

By the way, I didn't change the topic. I was addressing the interaction between two EM fields. I am sure that it sounded like a change of topic to you because you don't have the slightest idea of what you are talking about. You literally sound like a child. The more you talk, the less educated you sound.

 

[konradv]

By the way, I didn't change the topic. I was addressing the interaction between two EM fields. I am sure that it sounded like a change of topic to you because you don't have the slightest idea of what you are talking about. You literally sound like a child. The more you talk, the less educated you sound.

Photons have no charge or magnetic moment, so do not create or interact with EM fields.

 

[wirebender]

Photons have no charge or magnetic moment, so do not create or interact with EM fields.

You f'ing idiot. How much stupider can you possibly get. Photons ARE the EM field Again, refer to the scientific definition of photon:

photon - The subatomic particle that carries the electromagnetic force and is the quantum of electromagnetic radiation.

photon - A discrete quantity of electromagnetic energy. Short wavelength (high frequency) photons carry more energy than long wavelength (low frequency) photons. See Electromagnetic Radiation.

photon - Particle Physics a subatomic particle, having energy and momentum but no mass or electric charge, that is the quantum unit of electromagnetic radiation

quantum - A discrete, indivisible manifestation of a physical property, such as a force or angular momentum. Some quanta take the form of elementary particles; for example, the quantum of electromagnetic radiation is the photon, while the quanta of the weak force are the W and Z particles.

You have proven beyond any doubt that you don't have a clue konradv. If you weren't so f'ing stupid, you would realize how badly you are embarassing yourself in public. The fact that you don't see it is testament to how profoundly ignorant you are. The very fact that you have multiple definitions of photon from scientific dictionaries stating explicitly that photons are what make up EM fields coupled with your response that photons have nothing to do with EM fields is, frankly, one of the most idiotic that I have ever had uttered to me. Congratulations konradv, you have introduced me to a whole new level of stupid.

 

[konradv]

Photons have no charge or magnetic moment, so do not create or interact with EM fields.

You f'ing idiot. How much stupider can you possibly get. Photons ARE the EM field Again, refer to the scientific definition of photon:

photon - The subatomic particle that carries the electromagnetic force and is the quantum of electromagnetic radiation.

photon - A discrete quantity of electromagnetic energy. Short wavelength (high frequency) photons carry more energy than long wavelength (low frequency) photons. See Electromagnetic Radiation.

photon - Particle Physics a subatomic particle, having energy and momentum but no mass or electric charge, that is the quantum unit of electromagnetic radiation

quantum - A discrete, indivisible manifestation of a physical property, such as a force or angular momentum. Some quanta take the form of elementary particles; for example, the quantum of electromagnetic radiation is the photon, while the quanta of the weak force are the W and Z particles.

You have proven beyond any doubt that you don't have a clue konradv. If you weren't so f'ing stupid, you would realize how badly you are embarassing yourself in public. The fact that you don't see it is testament to how profoundly ignorant you are. The very fact that you have multiple definitions of photon from scientific dictionaries stating explicitly that photons are what make up EM fields coupled with your response that photons have nothing to do with EM fields is, frankly, one of the most idiotic that I have ever had uttered to me. Congratulations konradv, you have introduced me to a whole new level of stupid.

How do photons generate electromagnetic fields, if they have no charge? What generates the field in the first place? It appears you have an effect with no cause!!!

 

[wirebender]

How do photons generate electromagnetic fields, if they have no charge? What generates the field in the first place? It appears you have an effect with no cause!!!

This is getting rediculous konradv. I have given you the simplest defintions possible and explained this as if I were talking to a child and it remains over your head.

Photons do not generate EM fields. Photons are the stuff that EM fields are made of. If you had even the most rudimentary understanding of the physics, you might grasp that the IR that CO2 molecules emit is the EM field. How much simpler can I make it for you konradv?

THE EMISSON OF ABSORBED INFRARED RADIATION BY CO2 MOLECULES (AMONG OTHERS) IS THE SOURCE OF THE EM FIELD BEING RADIATED BY THE ATMOSPHERE!!!!!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

NASA and NOAA versus conservative ideology

 

[wirebender]

NASA and NOAA versus conservative ideology

And the ignorance just keeps pouring out when you guys are involved. Do you believe that the laws of physics, and defintions from scientific dictionaries are conservative "ideology"?

Interesting.

As to ideology, I am only guessing that is a word that you have heard, and like the sound of but like most liberals, never actually took the time to learn its meaning. Liberals as a group have an ideology. Nearly every conservative I know, and most of those I have read have a philosophy. Have you ever opened a dictionary before using a word? Probably not which is further evidence that what you hold is an ideology as opposed to a philosophy.

ideology - the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.

philosophy - the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, especially with a view to improving or reconstituting them

As I have demonstrated over and over, I am prepared to actually discuss the science upon which the claims of AGW are made. I am more than ready to discuss the physical laws and physics that rule the physical reactions that make up our climate. That is because I have made a critical study of the basic science and furthered it to the point that I am able to rationally discuss the topic and back my argument up with the actual physical laws in question.

You, and yours, on the other hand are not prepared to discuss the science. That would either be because you understand the science but know that to discuss it would expose the fraud, or like most warmers on this board, you don't have the slightest grasp of the science and are nothing more than parrots for those to whom your political ideology agrees.

As to a political ideology, again, I would wager that you have an ideology. I, as do most conservatives, have a philosophy. If you care to enter into a philosophical discussion on conservativism vs liberaliism, by all means start a thread and I will be happy to demonstrate to you, and anyone who cares to join in that you are little more than an ideologue and don't have the slightest notion of philosophy. You are governed by belief, and myth, etc., not a rational and in depth consideration of why you think as you do.

 

[Old Rocks]

How do photons generate electromagnetic fields, if they have no charge? What generates the field in the first place? It appears you have an effect with no cause!!!

This is getting rediculous konradv. I have given you the simplest defintions possible and explained this as if I were talking to a child and it remains over your head.

Photons do not generate EM fields. Photons are the stuff that EM fields are made of. If you had even the most rudimentary understanding of the physics, you might grasp that the IR that CO2 molecules emit is the EM field. How much simpler can I make it for you konradv?

THE EMISSON OF ABSORBED INFRARED RADIATION BY CO2 MOLECULES (AMONG OTHERS) IS THE SOURCE OF THE EM FIELD BEING RADIATED BY THE ATMOSPHERE!!!!!

Big red letters, but no links to real scientists to back up the assertation. Hmmm........

 

[Old Rocks]

NASA and NOAA versus conservative ideology

And the ignorance just keeps pouring out when you guys are involved. Do you believe that the laws of physics, and defintions from scientific dictionaries are conservative "ideology"?

Interesting.

As to ideology, I am only guessing that is a word that you have heard, and like the sound of but like most liberals, never actually took the time to learn its meaning. Liberals as a group have an ideology. Nearly every conservative I know, and most of those I have read have a philosophy. Have you ever opened a dictionary before using a word? Probably not which is further evidence that what you hold is an ideology as opposed to a philosophy.

ideology - the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.

philosophy - the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, especially with a view to improving or reconstituting them

As I have demonstrated over and over, I am prepared to actually discuss the science upon which the claims of AGW are made. I am more than ready to discuss the physical laws and physics that rule the physical reactions that make up our climate. That is because I have made a critical study of the basic science and furthered it to the point that I am able to rationally discuss the topic and back my argument up with the actual physical laws in question.

You, and yours, on the other hand are not prepared to discuss the science. That would either be because you understand the science but know that to discuss it would expose the fraud, or like most warmers on this board, you don't have the slightest grasp of the science and are nothing more than parrots for those to whom your political ideology agrees.

As to a political ideology, again, I would wager that you have an ideology. I, as do most conservatives, have a philosophy. If you care to enter into a philosophical discussion on conservativism vs liberaliism, by all means start a thread and I will be happy to demonstrate to you, and anyone who cares to join in that you are little more than an ideologue and don't have the slightest notion of philosophy. You are governed by belief, and myth, etc., not a rational and in depth consideration of why you think as you do.

Why yes, the laws of physics are the basis on the concern about the increased heat caused by the human emissions of GHGs.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Now that site is put up by the American Institute of Physics, the largest scientific society in the world of physicists.

And then there is the American Geophysical Union, which has very definate things to say concerning AGW.

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

There are also the people observing the warmng affects on the cryosphere, geologists, and what they have to say concerning AGW. From the Geological Society of America;

The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Global Climate Change

Then we have ol' Bent, with his whingding ideas concerning radiative physics. Oh, who to believe

 

[wirebender]

Big red letters, but no links to real scientists to back up the assertation. Hmmm........

If you are unaware of the source of the EM field radiated by the atmosphere rocks, then you are at least a couple of orders of magnitude more ignorant than I thought. Asking for a link to support the statement in red is like asking for a link to support the statement that the chemical composition of water is H2O.

 

[wirebender]

[

Why yes, the laws of physics are the basis on the concern about the increased heat caused by the human emissions of GHGs.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Really? I have read that bit of tripe all the way through and even read the links. I couldn't find a word about the laws of physics and how they support or predict a greehhouse effect as described by warmists. Perhaps you can tell me where the topic is discussed.

Or perhaps you are just a liar and as I predict, will be able to point to no such discussion in that site or any of its links.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

NASA and NOAA versus conservative ideology

And the ignorance just keeps pouring out when you guys are involved. Do you believe that the laws of physics, and defintions from scientific dictionaries are conservative "ideology"?

Interesting.

As to ideology, I am only guessing that is a word that you have heard, and like the sound of but like most liberals, never actually took the time to learn its meaning. Liberals as a group have an ideology. Nearly every conservative I know, and most of those I have read have a philosophy. Have you ever opened a dictionary before using a word? Probably not which is further evidence that what you hold is an ideology as opposed to a philosophy.

ideology - the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.

philosophy - the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, especially with a view to improving or reconstituting them

As I have demonstrated over and over, I am prepared to actually discuss the science upon which the claims of AGW are made. I am more than ready to discuss the physical laws and physics that rule the physical reactions that make up our climate. That is because I have made a critical study of the basic science and furthered it to the point that I am able to rationally discuss the topic and back my argument up with the actual physical laws in question.

You, and yours, on the other hand are not prepared to discuss the science. That would either be because you understand the science but know that to discuss it would expose the fraud, or like most warmers on this board, you don't have the slightest grasp of the science and are nothing more than parrots for those to whom your political ideology agrees.

As to a political ideology, again, I would wager that you have an ideology. I, as do most conservatives, have a philosophy. If you care to enter into a philosophical discussion on conservativism vs liberaliism, by all means start a thread and I will be happy to demonstrate to you, and anyone who cares to join in that you are little more than an ideologue and don't have the slightest notion of philosophy. You are governed by belief, and myth, etc., not a rational and in depth consideration of why you think as you do.

find your photo in the dick-tion-airy, and then read the text alongside it: it will be under the heading of failed pedant

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

how do photons generate electromagnetic fields, if they have no charge? What generates the field in the first place? It appears you have an effect with no cause!!!

this is getting rediculous konradv. I have given you the simplest defintions possible and explained this as if i were talking to a child and it remains over your head.

Photons do not generate em fields. Photons are the stuff that em fields are made of. If you had even the most rudimentary understanding of the physics, you might grasp that the ir that co2 molecules emit is the em field. How much simpler can i make it for you konradv?

the emisson of absorbed infrared radiation by co2 molecules (among others) is the source of the em field being radiated by the atmosphere!!!!!

big red letters, but no links to real scientists to back up the assertation. Hmmm........

lol

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

NASA and NOAA versus conservative ideology

And the ignorance just keeps pouring out when you guys are involved.

you guys? there you go again, lumping people into stereotype groups to make a point without regard to individuals you claim to be debating.,


you're a tool and a fool

 

[wirebender]

find your photo in the dick-tion-airy, and then read the text alongside it: it will be under the heading of failed pedant

Except that you haven't rebutted a single thing I have said. You might want to borow my dictionary to look up the word fail for yourself. You clearly have little experience with the book.

 

[wirebender]

lol

Are you laughing at his ignorance or your own? The idea that someone would need a link to a web page proving that the source of the EM field radiated by the atmosphere is CO2 and the other so called greenhouse gasses isn't something to be laughed at, it is a thing of profound sadness. That level of ignorance is quite simply, pathetic and there you are laughing because neither of you has the slightest clue.

If you need a link, here. Your very own wiki.

Emission spectrum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Clip: "The emission spectrum of a chemical element or chemical compound is the spectrum of frequencies of electromagnetic radiation emitted by the element's atoms or the compound's molecules when they are returned to a lower energy state."

Idiots. Maybe you would like to name somethnig else that might be creating the EM field radiating from the atmosphere.

 

[wirebender]

NASA and NOAA versus conservative ideology

And the ignorance just keeps pouring out when you guys are involved.

you guys? there you go again, lumping people into stereotype groups to make a point without regard to individuals you claim to be debating.,

First, I don't claim to be debating the likes of you and rocks. There is no debate possible because neither of you know enough about the science to actually participate in a debate. You both just proved it by needing a link to tell you that the source of the EM field radiated by the atmosphere is the emissions of the so called greenhouse gasses.

You guys are restricted to logical fallicies when you discuss the topic. Appeals to authority compose most of your arguments and in a debate, I am afraid that they would do nothing to help you. It is clear that neither of you can discuss the science which places you in the nosebleed section of the stadium with those who are running on faith as opposed to those who can actually discuss the science.

you're a tool and a fool

Says the ideologue who can't begin to discuss the science. Laughable and pitiful.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When Did NASA Become A Bastion Of Liberal Propaganda?

NASA has a global climate change web site?

What a world, what a world.

Vital Signs of the Planet

damn liberal scientists!

Not really sure when it happened, but I noticed it when liberals started trying to kill off NASA programs while simultaneously arguing that they need to do Muslim outreach.

 

[IanC]

NASA and NOAA versus conservative ideology

And the ignorance just keeps pouring out when you guys are involved.

you guys? there you go again, lumping people into stereotype groups to make a point without regard to individuals you claim to be debating.,


you're a tool and a fool

'tool and a fool' is not bad

personally I see you as bad tempered and ill mannered Cliff Clavin, but to each his own.

you keep bringing up general definitions of words but your sources never have any thing to say about your magical theory of photons disappearing into oblivion without the need to interact with matter. I have tried to get you to clarify your stance by asking where along the path from CO2 molecule to the surface this miracle occurs but you never answer. I have asked you whether you are mixing up the properties of radiative vs reactive photons but you just accuse me of not understanding wave/particle duality. I have pointed out that the second law of thermodynamics is a statistical description of the behaviour of systems with large numbers of constituents, not some sort of physical process that interacts with individual particles or photons but you just cover your ears and shout slogans.

you are worse than a totally ignorant person because you use the knowledge you do possess to misinform others. all with the overstated certainty and thin skin that is the trademark of climate scientists like Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt.

 

[IanC]

When Did NASA Become A Bastion Of Liberal Propaganda?

NASA has a global climate change web site?

What a world, what a world.

Vital Signs of the Planet

damn liberal scientists!

Not really sure when it happened, but I noticed it when liberals started trying to kill off NASA programs while simultaneously arguing that they need to do Muslim outreach.

actually NASA has a lot of areas that do pretty good science, much of which produces evidence that counters CAGW. unfortunately only Goddard (GISS) seems to get picked up by the media.