16% of Americans do not believe in Climate Change.

[SSDD]

SSDD signature: Oh, the fundamental mechanism of the second law is statistics. - Mamooth

Which I have to assume SSDD believes to be false. In fact, he must believe it is laughable. How surprising, then, to find the following in Wikipedia's discussion of the

WOW...someone at least, if not more stupid than mamooth. Do you have any idea what a mechanism is? Here, let me help you out.

mechanism - the agency or means by which an effect is produced or a purpose is accomplished.

Statistics applied to thermodynamics is a hypothetical means of predicting the direction of energy flow....the mechanism of the second law is the force that causes energy to flow from low entropy to high entropy. Statistics is not a a mechanism....statistics is an attempt to predict what the mechanism will do. You guys just get further out there all the time. Public education is failing as spectacularly as the climate hoax.

 

[Abraham3]

SSDD signature: Oh, the fundamental mechanism of the second law is statistics. - Mamooth

Which I have to assume SSDD believes to be false. In fact, he must believe it is laughable. How surprising, then, to find the following in Wikipedia's discussion of the

WOW...someone at least, if not more stupid than mamooth. Do you have any idea what a mechanism is? Here, let me help you out.

mechanism - the agency or means by which an effect is produced or a purpose is accomplished.

Statistics applied to thermodynamics is a hypothetical means of predicting the direction of energy flow....the mechanism of the second law is the force that causes energy to flow from low entropy to high entropy. Statistics is not a a mechanism....statistics is an attempt to predict what the mechanism will do. You guys just get further out there all the time. Public education is failing as spectacularly as the climate hoax.

If you want to try to deny the statistical nature of thermodynamics, you've got a tough row to hoe.

Statistical mechanics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Statistical mechanics or statistical thermodynamics[note 1] is a branch of physics that applies probability theory, which contains mathematical tools for dealing with large populations, to the study of the thermodynamic behavior of systems composed of a large number of particles. Statistical mechanics provides a framework for relating the microscopic properties of individual atoms and molecules to the macroscopic bulk properties of materials that can be observed in everyday life, thereby explaining thermodynamics as a result of the classical- and quantum-mechanical descriptions of statistics and mechanics at the microscopic level.
Statistical mechanics provides a molecular-level interpretation of macroscopic thermodynamic quantities such as work, heat, free energy, and entropy. It enables the thermodynamic properties of bulk materials to be related to the spectroscopic data of individual molecules. This ability to make macroscopic predictions based on microscopic properties is the main advantage of statistical mechanics over classical thermodynamics. Both theories are governed by the second law of thermodynamics through the medium of entropy. However, entropy in thermodynamics can only be known empirically, whereas in statistical mechanics, it is a function of the distribution of the system on its micro-states.
Statistical mechanics was initiated in 1870 with the work of Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann, much of which was collectively published in Boltzmann's 1896 Lectures on Gas Theory.[1] Boltzmann's original papers on the statistical interpretation of thermodynamics, the H-theorem, transport theory, thermal equilibrium, the equation of state of gases, and similar subjects, occupy about 2,000 pages in the proceedings of the Vienna Academy and other societies. The term "statistical thermodynamics" was proposed for use by the American thermodynamicist and physical chemist J. Willard Gibbs in 1902. According to Gibbs, the term "statistical", in the context of mechanics, i.e. statistical mechanics, was first used by the Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell in 1871. "Probabilistic mechanics" might today seem a more appropriate term, but "statistical mechanics" is firmly entrenched.[2]

Statistical mechanics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[westwall]

Wiki

 

[SSDD]

Wiki

My thoughts exactly. You have to wonder if they are really this stupid or are being deliberately obtuse. Imagine....thinking that statistics is the actual force that causes energy to transfer from one place to another...and then trying to argue the point in public.

A classic case of not having a clue that one doesn't have a clue.

 

[gslack]

SSDD signature: Oh, the fundamental mechanism of the second law is statistics. - Mamooth

Which I have to assume SSDD believes to be false. In fact, he must believe it is laughable. How surprising, then, to find the following in Wikipedia's discussion of the

WOW...someone at least, if not more stupid than mamooth. Do you have any idea what a mechanism is? Here, let me help you out.

mechanism - the agency or means by which an effect is produced or a purpose is accomplished.

Statistics applied to thermodynamics is a hypothetical means of predicting the direction of energy flow....the mechanism of the second law is the force that causes energy to flow from low entropy to high entropy. Statistics is not a a mechanism....statistics is an attempt to predict what the mechanism will do. You guys just get further out there all the time. Public education is failing as spectacularly as the climate hoax.

If you want to try to deny the statistical nature of thermodynamics, you've got a tough row to hoe.

Statistical mechanics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Statistical mechanics or statistical thermodynamics[note 1] is a branch of physics that applies probability theory, which contains mathematical tools for dealing with large populations, to the study of the thermodynamic behavior of systems composed of a large number of particles. Statistical mechanics provides a framework for relating the microscopic properties of individual atoms and molecules to the macroscopic bulk properties of materials that can be observed in everyday life, thereby explaining thermodynamics as a result of the classical- and quantum-mechanical descriptions of statistics and mechanics at the microscopic level.
Statistical mechanics provides a molecular-level interpretation of macroscopic thermodynamic quantities such as work, heat, free energy, and entropy. It enables the thermodynamic properties of bulk materials to be related to the spectroscopic data of individual molecules. This ability to make macroscopic predictions based on microscopic properties is the main advantage of statistical mechanics over classical thermodynamics. Both theories are governed by the second law of thermodynamics through the medium of entropy. However, entropy in thermodynamics can only be known empirically, whereas in statistical mechanics, it is a function of the distribution of the system on its micro-states.
Statistical mechanics was initiated in 1870 with the work of Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann, much of which was collectively published in Boltzmann's 1896 Lectures on Gas Theory.[1] Boltzmann's original papers on the statistical interpretation of thermodynamics, the H-theorem, transport theory, thermal equilibrium, the equation of state of gases, and similar subjects, occupy about 2,000 pages in the proceedings of the Vienna Academy and other societies. The term "statistical thermodynamics" was proposed for use by the American thermodynamicist and physical chemist J. Willard Gibbs in 1902. According to Gibbs, the term "statistical", in the context of mechanics, i.e. statistical mechanics, was first used by the Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell in 1871. "Probabilistic mechanics" might today seem a more appropriate term, but "statistical mechanics" is firmly entrenched.[2]

Statistical mechanics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dude, do you seriously think this covers your screw up? Please point to where it states or agrees with what you claimed previously...

You can't we know.. The problem is it doesn't make any such claim. What it does is explain the term.

Now a more logical reason why... The term "statistical" would mean according to, related to,or part of the study of statistics. As in the probabilities of this or that happening or an unviewable oject being such state at a given time. Meaning it's more about the data related to something, rather than the thing itself or what it means. And when that is realized, how can one state a physical law of science, be nothing more than a statistical prbability?

One can't. It's a stupid claim to make..

 

[Abraham3]

Wiki

My thoughts exactly. You have to wonder if they are really this stupid or are being deliberately obtuse. Imagine....thinking that statistics is the actual force that causes energy to transfer from one place to another...and then trying to argue the point in public.

A classic case of not having a clue that one doesn't have a clue.

Imagine being sufficiently stupid as to think that was what was being described.

 

[westwall]

Wiki

My thoughts exactly. You have to wonder if they are really this stupid or are being deliberately obtuse. Imagine....thinking that statistics is the actual force that causes energy to transfer from one place to another...and then trying to argue the point in public.

A classic case of not having a clue that one doesn't have a clue.

Imagine being sufficiently stupid as to think that was what was being described.

Imagine being sufficiently stupid as to post it as a serious link in the first place

 

[SSDD]

Wiki

My thoughts exactly. You have to wonder if they are really this stupid or are being deliberately obtuse. Imagine....thinking that statistics is the actual force that causes energy to transfer from one place to another...and then trying to argue the point in public.

A classic case of not having a clue that one doesn't have a clue.

Imagine being sufficiently stupid as to think that was what was being described.

Read my tag line...what mamooth said is what was being discussed. Sorry you are unable to follow along.

 

[Abraham3]

My thoughts exactly. You have to wonder if they are really this stupid or are being deliberately obtuse. Imagine....thinking that statistics is the actual force that causes energy to transfer from one place to another...and then trying to argue the point in public.

A classic case of not having a clue that one doesn't have a clue.

Imagine being sufficiently stupid as to think that was what was being described.

Read my tag line...what mamooth said is what was being discussed. Sorry you are unable to follow along.

The problem seems to me that you can't see systems and events from different perspectives. I should think that in school you were shown how problems in thermodynamics, electronics, heat transfer, dynamics... just about anything, could be viewed/addressed/solved/dealt with in different manners simply by picking different parameters to work with and/or defining your systems with different boundaries. Statistical thermodynamics comes closest to dealing with the reality of the events and processes of heat transfer systems. For you to laugh at that simply marks your own ignorance.

 

[Abraham3]

Imagine being sufficiently stupid as to post it* as a serious link in the first place:lol

* - Wikipedia on "Statistical Thermodynamics"

How about you identify a SINGLE mistake in this text?

Statistical mechanics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Statistical mechanics or statistical thermodynamics[note 1] is a branch of physics that applies probability theory, which contains mathematical tools for dealing with large populations, to the study of the thermodynamic behavior of systems composed of a large number of particles. Statistical mechanics provides a framework for relating the microscopic properties of individual atoms and molecules to the macroscopic bulk properties of materials that can be observed in everyday life, thereby explaining thermodynamics as a result of the classical- and quantum-mechanical descriptions of statistics and mechanics at the microscopic level.

Statistical mechanics provides a molecular-level interpretation of macroscopic thermodynamic quantities such as work, heat, free energy, and entropy. It enables the thermodynamic properties of bulk materials to be related to the spectroscopic data of individual molecules. This ability to make macroscopic predictions based on microscopic properties is the main advantage of statistical mechanics over classical thermodynamics. Both theories are governed by the second law of thermodynamics through the medium of entropy. However, entropy in thermodynamics can only be known empirically, whereas in statistical mechanics, it is a function of the distribution of the system on its micro-states.

Statistical mechanics was initiated in 1870 with the work of Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann, much of which was collectively published in Boltzmann's 1896 Lectures on Gas Theory.[1] Boltzmann's original papers on the statistical interpretation of thermodynamics, the H-theorem, transport theory, thermal equilibrium, the equation of state of gases, and similar subjects, occupy about 2,000 pages in the proceedings of the Vienna Academy and other societies. The term "statistical thermodynamics" was proposed for use by the American thermodynamicist and physical chemist J. Willard Gibbs in 1902. According to Gibbs, the term "statistical", in the context of mechanics, i.e. statistical mechanics, was first used by the Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell in 1871. "Probabilistic mechanics" might today seem a more appropriate term, but "statistical mechanics" is firmly entrenched.[2]

 

[Beachboy]

Picking up on a point made by Westwall...

Yep, that's why we're winning the war for public opinion. Keep yapping to yourself. I ascribe it to the same sort of behavior that cats do when they are sadly on the verge of passing away and they purr to help themselves. Keep on purring kitty....

I thought it might be worth looking at the REAL numbers...

Nearly two in three Americans (63%) believe global warming is happening. Relatively few – only 16 percent – believe it is not. However, since Fall 2012, the percentage of Americans who believe global warming is happening has dropped 7 points to 63%, likely influenced by the relatively cold winter of 2012-13 in the United States and an unusually cold March just before the survey was conducted.

Those who believe global warming is happening are more certain of their convictions than those who do not. Of the 63% of Americans who believe global warming is happening, most say they are “very” (33%) or “extremely sure” (27%). By contrast, of the unconvinced, fewer are very (28%) or extremely sure of their view (18%).

Global warming is also perceived as a threat to people in developing countries (55%, down 9 points since September 2012, but similar to March 2012), in other modern industrialized countries (53%, down 4 points since September, but up 4 points since March 2012), and in the United States (52%, down 5 points since September, but up 6 points since March 2012).


- See more at: Americans? Global Warming Beliefs and Attitudes in April 2013 | Yale Project on Climate Change Communication

Can we then presume that 16% of Americans do not watch or read any news?

 

[Abraham3]

My thoughts exactly. You have to wonder if they are really this stupid or are being deliberately obtuse. Imagine....thinking that statistics is the actual force that causes energy to transfer from one place to another...and then trying to argue the point in public.

A classic case of not having a clue that one doesn't have a clue.

Imagine... thinking that energy is driven to transfer from one place to another by an "actual force".

A classic case of not having a clue that one doesn't have a clue.

 

[Abraham3]

That assumption certainly applies to you and the rest of you propagandists.

I don't care what YOU think of my knowledge levels. The interesting point is that Boss thinks you and SSDD and GSlack and Toddsterpatriot are all climatic idiots (its one of his favorite words).

Ahhhh yes, the typical collectivist propaganda technique, make a statement that is diametrically opposed to that which was said... You and your fellow clones remind me of the Japanese propaganda machine when Halsey's fleet was operating off of the Okinawan coast... Our losses were two cruisers damaged, the Japanese claim was (IIRC) 53 ships sunk with 16 of them being carriers.....

You clowns suffer from the same level of delusion... Makes me feel good!

The discussion, as clearly shown by the originating quote, was over Boss' comments about people who reject the Greenhouse Effect.

Do try to keep up.

 

[Camp]

Picking up on a point made by Westwall...

Yep, that's why we're winning the war for public opinion. Keep yapping to yourself. I ascribe it to the same sort of behavior that cats do when they are sadly on the verge of passing away and they purr to help themselves. Keep on purring kitty....

I thought it might be worth looking at the REAL numbers...

Nearly two in three Americans (63%) believe global warming is happening. Relatively few – only 16 percent – believe it is not. However, since Fall 2012, the percentage of Americans who believe global warming is happening has dropped 7 points to 63%, likely influenced by the relatively cold winter of 2012-13 in the United States and an unusually cold March just before the survey was conducted.

Those who believe global warming is happening are more certain of their convictions than those who do not. Of the 63% of Americans who believe global warming is happening, most say they are “very” (33%) or “extremely sure” (27%). By contrast, of the unconvinced, fewer are very (28%) or extremely sure of their view (18%).

Global warming is also perceived as a threat to people in developing countries (55%, down 9 points since September 2012, but similar to March 2012), in other modern industrialized countries (53%, down 4 points since September, but up 4 points since March 2012), and in the United States (52%, down 5 points since September, but up 6 points since March 2012).


- See more at: Americans? Global Warming Beliefs and Attitudes in April 2013 | Yale Project on Climate Change Communication

Can we then presume that 16% of Americans do not watch or read any news?

29% of Americans think Big Foot might be real.

 

[gslack]

Imagine being sufficiently stupid as to post it* as a serious link in the first place:lol

* - Wikipedia on "Statistical Thermodynamics"

How about you identify a SINGLE mistake in this text?

Statistical mechanics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Statistical mechanics or statistical thermodynamics[note 1] is a branch of physics that applies probability theory, which contains mathematical tools for dealing with large populations, to the study of the thermodynamic behavior of systems composed of a large number of particles. Statistical mechanics provides a framework for relating the microscopic properties of individual atoms and molecules to the macroscopic bulk properties of materials that can be observed in everyday life, thereby explaining thermodynamics as a result of the classical- and quantum-mechanical descriptions of statistics and mechanics at the microscopic level.

Statistical mechanics provides a molecular-level interpretation of macroscopic thermodynamic quantities such as work, heat, free energy, and entropy. It enables the thermodynamic properties of bulk materials to be related to the spectroscopic data of individual molecules. This ability to make macroscopic predictions based on microscopic properties is the main advantage of statistical mechanics over classical thermodynamics. Both theories are governed by the second law of thermodynamics through the medium of entropy. However, entropy in thermodynamics can only be known empirically, whereas in statistical mechanics, it is a function of the distribution of the system on its micro-states.

Statistical mechanics was initiated in 1870 with the work of Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann, much of which was collectively published in Boltzmann's 1896 Lectures on Gas Theory.[1] Boltzmann's original papers on the statistical interpretation of thermodynamics, the H-theorem, transport theory, thermal equilibrium, the equation of state of gases, and similar subjects, occupy about 2,000 pages in the proceedings of the Vienna Academy and other societies. The term "statistical thermodynamics" was proposed for use by the American thermodynamicist and physical chemist J. Willard Gibbs in 1902. According to Gibbs, the term "statistical", in the context of mechanics, i.e. statistical mechanics, was first used by the Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell in 1871. "Probabilistic mechanics" might today seem a more appropriate term, but "statistical mechanics" is firmly entrenched.[2]

Reposting the same crap, and ignoring my response to it, will only get it re-posted again...

Dude, do you seriously think this covers your screw up? Please point to where it states or agrees with what you claimed previously...

You can't we know.. The problem is it doesn't make any such claim. What it does is explain the term.

Now a more logical reason why... The term "statistical" would mean according to, related to,or part of the study of statistics. As in the probabilities of this or that happening or an unviewable oject being such state at a given time. Meaning it's more about the data related to something, rather than the thing itself or what it means. And when that is realized, how can one state a physical law of science, be nothing more than a statistical prbability?

One can't. It's a stupid claim to make..

If you look up a certain term, like statistical mechanics, what you get is a definition/explanation of that term.. Not an excuse to make any retarded claim you want...

 

[gslack]

My thoughts exactly. You have to wonder if they are really this stupid or are being deliberately obtuse. Imagine....thinking that statistics is the actual force that causes energy to transfer from one place to another...and then trying to argue the point in public.

A classic case of not having a clue that one doesn't have a clue.

Imagine... thinking that energy is driven to transfer from one place to another by an "actual force".

A classic case of not having a clue that one doesn't have a clue.

Classic stupid... And now we know whose sock you are don't we...

LOL, I bet you have a dandy theory on CO2 not breaking down into carbon and oxygen as well... IFITZPMZABRAHAMPOOPIESOCK...

Moron, the very definition of a photon ...

Photon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation, and the force carrier for the electromagnetic force, even when static via virtual photons. The effects of this force are easily observable at both the microscopic and macroscopic level, because the photon has zero rest mass; this allows long distance interactions. Like all elementary particles, photons are currently best explained by quantum mechanics and exhibit wave–particle duality, exhibiting properties of both waves and particles. For example, a single photon may be refracted by a lens or exhibit wave interference with itself, but also act as a particle giving a definite result when its position is measured.

You unbelieveable moron..

 

[Abraham3]

Imagine being sufficiently stupid as to post it* as a serious link in the first place:lol

* - Wikipedia on "Statistical Thermodynamics"

How about you identify a SINGLE mistake in this text?

Statistical mechanics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Statistical mechanics or statistical thermodynamics[note 1] is a branch of physics that applies probability theory, which contains mathematical tools for dealing with large populations, to the study of the thermodynamic behavior of systems composed of a large number of particles. Statistical mechanics provides a framework for relating the microscopic properties of individual atoms and molecules to the macroscopic bulk properties of materials that can be observed in everyday life, thereby explaining thermodynamics as a result of the classical- and quantum-mechanical descriptions of statistics and mechanics at the microscopic level.

Statistical mechanics provides a molecular-level interpretation of macroscopic thermodynamic quantities such as work, heat, free energy, and entropy. It enables the thermodynamic properties of bulk materials to be related to the spectroscopic data of individual molecules. This ability to make macroscopic predictions based on microscopic properties is the main advantage of statistical mechanics over classical thermodynamics. Both theories are governed by the second law of thermodynamics through the medium of entropy. However, entropy in thermodynamics can only be known empirically, whereas in statistical mechanics, it is a function of the distribution of the system on its micro-states.

Statistical mechanics was initiated in 1870 with the work of Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann, much of which was collectively published in Boltzmann's 1896 Lectures on Gas Theory.[1] Boltzmann's original papers on the statistical interpretation of thermodynamics, the H-theorem, transport theory, thermal equilibrium, the equation of state of gases, and similar subjects, occupy about 2,000 pages in the proceedings of the Vienna Academy and other societies. The term "statistical thermodynamics" was proposed for use by the American thermodynamicist and physical chemist J. Willard Gibbs in 1902. According to Gibbs, the term "statistical", in the context of mechanics, i.e. statistical mechanics, was first used by the Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell in 1871. "Probabilistic mechanics" might today seem a more appropriate term, but "statistical mechanics" is firmly entrenched.[2]

You thought it was laughable as a reference. Please show us why... or retract your criticism.

 

[SSDD]

Imagine being sufficiently stupid as to post it* as a serious link in the first place:lol

* - Wikipedia on "Statistical Thermodynamics"

How about you identify a SINGLE mistake in this text?

Statistical mechanics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Statistical mechanics or statistical thermodynamics[note 1] is a branch of physics that applies probability theory, which contains mathematical tools for dealing with large populations, to the study of the thermodynamic behavior of systems composed of a large number of particles. Statistical mechanics provides a framework for relating the microscopic properties of individual atoms and molecules to the macroscopic bulk properties of materials that can be observed in everyday life, thereby explaining thermodynamics as a result of the classical- and quantum-mechanical descriptions of statistics and mechanics at the microscopic level.

Statistical mechanics provides a molecular-level interpretation of macroscopic thermodynamic quantities such as work, heat, free energy, and entropy. It enables the thermodynamic properties of bulk materials to be related to the spectroscopic data of individual molecules. This ability to make macroscopic predictions based on microscopic properties is the main advantage of statistical mechanics over classical thermodynamics. Both theories are governed by the second law of thermodynamics through the medium of entropy. However, entropy in thermodynamics can only be known empirically, whereas in statistical mechanics, it is a function of the distribution of the system on its micro-states.

Statistical mechanics was initiated in 1870 with the work of Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann, much of which was collectively published in Boltzmann's 1896 Lectures on Gas Theory.[1] Boltzmann's original papers on the statistical interpretation of thermodynamics, the H-theorem, transport theory, thermal equilibrium, the equation of state of gases, and similar subjects, occupy about 2,000 pages in the proceedings of the Vienna Academy and other societies. The term "statistical thermodynamics" was proposed for use by the American thermodynamicist and physical chemist J. Willard Gibbs in 1902. According to Gibbs, the term "statistical", in the context of mechanics, i.e. statistical mechanics, was first used by the Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell in 1871. "Probabilistic mechanics" might today seem a more appropriate term, but "statistical mechanics" is firmly entrenched.[2]

You thought it was laughable as a reference. Please show us why... or retract your criticism.

Still trying to save face? Statistics is not a mechanism. It might be used to try to describe a mechanism, but it is not a mechanism.

 

[Abraham3]

* - Wikipedia on "Statistical Thermodynamics"

How about you identify a SINGLE mistake in this text?

Statistical mechanics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Statistical mechanics or statistical thermodynamics[note 1] is a branch of physics that applies probability theory, which contains mathematical tools for dealing with large populations, to the study of the thermodynamic behavior of systems composed of a large number of particles. Statistical mechanics provides a framework for relating the microscopic properties of individual atoms and molecules to the macroscopic bulk properties of materials that can be observed in everyday life, thereby explaining thermodynamics as a result of the classical- and quantum-mechanical descriptions of statistics and mechanics at the microscopic level.

Statistical mechanics provides a molecular-level interpretation of macroscopic thermodynamic quantities such as work, heat, free energy, and entropy. It enables the thermodynamic properties of bulk materials to be related to the spectroscopic data of individual molecules. This ability to make macroscopic predictions based on microscopic properties is the main advantage of statistical mechanics over classical thermodynamics. Both theories are governed by the second law of thermodynamics through the medium of entropy. However, entropy in thermodynamics can only be known empirically, whereas in statistical mechanics, it is a function of the distribution of the system on its micro-states.

Statistical mechanics was initiated in 1870 with the work of Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann, much of which was collectively published in Boltzmann's 1896 Lectures on Gas Theory.[1] Boltzmann's original papers on the statistical interpretation of thermodynamics, the H-theorem, transport theory, thermal equilibrium, the equation of state of gases, and similar subjects, occupy about 2,000 pages in the proceedings of the Vienna Academy and other societies. The term "statistical thermodynamics" was proposed for use by the American thermodynamicist and physical chemist J. Willard Gibbs in 1902. According to Gibbs, the term "statistical", in the context of mechanics, i.e. statistical mechanics, was first used by the Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell in 1871. "Probabilistic mechanics" might today seem a more appropriate term, but "statistical mechanics" is firmly entrenched.[2]

You thought it was laughable as a reference. Please show us why... or retract your criticism.

Still trying to save face? Statistics is not a mechanism. It might be used to try to describe a mechanism, but it is not a mechanism.

And that's all you got? Good grief.

Okay, how about you explain what "actual force" drives photons about?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Picking up on a point made by Westwall...

Yep, that's why we're winning the war for public opinion. Keep yapping to yourself. I ascribe it to the same sort of behavior that cats do when they are sadly on the verge of passing away and they purr to help themselves. Keep on purring kitty....

I thought it might be worth looking at the REAL numbers...

Nearly two in three Americans (63%) believe global warming is happening. Relatively few – only 16 percent – believe it is not. However, since Fall 2012, the percentage of Americans who believe global warming is happening has dropped 7 points to 63%, likely influenced by the relatively cold winter of 2012-13 in the United States and an unusually cold March just before the survey was conducted.

Those who believe global warming is happening are more certain of their convictions than those who do not. Of the 63% of Americans who believe global warming is happening, most say they are “very” (33%) or “extremely sure” (27%). By contrast, of the unconvinced, fewer are very (28%) or extremely sure of their view (18%).

Global warming is also perceived as a threat to people in developing countries (55%, down 9 points since September 2012, but similar to March 2012), in other modern industrialized countries (53%, down 4 points since September, but up 4 points since March 2012), and in the United States (52%, down 5 points since September, but up 6 points since March 2012).


- See more at: Americans? Global Warming Beliefs and Attitudes in April 2013 | Yale Project on Climate Change Communication

STOP wetting yourself.

I DO believe in climate change.

I just don't believe it's MAN-MADE.

So fuck yourself.

You have NEVER been able to prove the "A" in "AGW."

And you never will.

But the climate?

That shit changes ALL the fucking time.

You asshole.