An open letter to all members of Climate-debate.com

Into the Night wrote:
I've noticed the Kiddie Pool has been rather quiet since it was built.

trafn wrote:
@Into the Night - you wrote It doesn't matter who owns the site or anything else they may stand for.

In this day of misinformation, spin, and re-framing the issue for political and monetary gain, who owns the site is of key interest.

Ceist wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Ceist wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Into the Night wrote:I've noticed the Kiddie Pool has been rather quiet since it was built.

There is a topic there about over population.

If a thread about killing loads of humans is not instantly trolling what the hell is?

There is no over population problem at all. The more humans the more ability to grow food we have. Propagating this drivel is just evil.

Check out this set of videos;

https://overpopulationisamyth.com/

Tim, were you aware that the website you are propagating is run by a 'pro-life' religious group which campaigns against contraception and abortion? Their content is not based on published research. It's pseudoscience propaganda.

Spreading anti-contraception religious propaganda (eg lying about the effectiveness of condoms) played a big role in spreading HIV in poverty- stricken countries as well as increasing poverty. They also campaign against vaccinations.

This is a classic case of poisoning the well, are at the least, bulverism. I have examined the sight and do not find any problem with it's data sources, it's reasoning, or it's conclusions. It doesn't matter who owns the site or anything else they may stand for.

Remember, I am picky about where quoted data comes from. In all cases on this site, the data they use is substantiated, verifiable, sources quoted, methodology explained, etc.

Even a cursory examination of their claims shows it's not an evidence-based website using valid scientific research. PRI are religiously motivated zealots who disagree with the use of contraception as well as abortion and vaccinations. It's not difficult to find out who they are and what they do.

Ceist wrote:
Considering the fact that you have shown in your posts that you reject basic physics and mainstream science about even the natural 'greenhouse' effect, I question your ability to understand the difference between evidence-based science and evidence-free religious pseudoscience propaganda.

Ceist wrote:
If you want to reference religious websites to support your religious/ideological beliefs that's fine, but don't try to pass it off as an authoritative science source and not expect to get called on it.

Into the Night wrote:
I reject the nonscience of greenhouse gas warming the Earth. You have not provided any evidence to support it other than fudged or manufactured data.

Ceist wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
I reject the nonscience of greenhouse gas warming the Earth. You have not provided any evidence to support it other than fudged or manufactured data.

Like I said, your statements show you are incapable of telling the difference between crackpot pseudoscience nonsense and evidence-based science. They also show evidence of conspiracy ideation where all the scientists in the world MUST have some massive evil plot to 'fudge data' because you don't like what science is clearly saying.

I'll leave you to play with cherry-picked 'numbers' in your own little infants pool thread: I'll refer to it as the The Rabbit Hole, where crackpot conspiracy theorists and lay people who have no clue about science can dive down a hole and pretend the real world doesn't exist. It's a special place where no science and no evidence is required, and where one can believe '6 impossible things before breakfast' while mathturbating with 'numbers' because they don't really even know what to do with them.

Into the Night wrote:

Ceist wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
I reject the nonscience of greenhouse gas warming the Earth. You have not provided any evidence to support it other than fudged or manufactured data.

Like I said, your statements show you are incapable of telling the difference between crackpot pseudoscience nonsense and evidence-based science. They also show evidence of conspiracy ideation where all the scientists in the world MUST have some massive evil plot to 'fudge data' because you don't like what science is clearly saying.

I'll leave you to play with cherry-picked 'numbers' in your own little infants pool thread: I'll refer to it as the The Rabbit Hole, where crackpot conspiracy theorists and lay people who have no clue about science can dive down a hole and pretend the real world doesn't exist. It's a special place where no science and no evidence is required, and where one can believe '6 impossible things before breakfast' while mathturbating with 'numbers' because they don't really even know what to do with them.

You seem to be trying to justify fudging data. You also seem to be trying to justify manufactured data.

Meh. Leave the Data Mine then. Nothing there interests you.

Ceist wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Into the Night wrote:I've noticed the Kiddie Pool has been rather quiet since it was built.

There is a topic there about over population.

If a thread about killing loads of humans is not instantly trolling what the hell is?

There is no over population problem at all. The more humans the more ability to grow food we have. Propagating this drivel is just evil.

Check out this set of videos;

https://overpopulationisamyth.com/

Tim, were you aware that the website you are propagating is run by a 'pro-life' religious group which campaigns against contraception and abortion? Their content is not based on published research. It's pseudoscience propaganda.

Spreading anti-contraception religious propaganda (eg lying about the effectiveness of condoms) played a big role in spreading HIV in poverty- stricken countries as well as increasing poverty. They also campaign against vaccinations.

trafn wrote:
@Tim the plumber - given what Ceist just posted, I wonder, are you pro-life?

If so, does that in any way influence your comments that you make here?

trafn wrote:
@Into the Night - you wrote It doesn't matter who owns the site or anything else they may stand for.

In this day of misinformation, spin, and re-framing the issue for political and monetary gain, who owns the site is of key interest.

Ceist wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

If it's shared ideas then people will comment upon each other's ideas. This will mean that ideas you don't like you will comment upon negatively. This will upset some.

I propose a better sub-forum title would be ecco chamber. [/color]

Speaking of Echo chambers: Have you noticed that the anti-science views you cling to seem to be just an Echo of the views of the anti-science evangelical Cornwall Alliance against Global Warming, and Roy Spencer who is a board member?

Is Roy your messiah against the 'evil scientists' of mainstream science?

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/2009/05/01/evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/

Tim the plumber wrote:

Ceist wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

If it's shared ideas then people will comment upon each other's ideas. This will mean that ideas you don't like you will comment upon negatively. This will upset some.

I propose a better sub-forum title would be ecco chamber. [/color]

Speaking of Echo chambers: Have you noticed that the anti-science views you cling to seem to be just an Echo of the views of the anti-science evangelical Cornwall Alliance against Global Warming, and Roy Spencer who is a board member?

Is Roy your messiah against the 'evil scientists' of mainstream science?

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/2009/05/01/evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/

Attacking the people rather than the argument presented is a sure sign that you kno wthat you have lost the argument.

Tim the plumber wrote:

trafn wrote:
@Into the Night - you wrote It doesn't matter who owns the site or anything else they may stand for.

In this day of misinformation, spin, and re-framing the issue for political and monetary gain, who owns the site is of key interest.

It may be of interest but it is utterly irrelivant to the valididty of the argument.

You just don't get the idea of science do you?

Tim the plumber wrote:

trafn wrote:
@Tim the plumber - given what Ceist just posted, I wonder, are you pro-life?

If so, does that in any way influence your comments that you make here?

I am an atheist. I am in favor of reasonable abortion availibility. I find the system in the UK fine. I find that it is only the USA where this topic is central to public debate.

Ceist wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

trafn wrote:
@Into the Night - you wrote It doesn't matter who owns the site or anything else they may stand for.

In this day of misinformation, spin, and re-framing the issue for political and monetary gain, who owns the site is of key interest.

It may be of interest but it is utterly irrelivant to the valididty of the argument.

You just don't get the idea of science do you?

Science requires research and evidence. That religious website does not base it's claims on research and evidence. You just don't get the idea of science do you?

Do you agree with PRI, the website owners, that condoms and any form of contraception or birth control is 'evil' and will undermine people's belief in God and the Catholic Church? Especially in poverty stricken countries where HIV is rampant amongst the poorest least educated people?

Ceist wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

trafn wrote:
@Tim the plumber - given what Ceist just posted, I wonder, are you pro-life?

If so, does that in any way influence your comments that you make here?

I am an atheist. I am in favor of reasonable abortion availibility. I find the system in the UK fine. I find that it is only the USA where this topic is central to public debate.

Well isn't it curious that the only place you could find to support your views on population was a religious propaganda website run by a US based religious "pro-life" activist group who are against the use of condoms or any form of contraception or birth control because of their religious beliefs. Want to try again?

Next time with a valid science-based source?

The UK? So is Nigel Lawson your 'messiah' or perhaps the potty peer Lord Christopher Monckton?

(hey you were the one to use the word 'messiah' first- just putting it back atcha)

The world population is now estimated at 7.2 billion. But with current industrial technologies, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations has estimated that the more than nine billion people expected by 2050 as the population nears its peak could be supported as long as necessary investments in infrastructure and conducive trade, anti-poverty and food security policies are in place. Who knows what will be possible with the technologies of the future? The important message from these rough numbers should be clear. There really is no such thing as a human carrying capacity. We are nothing at all like bacteria in a petri dish.

Ceist wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Ceist wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
I reject the nonscience of greenhouse gas warming the Earth. You have not provided any evidence to support it other than fudged or manufactured data.

Like I said, your statements show you are incapable of telling the difference between crackpot pseudoscience nonsense and evidence-based science. They also show evidence of conspiracy ideation where all the scientists in the world MUST have some massive evil plot to 'fudge data' because you don't like what science is clearly saying.

I'll leave you to play with cherry-picked 'numbers' in your own little infants pool thread: I'll refer to it as the The Rabbit Hole, where crackpot conspiracy theorists and lay people who have no clue about science can dive down a hole and pretend the real world doesn't exist. It's a special place where no science and no evidence is required, and where one can believe '6 impossible things before breakfast' while mathturbating with 'numbers' because they don't really even know what to do with them.

You seem to be trying to justify fudging data. You also seem to be trying to justify manufactured data.

Meh. Leave the Data Mine then. Nothing there interests you.

Zealous religious or political ideological beliefs combined with ignorance seems to lead to even more ideologically induced stupidity, extreme confirmation bias, and crackpot conspiracy ideation. For example, the conspiracy ideation that thousands of scientists all over the world are involved in a massive conspiracy to 'fudge' or manufacture data'. I find that interesting.

trafn wrote:Care to tell us what your background in "science" is?

trafn wrote:
@Into the Night - you wrote Show me the instrumentation that was used and how it was calibrated. All the data I have shown has met this.

So you put a bunch of number in a post that you copied from somewhere else. Big deal.

trafn wrote:
How do you know they were properly calibrated. Just cause someone told you so?

trafn wrote:
Perhaps you should take the time to go to the actual place where your "data" samples were taken and check them for yourself. Given your OCD adherence to rules, I think this would be fitting.

trafn wrote:
@Into the night - you wrote The supporting data is verifiable.

So verify it.

Oh wait, you can't. Sorry.

trafn wrote:
@Into the Night - you wrote The CIA World Factbook.....

Now there's a source of data I'd always trust - especially if I wanted to know about how to assassinate someone.

Got any more wholly unbiased data sources, boy genius?

trafn wrote:
@Into the Night - you wrote I've been to Mauna Loa. I've installed equipment for them.

So let me get this straight. You mean that after you flunked out of high school, that you actually managed to pass an introduction to electronics class at some vocational training program and then were actually hired by someone? Obviously, a vacuum tube* blew out in a piece of equipment which they had sold to the lab at Mauna Loa, so they flew you, electronic boy genius, out by DC-10 to save the day. And hooray, you were actually able to find the broken vacuum tube (you know, the one with the char marks all over the inside of its glass dome) and you replaced it with a new vacuum tube (you know, the one with no char marks) and then you got back on that DC-10 and flew home to the same roach-infested, trailer park double-wide where you still live today.

So tell us, got any more CV material we can get a good chuckle over?

trafn wrote:
@Into the Night - you wrote I've been to Mauna Loa. I've installed equipment for them.

So let me get this straight. You mean that after you flunked out of high school, that you actually managed to pass an introduction to electronics class at some vocational training program and then were actually hired by someone? Obviously, a vacuum tube* blew out in a piece of equipment which they had sold to the lab at Mauna Loa, so they flew you, electronic boy genius, out by DC-10 to save the day. And hooray, you were actually able to find the broken vacuum tube (you know, the one with the char marks all over the inside of its glass dome) and you replaced it with a new vacuum tube (you know, the one with no char marks) and then you got back on that DC-10 and flew home to the same roach-infested, trailer park double-wide where you still live today.

So tell us, got any more CV material we can get a good chuckle over?

* - for those of you who don't remember, or never knew, what a vacuum tube is, have a look:

trafn wrote:
@Into the Night - you wrote The CIA World Factbook.....

Now there's a source of data I'd always trust - especially if I wanted to know about how to assassinate someone.

Got any more wholly unbiased data sources, boy genius?

trafn wrote:
@IBdaMann - you wrote I don't think anyone cares who you trust; that's just a reflection on you. Can you find anything inaccurate in the CIA World Factbook?

I value people for what they do best. The CIA is the premier assassins network on Earth. You wanna kill someone, they're the guys to go to. For everything else, they're second best, at best.

You, obviously are quite the CIA admirer. Are you a DoD (Department of Defense) person by any chance?

If so, is that why you won't tell us anything about yourself?

Why not? You're not posting here on their time and computers, are you?

If so, do they know?

Oops, they know now!

trafn wrote:
@IBdaMann - you wrote I don't think anyone cares who you trust; that's just a reflection on you. Can you find anything inaccurate in the CIA World Factbook?

I value people for what they do best. The CIA is the premier assassins network on Earth. You wanna kill someone, they're the guys to go to. For everything else, they're second best, at best.

You, obviously are quite the CIA admirer. Are you a DoD (Department of Defense) person by any chance?

If so, is that why you won't tell us anything about yourself?

Why not? You're not posting here on their time and computers, are you?

If so, do they know?

Oops, they know now!