The counterproductive and neurotic omnipresence of IBDaMann in this forum

Third world guy wrote:
This forum allows us all to propose theories, refute them, understand and learn about what is understood as Climate Change, its possible consequences, and political, social and economic interactions.

Third world guy wrote:
Unfortunately, IBDaMann always appears to distort any opinion.

Third world guy wrote:
I wonder what his motivations are. Show us his intelligence? Show us his knowledge? Impose a way of thinking? Solve some kind of neurosis?

Third world guy wrote:
I agree with him in almost everything about the climate, but not in the neurotic attitude with which IBDaMann tries to impose his way of thinking.

Third world guy wrote:
Imagine being a few days without his presence in this forum. What would happen?

Third world guy wrote:
Would we lose ourselves in ignorance? Would we become believers of what he calls a religion?

Third world guy wrote:
I invite IBDaMann to take a few days off to meditate on his attitude, and allow others to enjoy his absence.

Third world guy wrote:
I wonder what his motivations are.

Into the Night wrote:My motivations are to show how science disagrees with the Church of Global Warming, ...

tmiddles wrote:

Third world guy wrote:
I wonder what his motivations are.

If you can't win an argument with a counter argument, another options is to not have a counter argument at all.

tmiddles wrote:
Then you can proceed to simply raise reasonable doubt about the argument you want to defeat.

tmiddles wrote:
So for example we do KNOW that the Earth is warmer that is should be.

tmiddles wrote:
We KNOW that Venus is also FAR FAR warmer than it should be.

tmiddles wrote:
(should be if atmospheres have no influence, the Moon being about as warm as it should be).

tmiddles wrote:
The ITN/IBD response to this is not an alternative explanation as to why,

tmiddles wrote:
but the unsubstantiated claim that we don't know at all.

tmiddles wrote:
The reason is because if they had to explain why they would lose the debate.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:My motivations are to show how science disagrees with the Church of Global Warming, ...

Note that ITN even admits that it is not his goal to show how there is a coherent explanation for the way things work that is superior to those presented by others.

tmiddles wrote:
Also it has been clearly shown by yours truly that ITN has completely manufactured his own private 2nd LTD as well as his definition for science and just about everything he claims has been established (in my sig).

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

Third world guy wrote:
I wonder what his motivations are.

If you can't win an argument with a counter argument, another options is to not have a counter argument at all.

Maybe you should actually provide counter arguments instead of spending your time insulting people be asking repetitive questions that have already been answered.

tmiddles wrote:
Then you can proceed to simply raise reasonable doubt about the argument you want to defeat.

You have not presented any arguments other than the usual preaching for the Church of Global Warming.
...deleted irrelevant material...

tmiddles wrote:
So for example we do KNOW that the Earth is warmer that is should be.

There is no 'should be'. Earth is as warm as it is...period.

tmiddles wrote:
We KNOW that Venus is also FAR FAR warmer than it should be.

There is no 'should be'.

tmiddles wrote:
(should be if atmospheres have no influence, the Moon being about as warm as it should be).

There is no 'should be'. The temperature of Venus, the Moon, and the Earth are unknown.

tmiddles wrote:
The ITN/IBD response to this is not an alternative explanation as to why,

Why what? Void argument fallacy.

tmiddles wrote:
but the unsubstantiated claim that we don't know at all.

You don't. We have already shown you why. RQAA. RDCF.

tmiddles wrote:
The reason is because if they had to explain why they would lose the debate.

What debate. You are here to preach, not debate.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:My motivations are to show how science disagrees with the Church of Global Warming, ...

Note that ITN even admits that it is not his goal to show how there is a coherent explanation for the way things work that is superior to those presented by others.

You have not provided ANY explanation for how anything works.

tmiddles wrote:
Also it has been clearly shown by yours truly that ITN has completely manufactured his own private 2nd LTD as well as his definition for science and just about everything he claims has been established (in my sig).

I didn't write the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You just want to deny it along with any other science.

Into the Night wrote:
Maybe you should actually provide counter arguments

Into the Night wrote:
There is no 'should be'. Earth is as warm as it is...period.

Into the Night wrote:The temperature of Venus, the Moon, and the Earth are unknown.

Into the Night wrote:
You have not provided ANY explanation for how anything works.

Into the Night wrote:
I didn't write the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Third world guy wrote:


When I say that I practically agree with everything IBDaMann exposes, it is because I do, including what he refers to as the Church or Religion of Global Warming.
.

James___ wrote:Ever hear of the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age? ibdm is right, the Earth's climate does not change. I am glad that ibdm cleared that up

Third world guy wrote:Everyone can learn and it is a matter of respect.

IBdaMann wrote:
... how it would have been better worded. .

tmiddles wrote:A shorter sig IBD?

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
... how it would have been better worded. .

I would beg everyone to make their posts no longer than needed.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Maybe you should actually provide counter arguments

I should provide counter arguments to my own argument because you won't?

tmiddles wrote:
So I say that atmospheres do have a dramatic effect on ground level temperature as with Venus, you claim they don't without offering an explanation and where exactly am I not doing my part?

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
There is no 'should be'. Earth is as warm as it is...period.

It's called the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. That's the "should be" here.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:The temperature of Venus, the Moon, and the Earth are unknown.

Uh you left out Denver

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
You have not provided ANY explanation for how anything works.

Here: Do I have the CO2 calamity math right? Oh and don't forget the one you'll always run from: NET THERMAL RADIATION : You in a room as a reference.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
I didn't write the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

And in the ITN/IBD commitment to bookless learning you can't say one place where it is written as you claim!

Third world guy wrote:
Into the Night:

When I say that I practically agree with everything IBDaMann exposes, it is because I do, including what he refers to as the Church or Religion of Global Warming.

In what I differ is in his attitude of systematically destroying the issues with interventions that could be considered hostile, also denying freedom of belief and expression.

Third world guy wrote:
I don't dislike reading what people who think differently from me. Everyone can learn and it is a matter of respect.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Some people argue, because they enjoy arguing. The arguments keep going in around in endless circles. I tend to stay out of these, since I don't really enjoy arguing. The only reason to complain about an argument, you've been enjoy, would be you ran out of material, or are getting tired/bored, running around in circles. I get bored easy, so I seldom make it through the second lap, around the track.

The religion/cult analogy works, because there is really only one data set/historic temperature readings. Only one sample to analyze. It does't go back all that far, nor is it complete, accurate, or consistent. It's far from perfect, but it's absolutely the best we can ever get, until we can travel through time. Consider that keeping an official temperature record started in 1886, not sure how many hundreds of monitoring stations or where they were placed around the world. Now, we have hundreds of thousands of monitoring stations. The original intent of the monitoring stations were to aid in weather forecasting, and stations were placed mainly where weather conditions were of the greatest concern. Collecting data to track global warming, didn't come until much later in the game. Hurricanes were always a huge, seasonal concern, so there was, and still is a focus on measuring temperature and weather in the tropics. More monitoring stations added in tropical locations, would of course, raise the global average temperature. There is no independent data set, just the one 'bible', to work with.

Those that 'believe' are treated with respect, and rewarded (grants/subsidies). Those that don't are ridiculed and punished. The believers are the saviors of the world, deniers are planet killers. You follow the IPCC, and are rewarded with a clean, green, planet, 'heaven', or you deny, and we all are going to die a fiery, horrible death, 'hell'. It's faith based, it's fear based, it's a cult. They have a set of signs of the approaching Apocalypse, any form of ice melting, heat waves, severe storms, wildfire, and many other things too horrible to mention. Unfortunately, these signs, have be going on, basically forever, least long before we burned the evil black goo. Some of those were actually much worse in the past. Many of those signs were used in ancient religions/cults as well, to compel mass suicide. Which is similar to the economic ruin we face, by completely ending the use of fossil fuels, in a few decades.

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Some people argue, because they enjoy arguing. The arguments keep going in around in endless circles. I tend to stay out of these, since I don't really enjoy arguing. The only reason to complain about an argument, you've been enjoy, would be you ran out of material, or are getting tired/bored, running around in circles. I get bored easy, so I seldom make it through the second lap, around the track.

The religion/cult analogy works, because there is really only one data set/historic temperature readings. Only one sample to analyze. It does't go back all that far, nor is it complete, accurate, or consistent. It's far from perfect, but it's absolutely the best we can ever get, until we can travel through time. Consider that keeping an official temperature record started in 1886, not sure how many hundreds of monitoring stations or where they were placed around the world. Now, we have hundreds of thousands of monitoring stations. The original intent of the monitoring stations were to aid in weather forecasting, and stations were placed mainly where weather conditions were of the greatest concern. Collecting data to track global warming, didn't come until much later in the game. Hurricanes were always a huge, seasonal concern, so there was, and still is a focus on measuring temperature and weather in the tropics. More monitoring stations added in tropical locations, would of course, raise the global average temperature. There is no independent data set, just the one 'bible', to work with.

Those that 'believe' are treated with respect, and rewarded (grants/subsidies). Those that don't are ridiculed and punished. The believers are the saviors of the world, deniers are planet killers. You follow the IPCC, and are rewarded with a clean, green, planet, 'heaven', or you deny, and we all are going to die a fiery, horrible death, 'hell'. It's faith based, it's fear based, it's a cult. They have a set of signs of the approaching Apocalypse, any form of ice melting, heat waves, severe storms, wildfire, and many other things too horrible to mention. Unfortunately, these signs, have be going on, basically forever, least long before we burned the evil black goo. Some of those were actually much worse in the past. Many of those signs were used in ancient religions/cults as well, to compel mass suicide. Which is similar to the economic ruin we face, by completely ending the use of fossil fuels, in a few decades.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, even today. There never was such a dataset at all.

We just don't have anywhere near enough thermometers.

Into the Night wrote:
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, even today. There never was such a dataset at all.

We just don't have anywhere near enough thermometers.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, even today. There never was such a dataset at all.

We just don't have anywhere near enough thermometers.

There you go shutting down the debate again.

OK guys, instead of accusing ITN and IBN of whacky shit, why don't you discuss this?

I happen to agree that there are issues prohibiting a valid data set.

1. Number of thermometers.

2. Spacing of thermometers.

3. Time and frequency of thermometer reading.

4. Location of thermometers.

Can we get a rough idea? Maybe...margin of error?

spot wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, even today. There never was such a dataset at all.

We just don't have anywhere near enough thermometers.

There you go shutting down the debate again.

OK guys, instead of accusing ITN and IBN of whacky shit, why don't you discuss this?

I happen to agree that there are issues prohibiting a valid data set.

1. Number of thermometers.

2. Spacing of thermometers.

3. Time and frequency of thermometer reading.

4. Location of thermometers.

Can we get a rough idea? Maybe...margin of error?

They think Denver is hotter then Venus, thats pretty whacky.

GasGuzzler wrote:

spot wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, even today. There never was such a dataset at all.

We just don't have anywhere near enough thermometers.

There you go shutting down the debate again.

OK guys, instead of accusing ITN and IBN of whacky shit, why don't you discuss this?

I happen to agree that there are issues prohibiting a valid data set.

1. Number of thermometers.

2. Spacing of thermometers.

3. Time and frequency of thermometer reading.

4. Location of thermometers.

Can we get a rough idea? Maybe...margin of error?

They think Denver is hotter then Venus, thats pretty whacky.

I don't remember either of them saying that. Can you get a quote please?

spot wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

spot wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, even today. There never was such a dataset at all.

We just don't have anywhere near enough thermometers.

There you go shutting down the debate again.

OK guys, instead of accusing ITN and IBN of whacky shit, why don't you discuss this?

I happen to agree that there are issues prohibiting a valid data set.

1. Number of thermometers.

2. Spacing of thermometers.

3. Time and frequency of thermometer reading.

4. Location of thermometers.

Can we get a rough idea? Maybe...margin of error?

They think Denver is hotter then Venus, thats pretty whacky.

I don't remember either of them saying that. Can you get a quote please?

Can you quote them denying it can you quote them giving a coherent alternative explanation for anything they are challenged on.

GasGuzzler wrote:

spot wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

spot wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, even today. There never was such a dataset at all.

We just don't have anywhere near enough thermometers.

There you go shutting down the debate again.

OK guys, instead of accusing ITN and IBN of whacky shit, why don't you discuss this?

I happen to agree that there are issues prohibiting a valid data set.

1. Number of thermometers.

2. Spacing of thermometers.

3. Time and frequency of thermometer reading.

4. Location of thermometers.

Can we get a rough idea? Maybe...margin of error?

They think Denver is hotter then Venus, thats pretty whacky.

I don't remember either of them saying that. Can you get a quote please?

Can you quote them denying it can you quote them giving a coherent alternative explanation for anything they are challenged on.

So you can't do it? Duly noted.

spot wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

spot wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

spot wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, even today. There never was such a dataset at all.

We just don't have anywhere near enough thermometers.

There you go shutting down the debate again.

OK guys, instead of accusing ITN and IBN of whacky shit, why don't you discuss this?

I happen to agree that there are issues prohibiting a valid data set.

1. Number of thermometers.

2. Spacing of thermometers.

3. Time and frequency of thermometer reading.

4. Location of thermometers.

Can we get a rough idea? Maybe...margin of error?

They think Denver is hotter then Venus, thats pretty whacky.

I don't remember either of them saying that. Can you get a quote please?

Can you quote them denying it can you quote them giving a coherent alternative explanation for anything they are challenged on.

So you can't do it? Duly noted.

You can remember them ever claiming that you can't measure temperature?

spot wrote:

spot wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

spot wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

spot wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, even today. There never was such a dataset at all.

We just don't have anywhere near enough thermometers.

There you go shutting down the debate again.

OK guys, instead of accusing ITN and IBN of whacky shit, why don't you discuss this?

I happen to agree that there are issues prohibiting a valid data set.

1. Number of thermometers.

2. Spacing of thermometers.

3. Time and frequency of thermometer reading.

4. Location of thermometers.

Can we get a rough idea? Maybe...margin of error?

They think Denver is hotter then Venus, thats pretty whacky.

I don't remember either of them saying that. Can you get a quote please?

Can you quote them denying it can you quote them giving a coherent alternative explanation for anything they are challenged on.

So you can't do it? Duly noted.

You can remember them ever claiming that you can't measure temperature?

You do know that there is a thread devoted to this, the next one down at time of writing and middles has asked them about venus and denver.

GasGuzzler wrote:

spot wrote:

spot wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

spot wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

spot wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, even today. There never was such a dataset at all.

We just don't have anywhere near enough thermometers.

There you go shutting down the debate again.

OK guys, instead of accusing ITN and IBN of whacky shit, why don't you discuss this?

I happen to agree that there are issues prohibiting a valid data set.

1. Number of thermometers.

2. Spacing of thermometers.

3. Time and frequency of thermometer reading.

4. Location of thermometers.

Can we get a rough idea? Maybe...margin of error?

They think Denver is hotter then Venus, thats pretty whacky.

I don't remember either of them saying that. Can you get a quote please?

Can you quote them denying it can you quote them giving a coherent alternative explanation for anything they are challenged on.

So you can't do it? Duly noted.

You can remember them ever claiming that you can't measure temperature?

You do know that there is a thread devoted to this, the next one down at time of writing and middles has asked them about venus and denver.

Then it should be quite easy for you to back your claim, unless it wasn't true. Is that even possible?

GasGuzzler wrote:

spot wrote:

spot wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

spot wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

spot wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, even today. There never was such a dataset at all.

We just don't have anywhere near enough thermometers.

There you go shutting down the debate again.

OK guys, instead of accusing ITN and IBN of whacky shit, why don't you discuss this?

I happen to agree that there are issues prohibiting a valid data set.

1. Number of thermometers.

2. Spacing of thermometers.

3. Time and frequency of thermometer reading.

4. Location of thermometers.

Can we get a rough idea? Maybe...margin of error?

They think Denver is hotter then Venus, thats pretty whacky.

I don't remember either of them saying that. Can you get a quote please?

Can you quote them denying it can you quote them giving a coherent alternative explanation for anything they are challenged on.

So you can't do it? Duly noted.

You can remember them ever claiming that you can't measure temperature?

You do know that there is a thread devoted to this, the next one down at time of writing and middles has asked them about venus and denver.

Then it should be quite easy for you to back your claim, unless it wasn't true. Is that even possible?

spot wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

spot wrote:

spot wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

spot wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

spot wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, even today. There never was such a dataset at all.

We just don't have anywhere near enough thermometers.

There you go shutting down the debate again.

OK guys, instead of accusing ITN and IBN of whacky shit, why don't you discuss this?

I happen to agree that there are issues prohibiting a valid data set.

1. Number of thermometers.

2. Spacing of thermometers.

3. Time and frequency of thermometer reading.

4. Location of thermometers.

Can we get a rough idea? Maybe...margin of error?

They think Denver is hotter then Venus, thats pretty whacky.

I don't remember either of them saying that. Can you get a quote please?

Can you quote them denying it can you quote them giving a coherent alternative explanation for anything they are challenged on.

So you can't do it? Duly noted.

You can remember them ever claiming that you can't measure temperature?

You do know that there is a thread devoted to this, the next one down at time of writing and middles has asked them about venus and denver.

Then it should be quite easy for you to back your claim, unless it wasn't true. Is that even possible?

I must be going mad then. Yes those two are reasonable, it's just every scientist in the last 200 years doesn't understand basic thermodynamics. How could I have missed that.

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Some people argue, because they enjoy arguing. The arguments keep going in around in endless circles. I tend to stay out of these, since I don't really enjoy arguing. The only reason to complain about an argument, you've been enjoy, would be you ran out of material, or are getting tired/bored, running around in circles. I get bored easy, so I seldom make it through the second lap, around the track.

The religion/cult analogy works, because there is really only one data set/historic temperature readings. Only one sample to analyze. It does't go back all that far, nor is it complete, accurate, or consistent. It's far from perfect, but it's absolutely the best we can ever get, until we can travel through time. Consider that keeping an official temperature record started in 1886, not sure how many hundreds of monitoring stations or where they were placed around the world. Now, we have hundreds of thousands of monitoring stations. The original intent of the monitoring stations were to aid in weather forecasting, and stations were placed mainly where weather conditions were of the greatest concern. Collecting data to track global warming, didn't come until much later in the game. Hurricanes were always a huge, seasonal concern, so there was, and still is a focus on measuring temperature and weather in the tropics. More monitoring stations added in tropical locations, would of course, raise the global average temperature. There is no independent data set, just the one 'bible', to work with.

Those that 'believe' are treated with respect, and rewarded (grants/subsidies). Those that don't are ridiculed and punished. The believers are the saviors of the world, deniers are planet killers. You follow the IPCC, and are rewarded with a clean, green, planet, 'heaven', or you deny, and we all are going to die a fiery, horrible death, 'hell'. It's faith based, it's fear based, it's a cult. They have a set of signs of the approaching Apocalypse, any form of ice melting, heat waves, severe storms, wildfire, and many other things too horrible to mention. Unfortunately, these signs, have be going on, basically forever, least long before we burned the evil black goo. Some of those were actually much worse in the past. Many of those signs were used in ancient religions/cults as well, to compel mass suicide. Which is similar to the economic ruin we face, by completely ending the use of fossil fuels, in a few decades.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, even today. There never was such a dataset at all.

We just don't have anywhere near enough thermometers.

Nor is it possible to measure your exact hight its constantly changing but it's very possible to get a useful number.

spot wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, even today. There never was such a dataset at all.

We just don't have anywhere near enough thermometers.

There you go shutting down the debate again.

OK guys, instead of accusing ITN and IBN of whacky shit, why don't you discuss this?

I happen to agree that there are issues prohibiting a valid data set.

1. Number of thermometers.

2. Spacing of thermometers.

3. Time and frequency of thermometer reading.

4. Location of thermometers.

Can we get a rough idea? Maybe...margin of error?

They think Denver is hotter then Venus, thats pretty whacky.

spot wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

spot wrote:

spot wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

spot wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

spot wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, even today. There never was such a dataset at all.

We just don't have anywhere near enough thermometers.

There you go shutting down the debate again.

OK guys, instead of accusing ITN and IBN of whacky shit, why don't you discuss this?

I happen to agree that there are issues prohibiting a valid data set.

1. Number of thermometers.

2. Spacing of thermometers.

3. Time and frequency of thermometer reading.

4. Location of thermometers.

Can we get a rough idea? Maybe...margin of error?

They think Denver is hotter then Venus, thats pretty whacky.

I don't remember either of them saying that. Can you get a quote please?

Can you quote them denying it can you quote them giving a coherent alternative explanation for anything they are challenged on.

So you can't do it? Duly noted.

You can remember them ever claiming that you can't measure temperature?

You do know that there is a thread devoted to this, the next one down at time of writing and middles has asked them about venus and denver.

Then it should be quite easy for you to back your claim, unless it wasn't true. Is that even possible?

I must be going mad then. Yes those two are reasonable, it's just every scientist in the last 200 years doesn't understand basic thermodynamics. How could I have missed that.

spot wrote: I must be going mad then.

spot wrote: ... it's just every scientist in the last 200 years doesn't understand basic thermodynamics.

Into the Night wrote:

You've gone mad. You think you can speak for every scientist in the last 200 years.

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote: You've gone mad. You think you can speak for every scientist in the last 200 years.

No they have spoken for themselves

IBdaMann wrote:

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote: You've gone mad. You think you can speak for every scientist in the last 200 years.

No they have spoken for themselves

Close but no cigar. It needs to be in the present tense. They need to speak for themselves. They need to be present in this forum so as to be cross examined. Otherwise, no one else gets to pretend to speak for them.


.

spot wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote: You've gone mad. You think you can speak for every scientist in the last 200 years.

No they have spoken for themselves

Close but no cigar. It needs to be in the present tense. They need to speak for themselves. They need to be present in this forum so as to be cross examined. Otherwise, no one else gets to pretend to speak for them.


.

I think they have better things to do then talk to you ****wits

spot wrote:I think they have better things to do then talk to you ****wits