Remember me
▼ Content

Tipping point



Page 5 of 5<<<345
12-11-2015 01:36
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3531)
Ceist wrote: I don't believe in imaginary deities, dude.

You believe in a Holy Trinity: "Climate" The Father, Global Warming the Son, and the Holy Scientists, Amen.

...or don't you?

Does "climate" change in mysterious ways?


Ceist wrote: Learn some science and how to back up your claims with evidence from valid sources, dude.


I notice that cling fiercely to the standard religious position of insisting on supporting "evidence" from vetted clergy (i.e. valid sources) and don't want any of that threatening science stuff.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-11-2015 02:34
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7664)
IBdaMann wrote:
Ceist wrote: I don't believe in imaginary deities, dude.

You believe in a Holy Trinity: "Climate" The Father, Global Warming the Son, and the Holy Scientists, Amen.

...or don't you?

Does "climate" change in mysterious ways?


Ceist wrote: Learn some science and how to back up your claims with evidence from valid sources, dude.


I notice that cling fiercely to the standard religious position of insisting on supporting "evidence" from vetted clergy (i.e. valid sources) and don't want any of that threatening science stuff.


.

Don't forget the Almighty Power of Google and the Links of Holy Scripture.
12-11-2015 05:31
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3531)
Into the Night wrote:Don't forget the Almighty Power of Google and the Links of Holy Scripture.







Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-11-2015 15:48
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
It really does smack of desperation when the deniers are reduced to attempting to portray science and the use of evidence-based arguments as religion. What's up guys? Not managed to steal any emails to misrepresent in the run-up to this conference?
12-11-2015 17:33
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3531)
Surface Detail wrote:
It really does smack of desperation when the deniers are reduced to attempting to portray science and the use of evidence-based arguments as religion. What's up guys? Not managed to steal any emails to misrepresent in the run-up to this conference?

What smacks of desperation is your need to try to discredit those who bring science to the discussion.

Why don't you review the OP of "The Top 4" thread and tell me where the science I presented is actually religion?

I notice you haven't presented a version of a "greenhosue effect" model that adheres to science and that has "greenhouse gases" increasing earth's temperature. Would you care to post one?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-11-2015 18:01
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
It really does smack of desperation when the deniers are reduced to attempting to portray science and the use of evidence-based arguments as religion. What's up guys? Not managed to steal any emails to misrepresent in the run-up to this conference?

What smacks of desperation is your need to try to discredit those who bring science to the discussion.

Why don't you review the OP of "The Top 4" thread and tell me where the science I presented is actually religion?

I notice you haven't presented a version of a "greenhosue effect" model that adheres to science and that has "greenhouse gases" increasing earth's temperature. Would you care to post one?

I'm not trying to discredit anyone. You're the moron posting religious imagery in response to academic references.
12-11-2015 21:11
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3531)
Surface Detail wrote:
I'm not trying to discredit anyone. You're the moron posting religious imagery in response to academic references.

Yes, you deny science just to discredit those who threaten your religious sensitivities.

You're the blue-pill choosing moron who prefers the good feeling of never realizing that the world he thinks is based on science is nothing but unfalsifiable religious dogma.

Just keep praying that you never realize the harsh truth.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-11-2015 21:14
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7664)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
It really does smack of desperation when the deniers are reduced to attempting to portray science and the use of evidence-based arguments as religion. What's up guys? Not managed to steal any emails to misrepresent in the run-up to this conference?

What smacks of desperation is your need to try to discredit those who bring science to the discussion.

Why don't you review the OP of "The Top 4" thread and tell me where the science I presented is actually religion?

I notice you haven't presented a version of a "greenhosue effect" model that adheres to science and that has "greenhouse gases" increasing earth's temperature. Would you care to post one?

I'm not trying to discredit anyone. You're the moron posting religious imagery in response to academic references.


You have denied your own argument with this pair of statements.
12-11-2015 22:20
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
I'm not trying to discredit anyone. You're the moron posting religious imagery in response to academic references.

Yes, you deny science just to discredit those who threaten your religious sensitivities.

You're the blue-pill choosing moron who prefers the good feeling of never realizing that the world he thinks is based on science is nothing but unfalsifiable religious dogma.

Just keep praying that you never realize the harsh truth.

The world that I consider to be based on science is the world of academic papers and journals; the world of academic organisations, research centres and university departments; the world of experimentation, observation and evidence.

The world that you consider to be based on science appears to be the world of conspiracy blogs, political theory and your own feverish imagination.

Just sayin'
12-11-2015 23:12
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3531)
Surface Detail wrote:
The world that I consider to be based on science is the world of academic papers and journals; the world of academic organisations, research centres and university departments; the world of experimentation, observation and evidence.

I know. None of that is science. You profoundly believe all of it is. Nothing more needs to be said.


Surface Detail wrote:The world that you consider to be based on science appears to be the world of conspiracy blogs, political theory and your own feverish imagination.

Just sayin'

That's some imagination you have. Which one is the conspiracy blog? Planck's Law? 1st LoT? My coverage of falsifiability?

Jussayn.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-11-2015 02:25
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
The world that I consider to be based on science is the world of academic papers and journals; the world of academic organisations, research centres and university departments; the world of experimentation, observation and evidence.

I know. None of that is science. You profoundly believe all of it is. Nothing more needs to be said.


Surface Detail wrote:The world that you consider to be based on science appears to be the world of conspiracy blogs, political theory and your own feverish imagination.

Just sayin'

That's some imagination you have. Which one is the conspiracy blog? Planck's Law? 1st LoT? My coverage of falsifiability?

Jussayn.

Planck's Law (Verhandl. Dtsch. phys. Ges., 2, 237) and the First Law of Thermodynamics (Annalen der Physick, March-April. LXXIX, 368, 500) were published in academic journals. Your "coverage of falsifiability" is the naive rambling of a scientifically illiterate bozo.
13-11-2015 03:16
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7664)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
The world that I consider to be based on science is the world of academic papers and journals; the world of academic organisations, research centres and university departments; the world of experimentation, observation and evidence.

I know. None of that is science. You profoundly believe all of it is. Nothing more needs to be said.


Surface Detail wrote:The world that you consider to be based on science appears to be the world of conspiracy blogs, political theory and your own feverish imagination.

Just sayin'

That's some imagination you have. Which one is the conspiracy blog? Planck's Law? 1st LoT? My coverage of falsifiability?

Jussayn.

Planck's Law (Verhandl. Dtsch. phys. Ges., 2, 237) and the First Law of Thermodynamics (Annalen der Physick, March-April. LXXIX, 368, 500) were published in academic journals. Your "coverage of falsifiability" is the naive rambling of a scientifically illiterate bozo.


Argumentum ab auctoritate. Publication in a journal does not make anything true. Neither does it make anything false. It simply makes it what it is...a publication in a journal.
13-11-2015 03:29
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
The world that I consider to be based on science is the world of academic papers and journals; the world of academic organisations, research centres and university departments; the world of experimentation, observation and evidence.

I know. None of that is science. You profoundly believe all of it is. Nothing more needs to be said.


Surface Detail wrote:The world that you consider to be based on science appears to be the world of conspiracy blogs, political theory and your own feverish imagination.

Just sayin'

That's some imagination you have. Which one is the conspiracy blog? Planck's Law? 1st LoT? My coverage of falsifiability?

Jussayn.

Planck's Law (Verhandl. Dtsch. phys. Ges., 2, 237) and the First Law of Thermodynamics (Annalen der Physick, March-April. LXXIX, 368, 500) were published in academic journals. Your "coverage of falsifiability" is the naive rambling of a scientifically illiterate bozo.


Argumentum ab auctoritate. Publication in a journal does not make anything true. Neither does it make anything false. It simply makes it what it is...a publication in a journal.

True, publication in a scientific journal doesn't make anything true. It does, however, show that it has passed a basic sniff test of scientific plausibility, unlike some posting on a random internet blog. Publication in a scientific journal is a necessary, though not necessarily sufficient, condition for acceptance into the body of scientific knowledge.
13-11-2015 04:46
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7664)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
The world that I consider to be based on science is the world of academic papers and journals; the world of academic organisations, research centres and university departments; the world of experimentation, observation and evidence.

I know. None of that is science. You profoundly believe all of it is. Nothing more needs to be said.


Surface Detail wrote:The world that you consider to be based on science appears to be the world of conspiracy blogs, political theory and your own feverish imagination.

Just sayin'

That's some imagination you have. Which one is the conspiracy blog? Planck's Law? 1st LoT? My coverage of falsifiability?

Jussayn.

Planck's Law (Verhandl. Dtsch. phys. Ges., 2, 237) and the First Law of Thermodynamics (Annalen der Physick, March-April. LXXIX, 368, 500) were published in academic journals. Your "coverage of falsifiability" is the naive rambling of a scientifically illiterate bozo.


Argumentum ab auctoritate. Publication in a journal does not make anything true. Neither does it make anything false. It simply makes it what it is...a publication in a journal.

True, publication in a scientific journal doesn't make anything true. It does, however, show that it has passed a basic sniff test of scientific plausibility, unlike some posting on a random internet blog. Publication in a scientific journal is a necessary, though not necessarily sufficient, condition for acceptance into the body of scientific knowledge.


Argumentum ab auctoritate. It doesn't show it passed anything but an editor's desk.
Publication in a scientific journal is not necessary to get accepted into the body of knowledge.

Any way of getting the word out will do quite nicely.
13-11-2015 04:59
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3531)
Surface Detail wrote:
Planck's Law (Verhandl. Dtsch. phys. Ges., 2, 237) and the First Law of Thermodynamics (Annalen der Physick, March-April. LXXIX, 368, 500) were published in academic journals.


You still haven't specified which one you insist is a conspiracy blog. Planck's Law or the Law of Conservation of Energy.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-11-2015 09:43
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Into the Night wrote:

Argumentum ab auctoritate. It doesn't show it passed anything but an editor's desk.
Publication in a scientific journal is not necessary to get accepted into the body of knowledge.

Any way of getting the word out will do quite nicely.

Said by someone whose pseudoscience nutty claims that even the natural 'greenhouse' effect doesn't exist, wouldn't pass the sniff test of a comic let alone an academic science Journal.

Not sure what you think you are accomplishing by 'getting the word out' on internet forums about your crazy Sky Dragon Slayer claims.



Edited on 13-11-2015 09:45
13-11-2015 11:15
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
The world that I consider to be based on science is the world of academic papers and journals; the world of academic organisations, research centres and university departments; the world of experimentation, observation and evidence.

I know. None of that is science. You profoundly believe all of it is. Nothing more needs to be said.


Surface Detail wrote:The world that you consider to be based on science appears to be the world of conspiracy blogs, political theory and your own feverish imagination.

Just sayin'

That's some imagination you have. Which one is the conspiracy blog? Planck's Law? 1st LoT? My coverage of falsifiability?

Jussayn.

Planck's Law (Verhandl. Dtsch. phys. Ges., 2, 237) and the First Law of Thermodynamics (Annalen der Physick, March-April. LXXIX, 368, 500) were published in academic journals. Your "coverage of falsifiability" is the naive rambling of a scientifically illiterate bozo.


Argumentum ab auctoritate. Publication in a journal does not make anything true. Neither does it make anything false. It simply makes it what it is...a publication in a journal.

True, publication in a scientific journal doesn't make anything true. It does, however, show that it has passed a basic sniff test of scientific plausibility, unlike some posting on a random internet blog. Publication in a scientific journal is a necessary, though not necessarily sufficient, condition for acceptance into the body of scientific knowledge.


Argumentum ab auctoritate. It doesn't show it passed anything but an editor's desk.
Publication in a scientific journal is not necessary to get accepted into the body of knowledge.

Any way of getting the word out will do quite nicely.

Publication in a scientific journal shows that a paper has passed peer review, i.e. that it meets the minimum standards for acceptance as a contribution to scientific knowledge.
13-11-2015 13:16
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3531)
Surface Detail wrote:Publication in a scientific journal shows that a paper has passed peer review, i.e. that it meets the minimum standards for acceptance as a contribution to scientific knowledge.

Only for those who cannot discern religion from science and who mistakenly believe that their own religious clergy owns science and somehow approves material to become science.

The minimum requirement for science is a falsifiable model that predicts nature. No "peer review" counts for anything. The body of science doesn't track bonus points awarded for anyone's approval.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-11-2015 14:23
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:Publication in a scientific journal shows that a paper has passed peer review, i.e. that it meets the minimum standards for acceptance as a contribution to scientific knowledge.

Only for those who cannot discern religion from science and who mistakenly believe that their own religious clergy owns science and somehow approves material to become science.

The minimum requirement for science is a falsifiable model that predicts nature. No "peer review" counts for anything. The body of science doesn't track bonus points awarded for anyone's approval.


.

That is precisely what the purpose of peer review is: to weed out material that lacks original scientific content. Quality control through peer review is a fundamental component of the scientific process.
13-11-2015 16:47
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3531)
Surface Detail wrote:That is precisely what the purpose of peer review is: to weed out material that lacks original scientific content.

The purpose of peer review is twofold:

1. Have a second set of eyes review one's work, which is not necessarily particular to science, and

2. Secure an endorsement of consensus, which is not of any value to science.

Surface Detail wrote: Quality control through peer review is a fundamental component of the scientific process.

No one owns science. No one gets to determine "quality" of science. No one gets to establish a "minimum quality" level for material to become science. No one has the authority to veto science on the basis of "poor quality."

"Quality" has no role in science.

The only requirement for science is a falsifiable model that predicts nature. There is no "quality" standard for science and there are no other requirements.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-11-2015 16:57
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:That is precisely what the purpose of peer review is: to weed out material that lacks original scientific content.

The purpose of peer review is twofold:

1. Have a second set of eyes review one's work, which is not necessarily particular to science, and

2. Secure an endorsement of consensus, which is not of any value to science.

Surface Detail wrote: Quality control through peer review is a fundamental component of the scientific process.

No one owns science. No one gets to determine "quality" of science. No one gets to establish a "minimum quality" level for material to become science. No one has the authority to veto science on the basis of "poor quality."

"Quality" has no role in science.

The only requirement for science is a falsifiable model that predicts nature. There is no "quality" standard for science and there are no other requirements.


http://teachingcommons.cdl.edu/cdip/facultyresearch/Definitionandpurposeofpeerreview.html

Definition and purpose of peer review

Definition
The peer review process is integral to scholarly research. It is a process of subjecting research methods and findings to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. The process is considered essential, but has also been criticized as slow, ineffective and misunderstood.

Purpose
The process is designed to prevent dissemination of irrelevant findings, unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations, and personal views. It relies on colleagues that review one another's work and make an informed decision about whether it is legitimate, and adds to the large dialogue or findings in the field.
13-11-2015 17:37
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3531)
Surface Detail wrote:

Definition
The peer review process is integral to scholarly research. It is a process of subjecting research methods and findings to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. The process is considered essential, but has also been criticized as slow, ineffective and misunderstood.


Sure, I'll accept that any organization/institution is welcome to establish operating procedures for conducting its research or to establish standards for research that it will accept. I know that if I were put in charge of some institution's research process I would certainly tighten it up. I would not want my institution's reputation to be tainted by bogus claims being facilitated by lax standards.

Research, however, is not science. No institution/organization/body gets to establish any sort of standards for science.

Surface Detail wrote:
Purpose
The process is designed to prevent dissemination of irrelevant findings, unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations, and personal views. It relies on colleagues that review one another's work and make an informed decision about whether it is legitimate, and adds to the large dialogue or findings in the field.


Sure. Absolutely. Personally, I don't rely on anyone's standards. When I conduct research I get as many others as I can to review my work at every stage. I involve as many people as possible, and I always seek out those with extreme opposite perspectives (in fact, that's the best part). I become Tom Sawyer and let the entire block help me paint the fence.

None of this, however, is required for science. As long as a falsifiable model is created that predicts nature, that model is science as long as it holds. Without any falsifiable model, though, there's no science, regardless of how much "scholarly research" is performed or how much Climate Scientist inappropriately insists on using the word "scientific" as a modifier.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-02-2016 07:55
Stormy
☆☆☆☆☆
(2)
Why hasn't IBdaMann been permabanned from this community? I have been lurking this forum for days and he rocks up in almost every thread, derails the discussion with ad hominems and buffoonery and contributes nothing to the conversation. He is a cancer on an otherwise productive forum and is ruining this site for me and others who are looking for facts, not constant contrarianism. Please get rid of this poster.
09-02-2016 08:25
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7664)
Ceist wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Argumentum ab auctoritate. It doesn't show it passed anything but an editor's desk.
Publication in a scientific journal is not necessary to get accepted into the body of knowledge.

Any way of getting the word out will do quite nicely.

Said by someone whose pseudoscience nutty claims that even the natural 'greenhouse' effect doesn't exist, wouldn't pass the sniff test of a comic let alone an academic science Journal.

Not sure what you think you are accomplishing by 'getting the word out' on internet forums about your crazy Sky Dragon Slayer claims.


I don't need to get the word out. I'm not trying to change any physical law of science.


The Parrot Killer
09-02-2016 08:30
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7664)
Stormy wrote:
Why hasn't IBdaMann been permabanned from this community? I have been lurking this forum for days and he rocks up in almost every thread, derails the discussion with ad hominems and buffoonery and contributes nothing to the conversation. He is a cancer on an otherwise productive forum and is ruining this site for me and others who are looking for facts, not constant contrarianism. Please get rid of this poster.

He is giving you the laws of physics. He does not use ad hominems on anyone except those who use them on him. There is no limit on how many threads one may discuss in. Lots of people 'rock up' almost any thread, as you put it. Ceist is a great example, spamming the same insult and ad hominems so often I've created an acronym for his behavior (to shorten describing what he does).

Contrary opinions are what forums are all about. If you want the kindergarten room, you are in the wrong place.


The Parrot Killer
09-02-2016 12:58
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3531)
Stormy wrote:
Why hasn't IBdaMann been permabanned from this community? I have been lurking this forum for days and he rocks up in almost every thread, derails the discussion with ad hominems and buffoonery and contributes nothing to the conversation. He is a cancer on an otherwise productive forum and is ruining this site for me and others who are looking for facts, not constant contrarianism. Please get rid of this poster.

I notice you haven't contributed anything to the forum.

Why don't you ask Jep Branner for your own sub-forum and you can ban me from there?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
10-02-2016 00:32
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Stormy wrote:
Why hasn't IBdaMann been permabanned from this community? I have been lurking this forum for days and he rocks up in almost every thread, derails the discussion with ad hominems and buffoonery and contributes nothing to the conversation. He is a cancer on an otherwise productive forum and is ruining this site for me and others who are looking for facts, not constant contrarianism. Please get rid of this poster.

It's nice to know there are a few sensible folk reading this forum. That said, I don't think it's a good idea to ban obvious trolls like IBdaMann. Aside from the freedom of speech aspect, I think it's good to let them carry on making a fool of themselves and hence illustrate the weakness of the contrarian argument. Yes, I'm aware of George Carlin's quote about the danger of arguing with idiots, but, on the other hand, it's important to counter misconceptions and propaganda.
Page 5 of 5<<<345





Join the debate Tipping point:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Why don't one of the climate scientists commit suicide to make a point?127-02-2019 04:22
Is there a Jewish Point of View?302-02-2019 18:36
Why the silence on zero point energy?311-04-2018 19:59
Whatever happened to the Global Warming "Tipping Points?"1405-10-2015 20:23
We passed the tipping point on climate change in 1901201-10-2015 18:07
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact