Remember me
▼ Content

Users improving the debate



Page 2 of 2<12
25-11-2015 12:16
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­



@IBdaMann


What did I do stop trafn from posting spam?


You pointed it out to the moderator and you are complaining about it here.


My signature irritates those people who worship the Global Warming religion but who need to insist their religion is science. My sinature helps people with certain delusions realize they have personal issues.


You go for the man and not the ball.



I have never tried to silence any opposing viewpoints. I have never pressured anyone into not posting any particular ideas.


That is not true. You are complaining about the spam here and you even want me to complain about you being spamed too.
And you don't seem to want this subject either.







I don't think this is going very well and in my opinion we are not even half done yet.





I wanted to see if we could agree on some normal good moral standings man to man but I don't think we are moving anywhere.

I want rules to be flexible and therefore it is a sad thing for me to bring some forum guidelines to the subject:



1) Stay inside the scope

2) Stick to the subject
Always stay on-topic in the thread you are participating in. If you want to discuss something else, then start a new thread.

4) Don't attack the messenger
This doesn't mean that a tough tone and an offensive style is not accepted, but please focus on the message and not the messenger.

6) Don't make noise




From time to time I think a lot of people are violating one or more of those rules.

From my point of view you just do it too much and it seems to me you don't even care about it.





­­
25-11-2015 12:29
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Ceist wrote:It's virtually impossible to have a rational 'debate' with a Sky Dragon Slayer about the earth's climate.

Translation: "It is impossible to convince an atheist to worship my WACKY religion and to preach my WACKY dogma.


Ceist wrote: It's like trying to debate about the shape of the earth with a flat-earther, or the age of the earth with a Young Earth Creationist.

That's exactly what it is like trying to discuss science with a warmizombie. There's no difference.

Ceist wrote: It doesn't matter how much evidence or links to textbooks or published papers or authoritative science institutions you throw at a Sky Dragon Slayer.

Translation: It doesn't matter how often I appeal to perceived authority and pretend I speak for them, it doesn't matter how often I attempt to shift my burden of proof, and it doesn't matter how many bogus links to nothing I post, I can't get an atheist to capitulate and just knock it off with the science.

Ceist wrote:. He himself has admitted being banned from 5 forums because of his behaviour.

Correct. Those sites were administered by people like trafn who did not want their WACKY dogmas challenged by science. Two were fundamentalist Christians and the others were warmizomies. I have not been banned from any Muslim fora yet.


.


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
25-11-2015 14:17
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:

Translation: It doesn't matter how often I appeal to perceived authority and pretend I speak for them, it doesn't matter how often I attempt to shift my burden of proof, and it doesn't matter how many bogus links to nothing I post, I can't get an atheist to capitulate and just knock it off with the science.

You're confusing the provision of references with appeals to authority. They are not the same. An appeal to authority asserts that an argument is true because someone says it is. A reference, on the other hand, bolsters an argument by referring to the work carried out by somebody else.

Just about every scientific paper in existence refers extensively to the work of others. This is what Isaac Newton meant when he talked of standing on the shoulders of giants. Scientists, and those engaged in scientific argument, must refer to the work of others when formulating their arguments since it is impossible for anyone to re-derive from scratch all of the science backing up any non-trivial point.
25-11-2015 19:57
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Surface Detail wrote:
You're confusing the provision of references with appeals to authority.

No, I'm not.

Surface Detail wrote:They are not the same.

I'm aware. Go back and re-read.

Surface Detail wrote: An appeal to authority asserts that an argument is true because someone says it is.

Correct. Someone or some institution. That is exactly to what I refer. You somehow misread and confused yourself.

Ceist has never even added any value to a discussion much less made a plausible, coherent point, much less provided supporting references for such.

Ceist does, however, believe in pretending to speak for others and in pretending he carries the authority of all the scientists on the planet.

I'll tell you what. After you go back and review all of Ceist's posts, I'll be happy to take a deep dive into this very topic with you.


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
25-11-2015 20:13
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5558)
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

Translation: It doesn't matter how often I appeal to perceived authority and pretend I speak for them, it doesn't matter how often I attempt to shift my burden of proof, and it doesn't matter how many bogus links to nothing I post, I can't get an atheist to capitulate and just knock it off with the science.

You're confusing the provision of references with appeals to authority. They are not the same. An appeal to authority asserts that an argument is true because someone says it is. A reference, on the other hand, bolsters an argument by referring to the work carried out by somebody else.

Just about every scientific paper in existence refers extensively to the work of others. This is what Isaac Newton meant when he talked of standing on the shoulders of giants. Scientists, and those engaged in scientific argument, must refer to the work of others when formulating their arguments since it is impossible for anyone to re-derive from scratch all of the science backing up any non-trivial point.


Isaac Newton was specifically referring to Galileo and Kepler when he made that statement. He often felt most other scientists were idiots.

It is one thing to quote a specific scientists and a specific piece of work they've done by name, and quite another to vaguely quote 'other scientists' and a whole collection of 'evidence' without reference to any specific anything, which is what is so often done, and not just by Ceist.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 25-11-2015 20:15
25-11-2015 21:43
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

Translation: It doesn't matter how often I appeal to perceived authority and pretend I speak for them, it doesn't matter how often I attempt to shift my burden of proof, and it doesn't matter how many bogus links to nothing I post, I can't get an atheist to capitulate and just knock it off with the science.

You're confusing the provision of references with appeals to authority. They are not the same. An appeal to authority asserts that an argument is true because someone says it is. A reference, on the other hand, bolsters an argument by referring to the work carried out by somebody else.

Just about every scientific paper in existence refers extensively to the work of others. This is what Isaac Newton meant when he talked of standing on the shoulders of giants. Scientists, and those engaged in scientific argument, must refer to the work of others when formulating their arguments since it is impossible for anyone to re-derive from scratch all of the science backing up any non-trivial point.


Isaac Newton was specifically referring to Galileo and Kepler when he made that statement. He often felt most other scientists were idiots.

It is one thing to quote a specific scientists and a specific piece of work they've done by name, and quite another to vaguely quote 'other scientists' and a whole collection of 'evidence' without reference to any specific anything, which is what is so often done, and not just by Ceist.

I've not seen any evidence that Isaac Newton was referring specifically to Galileo and Kepler - his remark seemed to be addressed to his predecessors in general - but I'm happy to be persuaded by any evidence you may be able to link to


At least we seem to be in agreement on the necessity of references to back up our arguments if we are to have proper discussion! If we all follow this practise, then hopeful we'll generate a bit more light and a little less heat on this forum.
25-11-2015 23:09
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5558)
Surface Detail wrote:

I've not seen any evidence that Isaac Newton was referring specifically to Galileo and Kepler - his remark seemed to be addressed to his predecessors in general - but I'm happy to be persuaded by any evidence you may be able to link to

He wrote about this in his personal notes. He never published his list of scientific heros at large, and the list in his notes is vague, but these two scientists, along with Descartes, were heros in his eyes. These papers are not online. You can travel to England, however, and view some of them there. Copies of them might be available from a source closer to home.
Surface Detail wrote:

At least we seem to be in agreement on the necessity of references to back up our arguments if we are to have proper discussion! If we all follow this practise, then hopeful we'll generate a bit more light and a little less heat on this forum.

To a point. Science itself needs no support or references to develop a theory. When you try to espouse that theory to others, however, the elements of rhetoric and logic enter the scene. That is where you find use with supporting arguments. The most powerful argument in the world of science, however, is not the supporting argument at all (it's actually rather unnecessary!). It is the disproving argument. It is the method by which you show a theory is wrong or inaccurate.

Scientific papers are examples of rhetoric to support a point. They quote other papers to attempt to short circuit disproving arguments. A single disproving argument can destroy a theory. This is why all the supporting arguments and evidence cannot prove global warming. Even worse, much of this evidence is fabricated or embellished in some way, which only weakens the supporting arguments.

Disproving arguments can take the form of solid factual evidence against a theory (all it takes is one!), or showing how the new theory conflicts with existing laws of science, or fails to show how existing laws must be modified.

This last case, failing to show modification, places the burden of proof on those proposing the new theory, since they are the only ones in a position to provide such information. In all other cases, the burden of proof is satisfied when the argument or evidence is presented, and again the burden of proof falls on the proposer of the new theory to counter the argument presented.

This is the debate associated around science, but not science itself.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 25-11-2015 23:10
26-11-2015 15:48
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Into the Night wrote:. The most powerful argument in the world of science, however, is not the supporting argument at all (it's actually rather unnecessary!). It is the disproving argument. It is the method by which you show a theory is wrong or inaccurate.


Exactly. You have just described the scientific method.

This is where Climate Scientist ran into problems. His assertions were easily shown to be false. Flummoxed, he struggled to point to supporting "evidence" and demanded examples from the internet of others who had falsified his assertions in that same way.

He just didn't get it. In fact, he never understood that whole "burden of proof" thing.


.


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
26-11-2015 15:52
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­



@Surface Detail


At least we seem to be in agreement on the necessity of references to back up our arguments if we are to have proper discussion! If we all follow this practise, then hopeful we'll generate a bit more light and a little less heat on this forum.


I think that is very well spoken and shows at least one has figured out something about what this subject is supposed to mean.





­
Edited on 26-11-2015 15:53
29-11-2015 01:56
branner
AdministratorProfile picture☆☆☆☆☆
(31)
I have removed posts from the forum again, and in the future, serious violations of the guidelines will have stronger consequences.

The language seen in some of the posts from the latest days is in no way tolerable. If no improvement is seen, banning is the only option.

This thread is closed for new posts now. Let's focus on the climate related threads.
Branner29-11-2015 03:45
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
[branner: This post and reply below merged with existing thread]

Please post a list of words that are not "tolerable."

You had previously stated that harsh words were acceptable. Now, apparently, there are harsh words that are not acceptable.

Please clarify before the confusing nature of your guidance gets someone banned.


.


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

Edited by branner on 29-11-2015 12:21
RE: Branner29-11-2015 10:03
Jakob
★☆☆☆☆
(127)
­



@IBdaMann



Yes please......

....... and also a list of all the viruses he doesn't want us to put on the page....

....... and also a list of all the subject names he doesn't want us to use when we spam....

....... and also a list of any shape a stone can have if it is not supposed to be thrown at fellow citizens ....

Yes please please... it is urgent ... we need his help before we make another mistake in this total complicated world of his..!


*irony off*


I have never seen an attitude problem being cured by forbidding words.
Getting a few words erased can seem more like a hint about the other.
Anyway that is how I took it when it happened to me long ago. Most people can get too exited sometimes but is it all the time then it will not work.
Just a little sense of the appropriate is just as necessary as being able to write if you want to participate in a public forum.




­­
29-11-2015 12:19
branner
AdministratorProfile picture☆☆☆☆☆
(31)
The above two posts have been merged with the existing thread (it is still closed for new posts). There is no list of words which will trigger a ban. But there is a moderator (me) who will take decisions based on the overall behaviour. It should be obvious that some of the posts from the recent days are not acceptable - if you can't see this, then Climate-Debate.com is not the right place to be. Please write a PM to me if you want to discuss moderation further.
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate Users improving the debate:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Methods of shutting down democratic debate2608-03-2018 20:46
The Trump Administration Wants To Debate Climate Change On TV. Here's What Scientists Think About It 1506-03-2018 22:53
EPA To Bring Debate to the Public1913-12-2017 19:24
Users' Profiles208-12-2017 19:15
Are partisan politics skewing the climate debate?619-10-2017 22:57
▲ 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 © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact