| 10-12-2024 22:22 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(22820) |
Stop whining. |
| 11-12-2024 16:51 |
Swan ★★★★★
(6003) |
Im a BM wrote:
December 9, 2024.
According to the information in the box to the left, there are 209 "Guests online" at this moment.
The 1 "Users online" must me ME.
It is utterly IMPLAUSIBLE that 209 different people have this website opened up right now.
Just as suddenly, it will soon show perhaps half a dozen "Guests online".
A far more plausible number.
My best guess is that GOOGLE used to believe the information in the box to the left, provided by the website itself, which creates the false appearance of a valid and popular discussion forum.
However, in about April this year, Google discontinued its practice of displaying climate-debate.com in a prominent position among search results for an Internet website where climate change is discussed.
New members have still joined since April, at a rate of about one per month, but none have remained as repeat posters.
For more than seven months now, no new member has gotten caught up in a troll gang rape "define your terms, you scientifically illiterate moron" ambush.
At least climate-debate.com is no longer an attractive nuisance hazard for innocent tree huggers who were just doing a Google search for a website where they might discuss climate change.
[quote]sealover wrote:
For a dead website where only a handful of members actually post anything, this site gets a whole lot of attention, apparently.
Supposedly, there are 129 "Guests online" right now.
What are they doing?
Do they just stare at a list of thread titles?
They don't even open up any threads, or they would at least show up as "views".
But it does seem to be fooling somebody, because search engines show climate debate as if it were a popular discussion site.
This site is only for alien communication, but to access this you need to observe not the plain text or even the underlying code, but you need to be able to observe the terminal polarity of every odd underlying subcode character which undercovers a second but never seen binary code which fully explains the 120 trillion gigabytes of otherwise nonsense data stored on Earth, and they are talking about making their food out of bugs that they have us preparing for them. Which should make you wonder, what this post really says when paired with the proper sequencer
IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.
According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC
This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop
I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.
ULTRA MAGA
"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA
So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?
Sonia makes me so proud to be a dumb white boy
Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL |
| 12-12-2024 03:31 |
Im a BM★★★★☆
(1622) |
Swan wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
December 9, 2024.
According to the information in the box to the left, there are 209 "Guests online" at this moment.
The 1 "Users online" must me ME.
It is utterly IMPLAUSIBLE that 209 different people have this website opened up right now.
Just as suddenly, it will soon show perhaps half a dozen "Guests online".
A far more plausible number.
My best guess is that GOOGLE used to believe the information in the box to the left, provided by the website itself, which creates the false appearance of a valid and popular discussion forum.
However, in about April this year, Google discontinued its practice of displaying climate-debate.com in a prominent position among search results for an Internet website where climate change is discussed.
New members have still joined since April, at a rate of about one per month, but none have remained as repeat posters.
For more than seven months now, no new member has gotten caught up in a troll gang rape "define your terms, you scientifically illiterate moron" ambush.
At least climate-debate.com is no longer an attractive nuisance hazard for innocent tree huggers who were just doing a Google search for a website where they might discuss climate change.
[quote]sealover wrote:
For a dead website where only a handful of members actually post anything, this site gets a whole lot of attention, apparently.
Supposedly, there are 129 "Guests online" right now.
What are they doing?
Do they just stare at a list of thread titles?
They don't even open up any threads, or they would at least show up as "views".
But it does seem to be fooling somebody, because search engines show climate debate as if it were a popular discussion site.
This site is only for alien communication, but to access this you need to observe not the plain text or even the underlying code, but you need to be able to observe the terminal polarity of every odd underlying subcode character which undercovers a second but never seen binary code which fully explains the 120 trillion gigabytes of otherwise nonsense data stored on Earth, and they are talking about making their food out of bugs that they have us preparing for them. Which should make you wonder, what this post really says when paired with the proper sequencer
Now you understand why I chose THIS website to post all those biogeochemistry decoy posts.
It was for the aliens.
I knew damn well that only a handful of humans would see it.
And I only recently became aware that I was just a patsy in their game.
I thought the aliens were actually READING all my posts very carefully, and gave a shit about applied biogeochemistry to address Earth problems.
Before my rude awakening, I honestly believed that the aliens were going to give me a high ranking position among their human collaborators.
I thought that their goal was to tweak the Earth to support the maximum biomass possible, for their eventual exploitation.
I thought that they were going to let ME be the one to set that up for them.
Now I know that I was just being used as a pawn in their game.
But here's a question.
What is the HIGHEST number of "Guests online" that YOU have ever seen here at climate-debate.com?
I'm honestly not sure that I have ever seen it exceed 300. I vaguely recall a couple of times that maybe I saw a number higher than 300, but I'm doubtful.
I have seen it creep into the high 200s plenty of times, but never >300 |
| 12-01-2025 22:29 |
Im a BM★★★★☆
(1622) |
Time goes by, and NOW it says only SIX guests online, but there was a HUGE CROWD here just a little while ago.
The website administrator did his semi annual log in. I guess he does something.
But NOBODY is signing up to be a new member these days.
Nine months ago it may have seemed an anomaly, but now it is an UNPRECEDENTED trend in the website's history to go a YEAR without catching more than one new warmazombie in a "define your terms, you scientifically illiterate moron Marxist liar fraud.." team ambush.
Google doesn't show this site for search results anymore, the way it did when I did the Google search for climate discussion sites a few years ago.
Google cut off the artificial life support to the ecosystem that depended on a continuous influx of new members who would be systematically driven away.
Pity.
It was fun while it lasted!
sealover wrote:
212 "Guests online" RIGHT NOW!
Yet, I appear to be the only user online.
When it suddenly drops back down to less than a dozen "Guests online", I'll take a peek at klimadebat.dk to see if all the phantom visitors went THERE next.
However, I notice the search engines don't seem to be fooled any more.
A Google search for "climate discussion websites" or "climate forums", etc., no longer displays climate-debate.com in the page one selection.
Maybe THAT is why virtually no new members have joined in months.
This greatly diminishes the value of posting for the potential new member who wishes to have a rational discussion about climate change.
Sigh...
I wonder what those... 212 (still) "Guests online" are doing. Whatever it is, they will suddenly all leave at once pretty soon.
And there will be no additional "views" on any of the active threads.
----------------------------------------------------------------
For a dead website where only a handful of members actually post anything, this site gets a whole lot of attention, apparently.
Supposedly, there are 129 "Guests online" right now.
What are they doing?
Do they just stare at a list of thread titles?
They don't even open up any threads, or they would at least show up as "views".
But it does seem to be fooling somebody, because search engines show climate debate as if it were a popular discussion site. [/quote] |
| 13-01-2025 10:17 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(22820) |
Im a BM wrote:
Time goes by, and NOW it says only SIX guests online, but there was a HUGE CROWD here just a little while ago. Thanks to you and your spamming.
Im a BM wrote:
The website administrator did his semi annual log in. I guess he does something.
But NOBODY is signing up to be a new member these days. Thanks to you and your spamming.
Im a BM wrote:
Nine months ago it may have seemed an anomaly, but now it is an UNPRECEDENTED trend in the website's history to go a YEAR without catching more than one new warmazombie in a "define your terms, you scientifically illiterate moron Marxist liar fraud.." team ambush.
Thanks to you and your spamming.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 14-01-2025 07:01 |
Im a BM★★★★☆
(1622) |
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Time goes by, and NOW it says only SIX guests online, but there was a HUGE CROWD here just a little while ago. Thanks to you and your spamming.
Im a BM wrote:
The website administrator did his semi annual log in. I guess he does something.
But NOBODY is signing up to be a new member these days. Thanks to you and your spamming.
Im a BM wrote:
Nine months ago it may have seemed an anomaly, but now it is an UNPRECEDENTED trend in the website's history to go a YEAR without catching more than one new warmazombie in a "define your terms, you scientifically illiterate moron Marxist liar fraud.." team ambush.
Thanks to you and your spamming.
Yes, thanks to you and your spamming.
Says the Troll King of Spam, with 22,820 posts.
Thank you for teaching me that science is not something that is not science.
Thank you for teaching me that something that is not a chemical is not a chemical.
Spam is a nutritious resource that is of value. This spamlicious wisdom regarding the concept that something is not something else cannot be praised enough. This inspires gratitude, in addition to the inherent respect you inspire with your infallible omniscience as a "chemist" regarding all that is science. |