Remember me
▼ Content

Are there really 129 "Guests online" right now?


Are there really 129 "Guests online" right now?20-04-2024 20:52
sealover
★★★★☆
(1616)
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.
RE: and NOW is is 166 "Guests online"20-04-2024 20:54
sealover
★★★★☆
(1616)
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.



Now it has jumped to 166 "Guests online".

Maybe they really are following intently, and more came online in response to the post about it.

But what are they actually DOING?
RE: 150 online guests still watching..20-04-2024 21:00
sealover
★★★★☆
(1616)
sealover wrote:
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.



Now it has jumped to 166 "Guests online".

Maybe they really are following intently, and more came online in response to the post about it.

But what are they actually DOING?



They come and go pretty fast, I guess. 150 online right now.

HEY, YOU GUYS!

WHAT ARE YOU DOING AS ONLINE GUESTS AT THIS WEBSITE?

How do we even know you are real if you never say anything or open threads?
20-04-2024 22:29
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5734)
sealover wrote:
sealover wrote:
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.



Now it has jumped to 166 "Guests online".

Maybe they really are following intently, and more came online in response to the post about it.

But what are they actually DOING?



They come and go pretty fast, I guess. 150 online right now.

HEY, YOU GUYS!

WHAT ARE YOU DOING AS ONLINE GUESTS AT THIS WEBSITE?

How do we even know you are real if you never say anything or open threads?


My page says that there are 9 guest online now, probably all the same schizzo


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?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
RE: 38 "views" after a few hours21-04-2024 02:10
sealover
★★★★☆
(1616)
Swan wrote:
sealover wrote:
sealover wrote:
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.



Now it has jumped to 166 "Guests online".

Maybe they really are following intently, and more came online in response to the post about it.

But what are they actually DOING?



They come and go pretty fast, I guess. 150 online right now.

HEY, YOU GUYS!

WHAT ARE YOU DOING AS ONLINE GUESTS AT THIS WEBSITE?

How do we even know you are real if you never say anything or open threads?


My page says that there are 9 guest online now, probably all the same schizzo




For about ten minutes after this thread became visible on the list of thread titles, there were supposedly about 150 "Guests online".

Now, hours later, there have been a total of 38 "views", indicating that someone actually opened up the thread to view it.

That is plausible just from the tiny number of active posters.

A handful of the "Online guests" are real human beings, schizzo or not.

The other hundred or more who suddenly appear and disappear are Branner's con.
21-04-2024 23:54
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5734)
sealover wrote:
Swan wrote:
sealover wrote:
sealover wrote:
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.



Now it has jumped to 166 "Guests online".

Maybe they really are following intently, and more came online in response to the post about it.

But what are they actually DOING?



They come and go pretty fast, I guess. 150 online right now.

HEY, YOU GUYS!

WHAT ARE YOU DOING AS ONLINE GUESTS AT THIS WEBSITE?

How do we even know you are real if you never say anything or open threads?


My page says that there are 9 guest online now, probably all the same schizzo




For about ten minutes after this thread became visible on the list of thread titles, there were supposedly about 150 "Guests online".

Now, hours later, there have been a total of 38 "views", indicating that someone actually opened up the thread to view it.

That is plausible just from the tiny number of active posters.

A handful of the "Online guests" are real human beings, schizzo or not.

The other hundred or more who suddenly appear and disappear are Branner's con.


Or the NSA is farting around

Again


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?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
RE: 186 guests on line.... I doubt it.17-05-2024 02:06
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(816)
According to the little box on the left, there are 186 "Guests online" right now.

I doubt it.

But many new viewers, actual human beings, visit this site for the first time on any given day.

They might immediately see it as a "dead" website, where nearly all the "Last Post"s on all the most recently active threads are by the same poster.

But I keep hoping at least some of them will see past that and discover a pleasant surprise upon closer examination.

I can dream, can't I?

PhD biogeochemist with interesting stories to tell...

You don't even have to join to see them, and they compiled to remove all the troll noise.

See "Biogeochemistry-related Thread Guide..." thread to know what they are about and precisely which pages they are all compiled on.


------------------------------------

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.
17-05-2024 03:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22005)
Im a BM wrote:
PhD biogeochemist with interesting stories to tell...

There is no such thing a 'biogeochemistry'. Buzzword fallacy.


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
17-05-2024 19:30
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(816)
"There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Buzzword fallacy." - Into the Night

The proclamation that "there is no such thing as biogeochemistry" has been made in more than a hundred different posts. ("Repetition fallacy")

It appears to be a Royal Decree.

Or perhaps there is a scientific basis for the proclamation.

Maybe it would violate the 1st law of thermodynamics if biogeochemistry were a real word that had a widely accepted definition.

There is only one person in the world who understands thermodynamics well enough to know if that is the case.

Actually, "biogeochemistry" IS a real word that has a widely accepted definition.

See the "What is biogeochemistry" thread for a reality check.

And scroll past all the red parrot picture posts, unless you are interested in knowing what all the Royal Decrees are regarding buzzwords, fallacies, and violations of the 1st law of thermodynamics.



Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
PhD biogeochemist with interesting stories to tell...

There is no such thing a 'biogeochemistry'. Buzzword fallacy.
17-05-2024 21:52
keepit
★★★★★
(3181)
itn,
Biogeochemistry isn't a buzzword or a fallacy. It just seems like it to you. I think that's because you live in a smaller world than im a bm.
17-05-2024 23:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22005)
Im a BM wrote:
"There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Buzzword fallacy." - Into the Night

The proclamation that "there is no such thing as biogeochemistry" has been made in more than a hundred different posts. ("Repetition fallacy")

It appears to be a Royal Decree.

Inversion fallacy. Fallacy fallacy. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Or perhaps there is a scientific basis for the proclamation.

You deny science.
Im a BM wrote:
Maybe it would violate the 1st law of thermodynamics if biogeochemistry were a real word that had a widely accepted definition.

Buzzword fallacy. Belittlement fallacy. Argument of the Stone fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
There is only one person in the world who understands thermodynamics well enough to know if that is the case.

You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Actually, "biogeochemistry" IS a real word that has a widely accepted definition.

Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
See the "What is biogeochemistry" thread for a reality check.

Stop spamming.
Im a BM wrote:
And scroll past all the red parrot picture posts, unless you are interested in knowing what all the Royal Decrees are regarding buzzwords, fallacies, and violations of the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Argument of the Stone fallacy. Bulverism.


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
17-05-2024 23:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22005)
keepit wrote:
itn,
Biogeochemistry isn't a buzzword or a fallacy. It just seems like it to you. I think that's because you live in a smaller world than im a bm.

Buzzsword fallacy.


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
18-05-2024 01:10
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(816)
Into the Night wrote:
keepit wrote:
itn,
Biogeochemistry isn't a buzzword or a fallacy. It just seems like it to you. I think that's because you live in a smaller world than im a bm.

Buzzsword fallacy.




YOU are a "Buzzsword fallacy".

Or maybe just an Ignoramus phallusy.

Unambiguous definition of "Ignoramus phallusy" = Ignorant dick.

Would you experience difficult withdrawal symptoms if you went a whole day without trolling or spamming?

No?

PLEASE PROVE IT!

Will it ever be possible for someone to open up this website without seeing that nearly every "Last Post" was by Into the Night?
18-05-2024 04:03
keepit
★★★★★
(3181)
Just for general edification -- Just because someone or a group of people can't calculate an average (for whatever reason) doesn't mean there isn't such an average. THERE IS. It's out there somewhere, even if it's uncalculated.
18-05-2024 05:17
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(816)
keepit wrote:
Just for general edification -- Just because someone or a group of people can't calculate an average (for whatever reason) doesn't mean there isn't such an average. THERE IS. It's out there somewhere, even if it's uncalculated.



Absolutely true, keepit.

One of the key "arguments" has been that "It is not possible to measure the earth's average (temperature, atmospheric concentration of CO2, sea water alkalinity, whatever variable needs to be disputed)."

It may be difficult to say with the highest accuracy and precision what the average actually is. But you can sure get into the right ball park and make meaningful comparisons.

But if you think getting an accurate average percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is potentially dubious, imagine trying to get an accurate average percentage of the US population with a particular viewpoint based on the response of barely a thousand of them who were willing to be polled.

Nonetheless, it can sure get you into the right ballpark and make meaningful comparisons.

The most meaningful comparisons are between identical polls taken in an identical manner, done over multiple years, multiple times.

The "tipping point" came in just the last few years with so much extreme weather.

You don't have to calculate an exact average of past weather to say with certainty that the new stuff is DIFFERENT than before.

Only a small minority still cling to the belief that it is all a hoax.
18-05-2024 08:49
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14559)
keepit wrote: Just for general edification -- Just because someone or a group of people can't calculate an average (for whatever reason) doesn't mean there isn't such an average. THERE IS. It's out there somewhere, even if it's uncalculated.

Yes. Thank you for participating, keepit. Here's another one:

"You are reading this right now."
18-05-2024 09:12
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14559)
Im a BM wrote: One of the key "arguments" has been that "It is not possible to measure the earth's average (temperature, atmospheric concentration of CO2, sea water alkalinity, whatever variable needs to be disputed)."

It's not an argument. It's statistical math. It is not possible to calculate such averages/quantities to within any usable accuracy. Nobody has to argue this; there are only mathematical incompetents who deny it.

Guess who is about to advertise that he is mathematically incompetent.

Im a BM wrote: It may be difficult to say with the highest accuracy and precision what the average actually is. But you can sure get into the right ball park and make meaningful comparisons.

False. Shall we rake you over the coals again?

Yes, we shall.

Just for the laughter and merriment of others, please explain what you consider "the right ballpark" and how you would go about calculating the average to within this "ballpark." I'm heating up the coals right now.

Im a BM wrote: The "tipping point" came in just the last few years with so much extreme weather.

There hasn't been any extreme weather in the last thirty years. All weather during that time has happened before and has been documented, i.e. nothing out of the ordinary. Were there any lead-melting temperatures that I missed? That would be extreme. What about 900-mph winds, or double digit Kelvin temperatures? Either of those would be extreme, I'll give you that.

Any of those?

Im a BM wrote:You don't have to calculate an exact average of past weather to say with certainty that the new stuff is DIFFERENT than before.

Yes, you have to know the exact former and latter conditions, along with a subtraction operation, to know what difference, if any, there is.

Im a BM wrote: Only a small minority still cling to the belief that it is all a hoax.

... because you believe that reality is determined by consensus opinion, and that you get to declare the consensus opinion, which happens to be your opinion, because you would otherwise have to be resigned to knowing that your opinion is absurd and that your view represents the science-denying, math-avoiding lunatic fringe.
18-05-2024 09:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22005)
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
keepit wrote:
itn,
Biogeochemistry isn't a buzzword or a fallacy. It just seems like it to you. I think that's because you live in a smaller world than im a bm.

Buzzsword fallacy.


YOU are a "Buzzsword fallacy".[/quote]
Inversion fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Would you experience difficult withdrawal symptoms if you went a whole day without trolling or spamming?

Inversion fallacy.

You cannot project YOUR problems on anybody else, Sock.


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
18-05-2024 09:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22005)
keepit wrote:
Just for general edification -- Just because someone or a group of people can't calculate an average (for whatever reason) doesn't mean there isn't such an average. THERE IS. It's out there somewhere, even if it's uncalculated.

Void argument fallacy.


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
18-05-2024 09:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22005)
Im a BM wrote:
keepit wrote:
Just for general edification -- Just because someone or a group of people can't calculate an average (for whatever reason) doesn't mean there isn't such an average. THERE IS. It's out there somewhere, even if it's uncalculated.



Absolutely true, keepit.

Void argument fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
One of the key "arguments" has been that "It is not possible to measure the earth's average (temperature, atmospheric concentration of CO2, sea water alkalinity, whatever variable needs to be disputed)."

Denying mathematics is YOUR problem. You cannot project YOUR problem on anybody else.
Im a BM wrote:
It may be difficult to say with the highest accuracy and precision what the average actually is. But you can sure get into the right ball park and make meaningful comparisons.

Void argument fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
The "tipping point" came in just the last few years with so much extreme weather.

There is no such thing as a 'tipping point'. Buzzword fallacy. What 'extreme weather'?
Im a BM wrote:
You don't have to calculate an exact average of past weather to say with certainty that the new stuff is DIFFERENT than before.

Base rate fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Only a small minority still cling to the belief that it is all a hoax.

Omniscience fallacy. You don't get to speak for everyone.


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
19-05-2024 04:21
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(816)
Are there really 98 "Guests online" right now, as the box on the left indicates?

Very unlikely.

However, search engines display this website among results, as if were more than a troll-infested rabbit hole of a dead site.

And new viewers are directed here, in the hope of finding some kind of valid, meaningful discussion of climate change.

Oh, my goodness!

Now there are 138 "Online guests"

Maybe one of them will realize that they don't have to give the trolls any attention in order to learn something from or contribute something to the discussion.

And now we're up to 157 "Guests online".

This site must be more popular than it looks from here.

And now it's up to 174. How many minutes before its back down to 5?

Oh, wow! Now it's up to 189.

Things move fast around here.

So fast that it just hit 203 "Online guests".

Such a wild and crazy place!


Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
keepit wrote:
Just for general edification -- Just because someone or a group of people can't calculate an average (for whatever reason) doesn't mean there isn't such an average. THERE IS. It's out there somewhere, even if it's uncalculated.



meaningless buzzwords

Void argument fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
meaningless buzzwords

Denying mathematics is YOUR problem. You cannot project YOUR problem on anybody else.
Im a BM wrote:
meaningless buzzwords

Void argument fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:meaningless buzzwords

There is no such thing as a 'tipping point'. Buzzword fallacy. What 'extreme weather'?
Im a BM wrote:
meaningless buzzwords

Base rate fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
meaningless buzzwords

Omniscience fallacy. You don't get to speak for everyone.
19-05-2024 04:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22005)
Stop whining.
19-05-2024 08:11
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14559)
Im a BM wrote: Are there really 98 "Guests online" right now, as the box on the left indicates?

Of course. Everytime you become active, the internet rushes to discover your library.

Im a BM wrote: However, search engines display this website among results, as if were more than a troll-infested rabbit hole of a dead site.

This site has a monopoly on magrove solutions to dwindling ocean alkalinity.

Im a BM wrote: And new viewers are directed here, in the hope of finding some kind of valid, meaningful discussion of climate change.

The search engine uses teasers, implying that perusers of this site will learn the secret of what you testified in court.

Im a BM wrote: Now there are 138 "Online guests"

Rumors of dead Dominican coral reefs has that effect.

Im a BM wrote: Maybe one of them will realize that they don't have to give the trolls any attention in order to learn something from or contribute something to the discussion.

Maybe one of them will realize that he is a singular and not a plural.

Im a BM wrote: And now we're up to 157 "Guests online".

They all probably figured that they could get a glimpse of my posts.

Im a BM wrote: This site must be more popular than it looks from here.

This site must be the best site on the internet.
19-05-2024 17:38
keepit
★★★★★
(3181)
ibm and itn,
There is a "very much larger scenario" than you live in.
As a result of your attitudes most of the things you say on this website are just wrong.
19-05-2024 19:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22005)
keepit wrote:
ibm and itn,
There is a "very much larger scenario" than you live in.
As a result of your attitudes most of the things you say on this website are just wrong.

Argument of the Stone fallacy.

Continuing to deny science and mathematics the way you do doesn't change either science or mathematics.


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
19-05-2024 19:53
keepit
★★★★★
(3181)
itn,
Your mentality lacks any dynamic nature and sounds like a cult mentality which is something that i've dealt with in the past and made no headway.
19-05-2024 21:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22005)
keepit wrote:
itn,
Your mentality lacks any dynamic nature and sounds like a cult mentality which is something that i've dealt with in the past and made no headway.


Science is not a cult. Mathematics is not a cult.
You just want to ignore them in favor of your religion.

You cannot project YOUR problems on me or anybody else, keepit.


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
Edited on 19-05-2024 21:34
19-05-2024 21:49
keepit
★★★★★
(3181)
itn,
Noone is saying science or math is a cult. You're just arguing with your own "filaments".
19-05-2024 22:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22005)
keepit wrote:
itn,
Noone is saying science or math is a cult. You're just arguing with your own "filaments".

You cannot deny your own posts, keepit.


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
22-05-2024 20:35
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(816)
Little box on the left says 1 "Users online" and 4 "Guests online".

That is quite plausible.

Soon enough, probably within the next half hour, it will suddenly show a jump to 50-200 "Guests online"

That is quite implausible.

Of the 4 "Guests online" right now, it is plausible that ONE of them has never seen this website before. Or at least within the next half hour, it is plausible that ONE or even more of the "Guests online" is someone who never saw this website before.

It would be hard for them to see anything that resembles "What is climate-debate.com" as described on the home page.

Any thread they open up will go straight to the "Last Post".

Which is usually a hostile attack by one of the trolls.


-------------------------------------------

According to the little box on the left, there are 186 "Guests online" right now.

I doubt it.

But many new viewers, actual human beings, visit this site for the first time on any given day.

They might immediately see it as a "dead" website, where nearly all the "Last Post"s on all the most recently active threads are by the same poster.

But I keep hoping at least some of them will see past that and discover a pleasant surprise upon closer examination.

I can dream, can't I?

PhD biogeochemist with interesting stories to tell...

You don't even have to join to see them, and they compiled to remove all the troll noise.

See "Biogeochemistry-related Thread Guide..." thread to know what they are about and precisely which pages they are all compiled on.


------------------------------------

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.
23-05-2024 03:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22005)
Stop whining.




Join the debate Are there really 129 "Guests online" right now?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Online voting1830-03-2023 21:41
Dumb Mexican woman (redundant) falls in love online and travels to Peru to have her organs cut out by026-11-2022 05:31
Retarded mom wakes up and stops posting vids of her little girl online127-07-2022 15:18
The Most Powerful Individual Evolution Opportunity & Special Online Secret Society Opening122-09-2021 05:27
The Ultimate Savior Is Online, Going To Reveal The Truth Of Life Society Civilization106-07-2021 08:45
▲ 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 © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact