| 24-09-2025 20:41 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(24058) |
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
3. The Sealover Library is a place where people deliberately log on to climate-debate.com in order to visit, and many different live individuals are now actually opening up threads to view them.
Nah. Your spam killed the website.
Such powerful spam that it drove away your entire fan base, in addition to drowning out your 23,000 plus posts.
Scary spam!
Like garlic for vampires.
You might say that. It's boring watching your endlessly spam across multiple threads. People here used to get banned for that, and for good reason.
Of course, there is also the factor that the Church of Global Warming isn't very popular anymore.
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 24-09-2025 20:43 |
| 28-09-2025 22:13 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(3453) |
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
3. The Sealover Library is a place where people deliberately log on to climate-debate.com in order to visit, and many different live individuals are now actually opening up threads to view them.
Nah. Your spam killed the website.
Such powerful spam that it drove away your entire fan base, in addition to drowning out your 23,000 plus posts.
Scary spam!
Like garlic for vampires.
You might say that. It's boring watching your endlessly spam across multiple threads. People here used to get banned for that, and for good reason.
Of course, there is also the factor that the Church of Global Warming isn't very popular anymore.
Into the Night, if you didn't get banned from Facebook, you could see what is going on at "Climate Change Reality" group discussion. It's wide open for all to view ("public").
Roy Spencer, a rather famous climate scientist replied to something I wrote there. It was on Nguyen Jim's september 26 post.
ITN, it is possible you are not so completely scientifically illiterate that you are unaware who Roy Spencer is. He is a hero among climate "skeptics".
Roy Spencer most likely never spent much time looking at climate-debate.com
On the other hand, Roy Spencer almost certainly viewed the site at least once. For more than a decade, Google placed this site high on search results for climate discussion sites.
I hope to discuss some biogeochemistry with Roy Spencer at Facebook.
He already affirms my articulation of how a warm body can get cold while in contact with an even warmer body. "Night frost" as infrared exits faster than the heat can be replaced by conduction from the overlying warmer body. Sandwiched between an above freezing temperature ground surface and above freezing temperature air, a thin layer freezes out water from the air. Roy Spencer gets it. Most who have actually studied physics do. ITN does not. |
| 29-09-2025 02:04 |
Swan ★★★★★
(7872) |
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
3. The Sealover Library is a place where people deliberately log on to climate-debate.com in order to visit, and many different live individuals are now actually opening up threads to view them.
Nah. Your spam killed the website.
Such powerful spam that it drove away your entire fan base, in addition to drowning out your 23,000 plus posts.
Scary spam!
Like garlic for vampires.
You might say that. It's boring watching your endlessly spam across multiple threads. People here used to get banned for that, and for good reason.
Of course, there is also the factor that the Church of Global Warming isn't very popular anymore.
Into the Night, if you didn't get banned from Facebook, you could see what is going on at "Climate Change Reality" group discussion. It's wide open for all to view ("public").
Roy Spencer, a rather famous climate scientist replied to something I wrote there. It was on Nguyen Jim's september 26 post.
ITN, it is possible you are not so completely scientifically illiterate that you are unaware who Roy Spencer is. He is a hero among climate "skeptics".
Roy Spencer most likely never spent much time looking at climate-debate.com
On the other hand, Roy Spencer almost certainly viewed the site at least once. For more than a decade, Google placed this site high on search results for climate discussion sites.
I hope to discuss some biogeochemistry with Roy Spencer at Facebook.
He already affirms my articulation of how a warm body can get cold while in contact with an even warmer body. "Night frost" as infrared exits faster than the heat can be replaced by conduction from the overlying warmer body. Sandwiched between an above freezing temperature ground surface and above freezing temperature air, a thin layer freezes out water from the air. Roy Spencer gets it. Most who have actually studied physics do. ITN does not.
Facebook exist for the NSA to trick terrorist into giving up their location, it is not a real space. Not that your brain can deal with reality
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 |
| 30-09-2025 03:01 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(3453) |
Swan wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
3. The Sealover Library is a place where people deliberately log on to climate-debate.com in order to visit, and many different live individuals are now actually opening up threads to view them.
Nah. Your spam killed the website.
Such powerful spam that it drove away your entire fan base, in addition to drowning out your 23,000 plus posts.
Scary spam!
Like garlic for vampires.
You might say that. It's boring watching your endlessly spam across multiple threads. People here used to get banned for that, and for good reason.
Of course, there is also the factor that the Church of Global Warming isn't very popular anymore.
Into the Night, if you didn't get banned from Facebook, you could see what is going on at "Climate Change Reality" group discussion. It's wide open for all to view ("public").
Roy Spencer, a rather famous climate scientist replied to something I wrote there. It was on Nguyen Jim's september 26 post.
ITN, it is possible you are not so completely scientifically illiterate that you are unaware who Roy Spencer is. He is a hero among climate "skeptics".
Roy Spencer most likely never spent much time looking at climate-debate.com
On the other hand, Roy Spencer almost certainly viewed the site at least once. For more than a decade, Google placed this site high on search results for climate discussion sites.
I hope to discuss some biogeochemistry with Roy Spencer at Facebook.
He already affirms my articulation of how a warm body can get cold while in contact with an even warmer body. "Night frost" as infrared exits faster than the heat can be replaced by conduction from the overlying warmer body. Sandwiched between an above freezing temperature ground surface and above freezing temperature air, a thin layer freezes out water from the air. Roy Spencer gets it. Most who have actually studied physics do. ITN does not.
Facebook exist for the NSA to trick terrorist into giving up their location, it is not a real space. Not that your brain can deal with reality
Now this thread is up to 8226 views. For a few years, this same thread averaged less than 1/4 view per day.
IBdaMann was the senior troll here for ten years. He used to tell every new member, as he told me, "You won't be here long." In nearly every case, he was correct. Most new members who posted at all only posted once.
"Define your terms, you scientifically illiterate moron."
New members never passed the "define your terms" test.
But there were always more where they came from. At least a few new members joined every week for years. "You won't be here long," was correct.
Then Google stopped showing this website among prominent search results for climate discussion sites. No new member posted more than once in the last two years. Only one new member posted at all in the last year.
But something changed with the "views" displayed. On the home page, near the bottom just above the blue box you can click "View older threads". It changes the display to show how many views the threads have gotten.
This thread now gets dozens of new views every day, when it used to get one view every four days.
Into the Night has finally been "discovered". |
| 03-11-2025 18:13 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(3453) |
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
3. The Sealover Library is a place where people deliberately log on to climate-debate.com in order to visit, and many different live individuals are now actually opening up threads to view them.
Nah. Your spam killed the website.
Such powerful spam that it drove away your entire fan base, in addition to drowning out your 23,000 plus posts.
Scary spam!
Like garlic for vampires.
You might say that. It's boring watching your endlessly spam across multiple threads. People here used to get banned for that, and for good reason.
Of course, there is also the factor that the Church of Global Warming isn't very popular anymore.
".. the Church of Global Warming isn't very popular anymore."
Into the Night and IBdaMann both offered a similar explanation for the diminished participation at this website in recent years.
People just aren't interested in this kind of discussion anymore.
At Facebook there is an open, public group called "Climate Change Reality".
When I first posted less than six months ago, there were barely 900 members.
As of today, it has 3200 members.
It was the climate discussion at THIS website that people lost interest in.
Even with 23000 posts, Into the Night could not save it. |
|
| 03-11-2025 18:39 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(24058) |
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
3. The Sealover Library is a place where people deliberately log on to climate-debate.com in order to visit, and many different live individuals are now actually opening up threads to view them.
Nah. Your spam killed the website.
Such powerful spam that it drove away your entire fan base, in addition to drowning out your 23,000 plus posts.
Scary spam!
Like garlic for vampires.
You might say that. It's boring watching your endlessly spam across multiple threads. People here used to get banned for that, and for good reason.
Of course, there is also the factor that the Church of Global Warming isn't very popular anymore.
".. the Church of Global Warming isn't very popular anymore."
Into the Night and IBdaMann both offered a similar explanation for the diminished participation at this website in recent years.
People just aren't interested in this kind of discussion anymore.
At Facebook there is an open, public group called "Climate Change Reality".
When I first posted less than six months ago, there were barely 900 members.
As of today, it has 3200 members.
It was the climate discussion at THIS website that people lost interest in.
Even with 23000 posts, Into the Night could not save it.
Argument from randU fallacy.
Random numbers are not data.
You cannot blame your spam on me or anybody else.
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 |
| 25-04-2026 22:02 |
Im a BM★★★★★
(3453) |
THIS post is my 3rd nomination for the climate-debate.com Hall of Fame
Into the Night wrote:
There has been much spamming about biogeochemistry BS, arguments about alligators and frogs, etc. But it does eventually come back to some basic arguments.
The entire debate about so-called 'climate change' (otherwise known as 'global warming') comes down to some very basic arguments, all of which ignore science and mathematics.
First, let's review the initial circular argument:
Earth is somehow warming.
ALL other arguments in this religion stem from this one. Typically these center around Man causing this warming:
1. Through the use of Magick Gas (take your pick, carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, etc), thermal energy is being created and thus raising the temperature of Earth.
The trouble is, you can't create energy out of nothing.
The 1st law of thermodynamics states: E(t+1) = E(t) - U where 'E' it energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work (or force over distance).
No gas or vapor is work, therefore the value of U they contribute is zero. This leaves the equation: E(t+1) = E(t) - 0. In other words, no new energy can possibly exist. Perpetual motion machines of the 1st order are not possible.
2. Through the use of Magick Gas, electromagnetic energy radiated from the surface of Earth (which cools it) is reflected back to the surface, making it warmer than it was before, even though the gas reflecting it back is colder than the surface. This leaves the upper atmosphere colder and the surface warmer.
The trouble is, that means you are decreasing entropy (the randomness of a system, that system being Earth itself (no surrounding heat sinks and sources are considered). In other words, the system is becoming more organized, not less.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics (which is applicable to any given system), states:
e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy, and 't' is time. In other words, for any given system, entropy can never decrease...ever. Indeed, this law defines what the word 'heat' means. It is the flow of thermal energy, not the thermal energy itself. Heat has no temperature.
3. Through the use of Magick Gas, electromagnetic energy is prevented from leaving the Earth, thus it builds up, raising the temperature.
The trouble is, ALL materials radiate electromagnetic energy (light). That includes the ground, the water, the air, any Magick Gas, everything.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law states:
r = C * e * t^4 where 'r' is light radiated per square area in watts (usually square meters is used), 'C' is a natural constant, serving to convert the relation to our units of measurement, 'e' is emissivity (a measured constant describing how well light is radiated or absorbed into the material) expressed as a percentage from 0% (ideal 'white' body), to 100% (ideal 'black' body), and 't' is temperature in deg K.
Emissivity is measured by comparing the radiated light at a precisely known temperature to an ideal black body of the same temperature. There are no ideal white or black bodies in nature. Everything is somewhere between, sometimes called a 'gray' body.
The key point here is that it is a measured constant. To measure it, you MUST precisely know the temperature of the emitting body to begin with.
This means it is not possible to use algebra to invert the equation to calculate temperature from a known measure of light coming from a body. It is unknown how much of that is reflected and how much is radiated due to temperature.
Note that the Stefan-Boltzmann law does NOT have a frequency component in it. ALL frequencies of light are considered at once as a combined total.
Now we get to the core circular argument itself, that Earth is somehow warming.
The trouble is, there is no way to measure the temperature of the Earth. This measurement, by it's very definition, is a statistical measurement. In other words, it is combining some number of thermometer readings into a statistical summary.
But statistical summaries require TWO values to be published, the average, and the margin of error value. It also requires the incoming data to be published and available for perusal. That data MUST be unbiased. It must be raw data. It cannot be cooked, since no statistical summary has been run yet, and one summary may differ from the next on the SAME DATASET.
The margin of error value is NOT calculated from the data, but from the possible variant of data. For Earth temperatures, that would result in how fast temperature changes per given distance, say, a mile.
Since temperature can vary as much as 20 deg F per mile quite easily (across weather fronts, mountain wave effects, different terrain features like lakes, forests, grasslands, bare soil, asphalt, concrete, class, metal, etc.) the end result is that the margin of error is greater than the highest and lowest temperatures ever recorded on Earth, so those become the margin of error. In other words, any such statistic is literally guessing.
Anyone that tries to tell you the temperature of the Earth, or that it's changing (requiring TWO measurements to measure the change), is ignoring statistical math and they are simply making up numbers. It does not matter if that is a government, a bunch of scientists, or an individual.
A similar problem lies with measuring global carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere. Further, there are very few stations (only one is consistently quoted by the Church of Global Warming, the Mauna Loa observatory on the Big Island of Hawaii), that are even capable of measuring CO2 at all. Again, the margin of error gets you again. The resulting summary is literally guessing.
Anyone telling you the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is making numbers up. It doesn't matter if it's a government agency, a bunch of scientists, or an individual.
Making numbers up and using them as 'data' like this is a fallacy, known as the argument from randU fallacy. A randU is a psuedo-random number that is made up in someone's head, or that came through an algorithm that came out of someone's head.
Note that 'climate prediction models' (or computer programs used to try to predict long term weather), are randU generators. They are no different from any cheap random number generator found in any computer that doesn't use actual random sources.
In other words, the entire set of scripture from the Church of Global Warming, which comes down to these simple arguments, ignores and denies science and mathematics.
It doesn't matter whether this preaching comes from a government agency, a bunch of scientists, or an individual.
Some of the various 'doomsday' scenarios are really coming from the Church of Green, discussed in another post. |