Climate Change - Be careful or you might learn something

GretaGroupie wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

GretaGroupie wrote:What about her face with a rainbow like this on the tip of a finger?

Yes but it is hard to tell it is her

GretaGroupie wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Should have put it on the 'middle finger'...

Oh I like that Harvey but it might be hard to see her face if you have the whole hand in the picture

IBdaMann wrote:
How do you know that isn't the middle finger?

GretaGroupie wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
How do you know that isn't the middle finger?

That's a good one IBM. I still like my sinking ship so I am using middle finger greta as my singature.

What do you think?

IBdaMann wrote:
As long as you are thinking independently, all is well.

GretaGroupie wrote:[quote]IBdaMann wrote:She dresses a lot like a boy and sounds a lot like a boy and I think a lot of other kids look up to her for being that and I do too.

IBdaMann wrote:
Greta dresses exactly as she is told to dress.

GretaGroupie wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Greta dresses exactly as she is told to dress.

I like how she looks and sometimes I try to imitate her as a girl.

I know you do not like her and that is okay but I can not wait to see what she does and says.

I told you about her new book that is coming out?

Im a BM wrote:
No, you don't like the prevailing bigotry within the Republican party toward trannys.

But you are fine with their bigotry toward beaners, ragheads, and n words.

Pick a side, bitch!

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

GretaGroupie wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Greta dresses exactly as she is told to dress.

I like how she looks and sometimes I try to imitate her as a girl.

I know you do not like her and that is okay but I can not wait to see what she does and says.

I told you about her new book that is coming out?

Im a BM wrote:
Pick a side, bitch!

IBdaMann wrote:
Welcome again newcomers!

Yes, the pursuit of "climate" definitions can be daunting.

I would encourage you to watch and learn from it. The fact that nothing ever gets defined should teach you volumes.

I would encourage you to post questions along with your requests for unambiguous definitions.

I would discourage you going down any rabbit holes of useless buzzwords.

This month marks my 11111st post on this site. At the beginning, like now, there was an endless chain of warmizombies and climate lemmings insisting they were/are "scientists" while never offering unambiguous definitions for their bizarre and technically inaccurate terms.

None of the requests for definitions ever received anything but lame excuses and double-downs on dishonesty, and this has been a number of years in the running so don't be discouraged; simply learn from it all.

The scientific method is one of the tools you can use to evaluate the "sacrosanct" arguments presented by warmizombies and climate lemmings on this site. If you cannot apply the scientific method because the presented argument is unfalsifiable, you already have your answer.

This website is a bit different. All posters are encouraged to think freely and to apply critical reasoning. This annoys the bejeebees out of the scientifically illiterate warmizombies and climate lemmings who have been assured in their safe spaces that their mere belief in Global Warming transforms them into science geniuses and climate justice superheroes. As such, they are totally unprepared for any questions or to defend any arguments they have been told to make.

Don't fall for the phony claims of authority or expertise. Warmizombies are not capable of thinking for themselves as is noted by their reliance on others to do their thinking for them. None of their arguments are their own; all are the arguments of others that were simply handed to them to believe and to regurgitate without question. As such, they can be pretty stupid. Don't have food in your mouth when you are reading.

Apply the scientific method and you'll be fine. Remember to ask plenty of questions and to demand unambiguous definitions for any terms that are unclear in any way.

Im a BM wrote:Dejame explicartelo ...

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:Dejame explicartelo ...

No es necesario, te entendi la primera vez. Piensas que eres genio por el copiar las palabras de otros.

El castellano no te brinda nada de inteligenica.

El con boca de diarrea siempre habla mierda.

Im a BM wrote: Sabes bien lo que eres.

Im a BM wrote:En serio, eres diabolico. Pero tu reino de terror se ha acabado.

Im a BM wrote:Tienes quizas cinco seguidores creyentes que te respetan.

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote:So this means you'll stay in the grown-up pool, right? It's not that I'm afraid of you. It's just that some of the other kids will think you're scary.

I make no promises and everybody thinks I'm scary.

You can bet I'll drop on by the kiddie pool unannounced on occasion. It'll be a lot of fun.

IBdaMann wrote:
Greetings newcomers!

If you are like me, you found this website during an Internet search.

The word "Debate" in the title "Climate-Debate" tells you that your ideas are welcome but are expected to be clearly stated and defended, not simply presumed to be accepted by others who are debating their own points. If you're like sealover and selectively exclude the word "Debate" from the title ... and stopped reading after the word "Climate", you might be thinking that this is a site where everyone spews Climate gibber-babble and pretends to be a science genius as sealover does.

You'll be pleased to note that we have resident science experts to help guide you in your efforts to leverage science to mold your beliefs. If your beliefs are immutable, then naturally you will find science to be ... well, ... annoying, I grant you that.

But you can still have fun. HANG IN THERE!

Welcome aboard.

sealover wrote:Let's pay close attention to the lecture about thermodynamics from the instructor who never passed a single college level course in physics.

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote:Let's pay close attention to the lecture about thermodynamics from the instructor who never passed a single college level course in physics.

When were you planning on presenting? I'll read it ... so that others don't have to.

Im a BM wrote: It is painfully obvious that the senior troll here never even took a first semester, introductory physics course.

sealover wrote:
"resident science experts"???

sealover wrote:
This is arrogance to the extreme.

sealover wrote:
I am reminded of Jenny McCarthy, a self identified "expert" in the science of immunology.

sealover wrote:
In an interview, she was confronted about the fact that she never passed a single college level course in any related field of science, and certainly had no kind of degree that would justify claiming to be an expert.

sealover wrote:
But the "resident science experts" at this website don't even recognize Google as a valid source for any kind of scientific information.

sealover wrote:
Let's pay close attention to the lecture about thermodynamics from the instructor who never passed a single college level course in physics.

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote:Let's pay close attention to the lecture about thermodynamics from the instructor who never passed a single college level course in physics.

When were you planning on presenting? I'll read it ... so that others don't have to.

It is painfully obvious that the senior troll here never even took a first semester, introductory physics course.

Im a BM wrote:
Without ever having heard it during a lecture in an institution of higher learning, are you sure you even know how to pronounce the word "thermodynamics"?

Im a BM wrote:
You certainly have no idea what it means.

IBdaMann wrote:
Welcome newcomers!

If you do decide to join this discussion, a word of caution. Watch for trolls who hide behind word games and who won't define their terms. They usually lie up front about being science experts of some sort and then cry like babies when they are corrected (hence blowing their cover)

Do not publish personal information here. This is an anonymous forum so no credentials matter in any way. Only the merit of your words will hold any value. Attempts to compensate for weak arguments by claiming credentials will usually be dismissed as untrue, so just focus on the validity of your assertions.

All religions are welcome. The primary faiths you will encounter on this board are Christianity and Climate Change. All views are considered but claims of "science" will naturally face the scientific method. If you hold a belief that you do not wish scrutinized by scientific and mathematical analysis, just declare it as your belief and move forward.

Again, welcome!

Im a BM wrote:
Yes.

"Watch for trolls who hide behind word games.."

On the other hand, word games are all they have to offer.

Nobody is required to play with them, no matter how "triggered" they get.

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote:1995. Polyphenol control of nitrogen release from pine litter. Nature. 377:227-229.

I'll take you on your word that the article is worth discussing and I'll be happy to discuss it with you, from an honest, straightforward, science perspective.

Please attach the article here in this thread or email it to me at IBDaMann@yahoo.com

At the moment, all I have is the abstract. I will give you an initial critique from that.

Nature. 377:227-229 Abstract of Polyphenol Control of Nitrogen Release from Pine Litter THE importance of dissolved organic nitrogen in ecosystem nutrient fluxes and plant nutrition is only beginning to be appreciated

I don't mean to be rude, but this sentence expresses the thought that will first enter the reader's head, i.e. that nobody cares about the importance of dissolved organic nitrogen in ecosystem nutrient fluxes and plant nutrition. Read the sentence again and you'll see what I mean.

This would have been an excellent place to write a thesis statement specifying clearly the importance of dissolved organic nitrogen in ecosystem nutrient fluxes and plant nutrition ... and why anyone would wish to read further.

Nature. 377:227-229 Abstract of Polyphenol Control of Nitrogen Release from Pine LitterHere we report that the polyphenol concentration of decomposing Pinus muricata litter controls the proportion of nitrogen released in dissolved organic forms relative to mineral forms (NH+4 + NO-3).

OK, the reader now understands what he is about to read, i.e. that the polyphenol concentration of decomposing Pinus muricata litter controls the proportion of nitrogen released in dissolved organic forms relative to mineral forms (NH+4 + NO-3). Don't you think you should have already explained why this is important? Why is the proportion of nitrogen released in dissolved organic forms of any concern?

So I need to ask, are you trying to link this Climate Change? I'm betting that you weren't because that wasn't really much of a thing back in 1995. I hate to ask but what is your point? What is the conclusion of this paper? What is the thesis statement? This is supposed to be prominently on display in the abstract.

Nature. 377:227-229 Abstract of Polyphenol Control of Nitrogen Release from Pine LitterWe have previously shown that concentrations of polyphenols in P. muricata foliage vary along an extreme soil acidity/ fertility gradient. Apparently, this feedback to soil conditions controls the dominant form in which litter nitrogen is mobilized, facilitating nitrogen recovery through pine-mycorrhizal associations, minimizing nitrogen availability to competing organisms, and attenuating nitrogen losses from leaching and denitrification.

Maybe this is your thesis statement. Please let me know. I have a few questions regarding the above two sentences (the second of which is somewhat of a run-on sentence):

1. You characterized an acidity/fertility gradient as a "feedback." Why?
2. Re: #1, most claims of "feedbacks" are merely violations of thermodynamics. How is this "feedback to soil conditions" a legitimate thing?
3. You have made it clear that nitrogen loss is controlled by some undefined "dominant form." What exactly is this "dominant form" and is this control of nitrogen loss a good thing or a bad thing ... and why?

Nature. 377:227-229 Abstract of Polyphenol Control of Nitrogen Release from Pine LitterPolyphenol control of nitrogen dynamics helps explain the convergent evolution of tannin-rich plant communities on highly leached soils.

A few more questions:

1. Must one discard your paper if one does not accept Darwin's theory?
2. Is your falsifiable theory that the properties of polyphenol drove the evolution of leached-soil plants due to specific cause-effects that you spell out in the paper?

.

Im a BM wrote:
The futility of attempting to have a rational discussion about science...

The extreme ARROGANCE displayed in attempting to criticize subject matter without the slightest understanding of what it means.

Doesn't even understand that an ABSTRACT is not intended to provide any kind of "thesis statement". You might want to read the introduction section of the paper itself before WHINING about how the abstract does not include it.

IBdaMann wrote:
Welcome again newcomers!

Yes, the pursuit of "climate" definitions can be daunting.

I would encourage you to watch and learn from it. The fact that nothing ever gets defined should teach you volumes.

I would encourage you to post questions along with your requests for unambiguous definitions.

I would discourage you going down any rabbit holes of useless buzzwords.

This month marks my 11111st post on this site. At the beginning, like now, there was an endless chain of warmizombies and climate lemmings insisting they were/are "scientists" while never offering unambiguous definitions for their bizarre and technically inaccurate terms.

None of the requests for definitions ever received anything but lame excuses and double-downs on dishonesty, and this has been a number of years in the running so don't be discouraged; simply learn from it all.

The scientific method is one of the tools you can use to evaluate the "sacrosanct" arguments presented by warmizombies and climate lemmings on this site. If you cannot apply the scientific method because the presented argument is unfalsifiable, you already have your answer.

This website is a bit different. All posters are encouraged to think freely and to apply critical reasoning. This annoys the bejeebees out of the scientifically illiterate warmizombies and climate lemmings who have been assured in their safe spaces that their mere belief in Global Warming transforms them into science geniuses and climate justice superheroes. As such, they are totally unprepared for any questions or to defend any arguments they have been told to make.

Don't fall for the phony claims of authority or expertise. Warmizombies are not capable of thinking for themselves as is noted by their reliance on others to do their thinking for them. None of their arguments are their own; all are the arguments of others that were simply handed to them to believe and to regurgitate without question. As such, they can be pretty stupid. Don't have food in your mouth when you are reading.

Apply the scientific method and you'll be fine. Remember to ask plenty of questions and to demand unambiguous definitions for any terms that are unclear in any way.

sealover wrote:
Not all of the "resident science experts" will require "unambiguous definitions" before anything can be discussed.

sealover wrote:
Feel free to use the language you understand. The word cops have no authority. They just like to rant a lot and tear sentences apart with a microscope.

sealover wrote:
"None of the requests for definitions ever received anything but lame excuses and double-downs on dishonesty, and this has been for a number of years in the running..."

sealover wrote:
So, for years people on this site have been called "liars" because they refused to provide an unambiguous definition of commonly used terms such as "climate change" before any point they wished to make could be heard out without interruption.

sealover wrote:
The contrast is clear.

It's not always easy to tune out the noise.

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
Not all of the "resident science experts" will require "unambiguous definitions" before anything can be discussed.

Everything in every theory of science is unambiguously defined.
Science is not buzzwords.

IBdaMann wrote:
Welcome newcomers!

If you do decide to join this discussion, a word of caution. Watch for trolls who hide behind word games and who won't define their terms. They usually lie up front about being science experts of some sort and then cry like babies when they are corrected (hence blowing their cover)

Do not publish personal information here. This is an anonymous forum so no credentials matter in any way. Only the merit of your words will hold any value. Attempts to compensate for weak arguments by claiming credentials will usually be dismissed as untrue, so just focus on the validity of your assertions.

All religions are welcome. The primary faiths you will encounter on this board are Christianity and Climate Change. All views are considered but claims of "science" will naturally face the scientific method. If you hold a belief that you do not wish scrutinized by scientific and mathematical analysis, just declare it as your belief and move forward.

Again, welcome!

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
Not all of the "resident science experts" will require "unambiguous definitions" before anything can be discussed.

Everything in every theory of science is unambiguously defined.
Science is not buzzwords.

A discussion without defining what the discussion is about. Are you talking to a preacher ITN?

Im a BM wrote:
"Watch out for trolls who hide behind word games and who won't define their terms" - IBdaMann


Okay, IBdaMann, maybe YOU can help me out. More than four years of on and off discussion about ocean "acidification", and Into the Night STILL REFUSES TO DEFINE HIS TERMS.

gfm7175 wrote:
Troll feeding time, since I'm enjoying it atm...

sealover wrote:
"Buzzwords" is a term frequently used on this website.

Yes, because many scientifically and logically illiterate morons such as yourself have come and gone from this forum over the years and have made use of the same meaningless buzzwords that you are currently making use of (and refusing to unambiguously define).

sealover wrote:
What are "buzzwords"?

You've already been told what buzzwords are. Your question has already been answered.

This is when you will start to notice posters such as ITN (and your's truly) simply responding to your tripe with "RQAA", which means 'repetitive question already answered'. This is also when you will start to notice posters such as IBdaMann REALLY start to let loose with the mockery.

sealover wrote:
I've never been sure myself how they were defined.

RQAA.

sealover wrote:
Apparently, the list of "buzzwords" includes:

"climate change", "feedback", "forcing", "greenhouse gas", "greenhouse effect", "oxygen catastrophe", etc.

Correct, and you've already been told why that is.

sealover wrote:
That's kind of gag order for me if I'm not allowed to use them.

Use them all you want, but you will continue to be called out for your void argument fallacies every single time that you do so, at least until you can unambiguously define such words... Otherwise, they remain meaningless.

sealover wrote:
What word should I say instead if "feedback" is just a meaningless "buzzword"?

You haven't even defined what you are talking about when using that word, so how would I know?

As far as I am concerned, 'feedback' is: "a specific type of forcing employed by Climate that overcomes the physical limitations of the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics by creating additional usable energy. Feedbacks come in various subcategories, e.g. thermal, climate, hydrostatic, radiative, water vapor, etc.. This falls under Settled Science."

and 'forcing' is: "a miracle performed by Climate in discharging Her duties as the central planner and administrator of all weather systems, ecosystems and local climates across the globe, of all interactions thereof and in caring for the wellbeing of all life on earth. This falls under Climate Science."

Those definitions can be found here.

sealover wrote:
Maybe some of us can sneak off and have our own discussion, using "buzzwords".

Go on ahead. You and your fellow climate lemmings can buzz around all you want, parroting those words... They still remain meaningless to anyone who is literate in logic and/or English.

sealover wrote:
I promise not to tell anyone.

Shhhhhhh, it's a secret!

Im a BM wrote:

"Maybe some of us can sneak off and have our own discussion, using 'buzzwords'." - sealover

"Go on ahead. You and your fellow climae lemmings can buzz around all you want.." - gfm7175

It was disingenuous of gfm7175 to say, "Go on ahead." He was fully aware that he and his fellow trolls would NEVER allow such a discussion to occur. Relentless harassment would follow any warmazombies, no matter which thread or what the alleged topic.

Im a BM wrote:
To this day! Into the Night has made it quite clear that he has no intention of allowing discussion to occur without his harrassment, regarding a proposed FUTURE thread. He has already explained why it will be his moral obligation to obnoxiously troll the proposed future thread.

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night used a new word here for the very first time this week.

That word is "intersititium".

Into the Night is now the world's leading authority regarding scientific investigation of the interstitium.

Because he will never AGAIN reveal his definition for the term "interstitium" and all we will ever get in the future is "RQAA", It is good that his very first statement of the unambiguous definition of the "interstitium" is recorded.

Im a BM wrote:
In response to "please give us your definition for 'interstitium'":

"(deleted Captain Obvious point about intersitial space between cells)
It's basically saltwater.
It is not an organ. It contains no tissue. It has no compartments."

So, Into the Night assures us that the intersititium is just saltwater in otherwise empty space. It is definitely NOT an organ. It contains absolutely NO tissue. And it does not have ANY compartments.

Im a BM wrote:
And now he has committed himself to obnoxiously trolling the thread as soon as it gets started. He has already spelled out what his genius anti scientific contribution is going to be.

Im a BM wrote:
"NO, it's NOT!"

gfm7175, if you still look at this website, I invite you to tell me if I'm wrong.

When I Google the search terms: "Do scientists believe that the interstitium contains any kind of tissue?"

Google AI at upper left says: "Yes, scientists believe that the interstitium is a network of fluid-filled spaces supported by a structural lattice of connective tissue, rather than being empty or just solid tissue. Recent research suggests that this is a body-wide, supportive framework of collagen and elastin fibers that acts as a shock absorber for organs"

When I Google, "Do scientists believe that the interstitium contains any kind of compartments?"

Google AI at upper left says: "Yes. Scientists and researchers, (some identified), believe the interstitium is a body-wide network of interconnected, fluid-filled compartments. These spaces, often described to as "fluid-filled highway", are supported by a lattice of collagen and exist within connective tissue throughout the body."

Im a BM wrote:

When I Google, "Do scientists believe that the interstitium is an organ?"

Google AI at upper left says: "Some scientists propose that the interstitium, a network of fluid-filled spaces, is a new human organ. Identified in 2018 as a body-wide, supportive structure, it exists beneath the skin, lining organs, and surrounding vessels."

Im a BM wrote:

So, gfm7175, it looks like it's me and GOOGLE versus Into the Night.

Who do YOU think is more likely to be correct about the science on this one?

Im a BM wrote:
It doesn't matter, because Into the Night is going to TROLL THE HELL out that thread, regardless of what you or anyone else believes the interstitium is.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

"Maybe some of us can sneak off and have our own discussion, using 'buzzwords'." - sealover

"Go on ahead. You and your fellow climae lemmings can buzz around all you want.." - gfm7175

It was disingenuous of gfm7175 to say, "Go on ahead." He was fully aware that he and his fellow trolls would NEVER allow such a discussion to occur. Relentless harassment would follow any warmazombies, no matter which thread or what the alleged topic.

If you want a censored off area to spew our meaningless buzzwords, that's your lonely place. The Kiddie Pool.

It will fail for the same reason. You are the only one in it, and you cannot STAND not preaching your tripe to the 'unbelievers'.

Im a BM wrote:
To this day! Into the Night has made it quite clear that he has no intention of allowing discussion to occur without his harrassment, regarding a proposed FUTURE thread. He has already explained why it will be his moral obligation to obnoxiously troll the proposed future thread.

What 'future thread'??

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night used a new word here for the very first time this week.

That word is "intersititium".

Into the Night is now the world's leading authority regarding scientific investigation of the interstitium.

Because he will never AGAIN reveal his definition for the term "interstitium" and all we will ever get in the future is "RQAA", It is good that his very first statement of the unambiguous definition of the "interstitium" is recorded.

Still trying to redefine 'interstitium' I see.

Im a BM wrote:
In response to "please give us your definition for 'interstitium'":

"(deleted Captain Obvious point about intersitial space between cells)
It's basically saltwater.
It is not an organ. It contains no tissue. It has no compartments."

So, Into the Night assures us that the intersititium is just saltwater in otherwise empty space. It is definitely NOT an organ. It contains absolutely NO tissue. And it does not have ANY compartments.

You understand exactly what I said. Yet, you ask me to say it again, and again, and again, and again.

Im a BM wrote:
And now he has committed himself to obnoxiously trolling the thread as soon as it gets started. He has already spelled out what his genius anti scientific contribution is going to be.

Magick Word. Go learn what 'science' means. Science is not a 'contribution'.

Im a BM wrote:
"NO, it's NOT!"

gfm7175, if you still look at this website, I invite you to tell me if I'm wrong.

When I Google the search terms: "Do scientists believe that the interstitium contains any kind of tissue?"

Google AI at upper left says: "Yes, scientists believe that the interstitium is a network of fluid-filled spaces supported by a structural lattice of connective tissue, rather than being empty or just solid tissue. Recent research suggests that this is a body-wide, supportive framework of collagen and elastin fibers that acts as a shock absorber for organs"

When I Google, "Do scientists believe that the interstitium contains any kind of compartments?"

Google AI at upper left says: "Yes. Scientists and researchers, (some identified), believe the interstitium is a body-wide network of interconnected, fluid-filled compartments. These spaces, often described to as "fluid-filled highway", are supported by a lattice of collagen and exist within connective tissue throughout the body."

It's hilarious when you try to substitute AI for your brain! There is no 'network'. There are no 'compartments'. It is not a 'highway'. It has no collagen. It is not connective tissue. It is not tissue of any kind.

Im a BM wrote:

When I Google, "Do scientists believe that the interstitium is an organ?"

Google AI at upper left says: "Some scientists propose that the interstitium, a network of fluid-filled spaces, is a new human organ. Identified in 2018 as a body-wide, supportive structure, it exists beneath the skin, lining organs, and surrounding vessels."

HAHAHAHAHA! There you again! Substituting AI for your brain!

It is not a 'network'. It is not an organ. It is not a 'structure'.

Im a BM wrote:

So, gfm7175, it looks like it's me and GOOGLE versus Into the Night.

Who do YOU think is more likely to be correct about the science on this one?

Science, obviously. In this case, anatomy is correct and GoogleAI is wrong yet again.

Im a BM wrote:
It doesn't matter, because Into the Night is going to TROLL THE HELL out that thread, regardless of what you or anyone else believes the interstitium is.

...and there's that Magick Word 'troll' again!

Im a BM wrote:

You just HAD to cock block gfm7175, intercepting the comment directed to HIM.

Do you suppose he understands how WRONG Google is about the Interstitium?

Your expertise in anatomy is self evident.

IBdaMann wrote:
Greetings newcomers!

If you are like me, you found this website during an Internet search.

The word "Debate" in the title "Climate-Debate" tells you that your ideas are welcome but are expected to be clearly stated and defended, not simply presumed to be accepted by others who are debating their own points. If you're like sealover and selectively exclude the word "Debate" from the title ... and stopped reading after the word "Climate", you might be thinking that this is a site where everyone spews Climate gibber-babble and pretends to be a science genius as sealover does.

You'll be pleased to note that we have resident science experts to help guide you in your efforts to leverage science to mold your beliefs. If your beliefs are immutable, then naturally you will find science to be ... well, ... annoying, I grant you that.

But you can still have fun. HANG IN THERE!

Welcome aboard.