Remember me
▼ Content

Climate Change - Be careful or you might learn something



Page 5 of 5<<<345
17-04-2022 18:26
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14537)
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


You're going to have to talk to Branner about that. Send him a PM and ask if the avatar image size restriction can be increased from 100x100 pixels to 200x200 pixels.

Otherwise there is nothing I can do. That would happen to any photo image that is reduced to 100-pixels square.


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

How do you know that isn't the middle finger?
17-04-2022 18:37
GretaGroupieProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(350)
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?


17-04-2022 19:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14537)
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?

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

Another challenge heading your way is the eventual realization that all of this Greta fascination that you have is just you allowing yourself to be manipulated politically. I'm glad you have interests that you pursue, along with goals and dreams. However, the people who are manipulating you through Greta would steal your dreams in a heartbeat.

If you want to convince yourself that this is true, notice that Greta never publicly debates anything on forums such as this one. She ONLY reads from prepared statements.

Who is manipulating you? ... those who write Greta's prepared statements ... and that's why they never show their faces. They just have Greta read to you your orders as to what you are to believe, and you allow them to do your thinking for you.

Anyway, that will be your challenge when you decide to tackle it and to think independently instead of taking the easy way that doesn't require any thinking on your part.

... but yes, it's a great signature pic.
17-04-2022 19:29
GretaGroupieProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(350)
IBdaMann wrote:
As long as you are thinking independently, all is well.

I think I see what you are saying but I like her for more than just climate change cause I think she is a tranny too even if she does not admit it yet. 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. I just with everyone felt like it was okay for everyone to just be who they are and not afraid.

I have to go get some nappy time before work.

Thank you for listening to me.


17-04-2022 20:17
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14537)
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.

Greta dresses exactly as she is told to dress. Her handlers have her rehearse her scripts, down to the voice inflections. Everything about her is artificial, so that mass audiences of gullible people will then simply embrace what she is reading to them.

The only time Greta was ever allowed to answer any questions (of which I am aware) was when she "testified" before a special session of the US Congress in which only those House representatives who were invited were in attendance and all the questions were vetted in advance ... so that Greta could be taught the correct English response. There were no grilling interrogations by any scientists. Greta never defined any of her terms.

Personally, I consider Greta to be an insult to my intelligence and I am offended by adults who expect me to jump on her political bandwagon, but I do feel sorry for her. She is being used/manipulated more than anyone.
18-04-2022 17:40
GretaGroupieProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(350)
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?


RE: Republican Bigotry Toward Trannys19-04-2022 01:09
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(791)
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?
19-04-2022 05:40
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(5197)
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?


What a nasty man(?) to say such filthy things on a forum. We don't have to like everybody equally. There are nasty, bad people, and there a decent people. Doesn't matter what they look like, or believe. It's how you behave, and represent yourself. You, of course, are obviously a nasty, smelly sock-puppet. Doesn't matter your race, or orientation/preference. You are still a nasty individual. I don't hate on people for their climate change beliefs, political leanings, or really anything, until they try to force their beliefs on me, insulting me for not changing my ways.
19-04-2022 16:01
GretaGroupieProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(350)
Im a BM wrote:
Pick a side, bitch!

You sound very angry sealover and you could have a cup of tea and then close your eyes and think happy thoughts.

Here is a pretty pic of some cute polar bears for you to look at while you have some tea. I know polar bears can be scarey but they looks happy in this pic so you can enjoy it.



AFTERTHOUGHT: NOTE TO IBM we really need to do that National Climate Change Is Real Day cause sealover is going crazy.



Edited on 19-04-2022 16:03
20-04-2022 00:34
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(791)
Dejame explicartelo por si acaso no eres capaz de comprender el doble sentido.

Las palabras "..que vive abajo en el suelo de noche" tienen doble sentido.

Por un lado, quiere decir algo que vive en la tierra durante la noche.

Por el otro lado, quiere decir algo que vive en la MIERDA.

No hay un solo unambiguous definition pare "suelo de noche".

Entiendes? Claro que no.


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

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.
20-04-2022 03:58
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14537)
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.
20-04-2022 04:27
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(791)
Sabes bien lo que eres.

En el fondo, no lo puedes negar.

Eres sociopatico.

No jueges bien con otros.

Te da alegria herir.

Tu eres asqueroso.

En serio, eres diabolico.

Pero tu reino de terror se ha acabado.

Tienes quizas cinco seguidores creyentes que te respetan. En lo mas maximo.

Sin su cult leader, su culto de religion anti cientifica se caye facilmente.

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

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.
20-04-2022 04:42
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14537)
Im a BM wrote: Sabes bien lo que eres.

El sabelotodo. Veniste al sitio correcto con tus preguntas ... pero a lo equivocado con tu fantasia.

No temes de buscarme la ayuda.

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

Oye, cabron, te sentiras mejor si mandas al hombre que coje a tu mujer a permitirte un ratito con ella.

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

No tengo ningun seguidor pero muchos que me respetan. Muy pocos me quieren pero todos me respetan.

A ti, todos te burlan.
Attached image:

20-04-2022 05:32
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(5197)
Chinga to madre?
20-04-2022 17:27
GretaGroupieProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(350)
Buongorno means hello in Italian.

It is all I know but I will learn more.




25-04-2022 19:33
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(791)
Meh.

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.

RE: Jenny McCarthy - "expert in science"28-04-2024 01:40
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
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.




"resident science experts"???

This is arrogance to the extreme.

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

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.

Without shame or irony, she said that she got her degree from the "University of Google"

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

Let's pay close attention to the lecture about thermodynamics from the instructor who never passed a single college level course in physics.
28-04-2024 01:45
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14537)
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.
RE: can you even pronounce "thermodynamics"?28-04-2024 08:19
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(791)
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.

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"?

You certainly have no idea what it means.
28-04-2024 09:07
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14537)
Im a BM wrote: It is painfully obvious that the senior troll here never even took a first semester, introductory physics course.

It's what we've all been saying since your first spamming, except we hadn't yet awarded you the title "senior" because you were new. You had to earn the title of "senior troll" with more time and effort.

You never mentioned when you were going to present on thermodynamics.
29-04-2024 00:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21955)
sealover wrote:
"resident science experts"???

That is what he said.
sealover wrote:
This is arrogance to the extreme.

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

YAPF (Yet another pivot fallacy).
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.

Science is not a degree, college, course, website, or Google.
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.

Science is not a search engine. A search engine is not a source of anything.
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.
Science is not a college or course.

You simply continue to deny the laws of thermodynamics. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing.


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
29-04-2024 00:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21955)
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.

Science is not a semester, course, school, college, university, degree, license, certification, or any other form of sanctification.
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"?

Science is not a lecture, course, class, or college or university.

It is YOU ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. You cannot blame YOUR problem on anybody else.

* You cannot create energy out of nothing.
* You cannot trap heat.
* You cannot trap light.
* You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
* You cannot heat a warmer object with a colder one.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.

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



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
RE: "Watch for trolls who hide behind word games.."01-05-2024 18:39
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(791)
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:
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!
02-05-2024 00:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21955)
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.

You are describing yourself again. You cannot project YOUR problems onto 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
RE: the height of arrogance02-05-2024 04:09
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(791)
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?

.


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

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.
02-05-2024 05:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21955)
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.

You are not discussing science.

You are locked in that paradox too. You have already declared yourself a non-scientist by your own definition.

Science is not a paper or an abstract from a paper.


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
RE: "Unambiguous definitions"?02-05-2024 17:37
sealover
★★★★☆
(1601)
Not all of the "resident science experts" will require "unambiguous definitions" before anything can be discussed.

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.

"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..."

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.

The contrast is clear.

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

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.
[/quote]
02-05-2024 20:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21955)
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.
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.

You are describing yourself again.
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..."

You are describing yourself again.
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.

Climate cannot change.
sealover wrote:
The contrast is clear.

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

YOU are the noise. Inversion fallacy. You cannot project YOUR problems on to 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
03-05-2024 05:14
James_
★★★★★
(2251)
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?
Page 5 of 5<<<345





Join the debate Climate Change - Be careful or you might learn something:

Remember me

▲ 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