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.