Climate Change - Be careful or you might learn something

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
Greetings Newcomers!

And my apologies to any "early birds". Sorry about the mix up.

I'm still not quite ready.

When the stage is complete, I will have mastered the art of attaching figures, tables, etc.

To simplify sifting through threads, there will be a rainbow spiral in the upper left (my avatar?) of each post.

This way you can quickly scroll past all the troll talk and identify my posts.

The threads will get long.

The hecklers and bullies are easy to spot.

Yes. It is easy to spot those that don't believe in your religion.

sealover wrote:
One way to minimize their disruption will be through the use of common language.

Which is filled with meaningless buzzwords. Gotit.

sealover wrote:
We will be using the same gibber-babble buzzwords that all scientists use.

You don't get to speak for all scientists. Omniscience fallacy.

sealover wrote:
The hecklers and bullies will have no idea what we're talking about, while we will understand each other clearly.

Yes. Your religion has a common language made up of meaningless buzzwords.

sealover wrote:
They will sound silly trying to criticize what they don't understand.

There is nothing to understand. A buzzword is a meaningless word.

sealover wrote:
We can diminish their sadistic joy by refusing to take the bait.

It will be a manageable nuisance.

You can try to ignore it, but you are only letting anyone showing you the science or mathematics that you ignore get away with it without you challenging it.

sealover wrote:
A shameful moment.

An example of what I hope you won't do.

I responded to the troll.

sealover wrote:
And to those not familiar with the dynamics here, my response might not have made sense.

For example, when my two word response was "NO SCIENCE"

sealover wrote:
I had never said that before, but that was one of the troll's favorite ways of heckling many of my posts.

sealover wrote:
When my title said "Projection Fallacy, Inversion Fallacy, Ignoramus Phallicy"

Again, I embarrass myself that I took the bait.

sealover wrote:
But this particular heckler specializes in naming "fallacies" as a pseudo debate tactic.

sealover wrote:
And since he would surely demand an "unambiguous definition"

Ignoramus Phallicy = combined qualities of stupidity and dickiness.

sealover wrote:
But please do as I say, not as I do.

Nothing good ever comes of responding to them.

sealover wrote:
As the thread gets longer, it is already cumbersome to find past posts by scrolling.

sealover wrote:
Furthermore, the very act of scrolling exposes one to evil clown images, etc., that might be too tempting as bait. Certainly a nuisance to have to scroll past it.

sealover wrote:
It requires a few steps, but my posts can be located individually.

sealover wrote:
One way is to go to the far left under "Home", under "Debate", click "Users"

Find "sealover" on page three. Click and you can find my posts.

sealover wrote:
I make a point to put a subject heading and try to use titles that facilitate identification of posts that may be of particular interest.

sealover wrote:
I should have checked before writing this, but it may be possible to just click my avatar without going to the user index alphabetically.

sealover wrote:
But you can find past posts of ANY user on this site that way, if you are curious.

IBdaMann wrote:
If you have any science questions, let me know. I'm more than happy to help.

.

sealover wrote:I don't imagine you will ever get anyone to believe you could answer them.

IBdaMann wrote:

sealover wrote:I don't imagine you will ever get anyone to believe you could answer them.

A clear indication of your poor judgment.

Let me know if you have any science questions. I'm happy to help.

sealover wrote:
I think you can count on getting at least one question.

Your answer will be torn to pieces as demonstrably bullshit science.

sealover wrote:
The correct answer will be clearly explained.

sealover wrote:
Your answer will probably also be torn apart for "fallacies" and "buzzwords", and it will go without saying. NO SCIENCE

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
I think you can count on getting at least one question.

Your answer will be torn to pieces as demonstrably bullshit science.

So you consider the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics 'bullshit science'. Gotit.

sealover wrote:
The correct answer will be clearly explained.

So discarding these theories of science is the 'correct answer'. Gotit.

sealover wrote:
Your answer will probably also be torn apart for "fallacies" and "buzzwords", and it will go without saying. NO SCIENCE

Certainly none from you.

sealover wrote:
Hello students!

I hope I'm not too late.

Please do not become a member of climate-debate.com for AT LEAST the next two weeks.

When the time comes to post questions, locate the answers a day later by clicking "sealover" by the avatar.

You can avoid the trolls completely by simply waiting a day.

No point hanging out in a place like this with baited breath.

You will be able to tell by the subject title which post relates to your question.

Cheers!

Thomas Jefferson wrote:
...question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear...

GasGuzzler wrote:

sealover wrote:
Hello students!

I hope I'm not too late.

Please do not become a member of climate-debate.com for AT LEAST the next two weeks.

When the time comes to post questions, locate the answers a day later by clicking "sealover" by the avatar.

You can avoid the trolls completely by simply waiting a day.

No point hanging out in a place like this with baited breath.

You will be able to tell by the subject title which post relates to your question.

Cheers!

Are you a historian by any chance? I love this quote from Thomas Jefferson.

Thomas Jefferson wrote:
...question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear...

We should question EVERYTHING. This way, in the end, we understand fully what we know and avoid leaning on blind faith.

Blind faith is the cornerstone for the Church of Global Warming. If you actually are a teacher (I doubt it) with some PHD in geobiogeometrics, then why would you try to steer any student away from seeing a fair question or two?

Defining your terms is a foundation for understanding whateverthehell you are trying to say and it's the LEAST you should do when trying to "teach".

Without defining terms, you are not teaching. You are only preaching, and that is EXACTLY what you have come here to do.

[quote]sealover wrote:
How could I possibly be a historian?

As you trolls have made clear time and time again, I'm not even a scientist.

I am simply a "liar", remember?

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

GasGuzzler wrote:

sealover wrote:
Hello students!

I hope I'm not too late.

Please do not become a member of climate-debate.com for AT LEAST the next two weeks.

When the time comes to post questions, locate the answers a day later by clicking "sealover" by the avatar.

You can avoid the trolls completely by simply waiting a day.

No point hanging out in a place like this with baited breath.

You will be able to tell by the subject title which post relates to your question.

Cheers!

Are you a historian by any chance? I love this quote from Thomas Jefferson.

Thomas Jefferson wrote:
...question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear...

We should question EVERYTHING. This way, in the end, we understand fully what we know and avoid leaning on blind faith.

Blind faith is the cornerstone for the Church of Global Warming. If you actually are a teacher (I doubt it) with some PHD in geobiogeometrics, then why would you try to steer any student away from seeing a fair question or two?

Defining your terms is a foundation for understanding whateverthehell you are trying to say and it's the LEAST you should do when trying to "teach".

Without defining terms, you are not teaching. You are only preaching, and that is EXACTLY what you have come here to do.

sealover wrote:
In most scientific discussions, it would be fine to use the term "thermodynamics" without further explanation. People would already have a pretty good agreed upon definition.

Nobody would be constantly interrupting and demanding:

You must give an "unambiguous definition" of "thermodynamics"!

sealover wrote:
But since they are implying some understanding of the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics...

sealover wrote:
I'm pretty sure this troll will look incredibly stupid if he were required to give us an "unambiguous definition" for the term he uses ("thermodynamics") without the slightest idea of what it means to real scientists in the real world.

sealover wrote:
And yet, if you are curious enough to look at the history of "debate" on this site.

Over and over and over and over, every discussion is derailed with the demand that it cannot continue until someone gives an "unambiguous definition" for "climate change".

So, Mr. Troll. Give us an "unambiguous definition" for "thermodynamics".

sealover wrote:
Then we can judge if you are competent to teach us anything about the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

GasGuzzler wrote:

sealover wrote:
Hello students!

I hope I'm not too late.

Please do not become a member of climate-debate.com for AT LEAST the next two weeks.

When the time comes to post questions, locate the answers a day later by clicking "sealover" by the avatar.

You can avoid the trolls completely by simply waiting a day.

No point hanging out in a place like this with baited breath.

You will be able to tell by the subject title which post relates to your question.

Cheers!

Are you a historian by any chance? I love this quote from Thomas Jefferson.

Thomas Jefferson wrote:
...question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear...

We should question EVERYTHING. This way, in the end, we understand fully what we know and avoid leaning on blind faith.

Blind faith is the cornerstone for the Church of Global Warming. If you actually are a teacher (I doubt it) with some PHD in geobiogeometrics, then why would you try to steer any student away from seeing a fair question or two?

Defining your terms is a foundation for understanding whateverthehell you are trying to say and it's the LEAST you should do when trying to "teach".

Without defining terms, you are not teaching. You are only preaching, and that is EXACTLY what you have come here to do.

Into the Night wrote:
Defining your terms is a foundation for understanding whateverthehell you are trying to say and it's the LEAST you should do when trying to "teach".

Without defining terms, you are not teaching. You are only preaching, and that is EXACTLY what you have come here to do.

sealover wrote:
The trolls use the rules of debate as a guise to control the conversation.

sealover wrote:
"Fallacy", of the various kinds used for deception in debate, is constantly identified.

sealover wrote:
Often the only response to a scientific assertion is: X fallacy. Y fallacy. Z fallacy.

sealover wrote:
The trolls prove who's right about the science every time that way, don't they.

sealover wrote:
But who are we even addressing in a debate?

sealover wrote:
Is it a private, personal conversation between two individuals?

sealover wrote:
Aren't both of them trying to persuade an audience that their position is correct?

sealover wrote:
How can they accomplish that by personally insulting each other?

sealover wrote:
Who will the audience find to be more credible?

sealover wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Defining your terms is a foundation for understanding whateverthehell you are trying to say and it's the LEAST you should do when trying to "teach".

Without defining terms, you are not teaching. You are only preaching, and that is EXACTLY what you have come here to do.

Well put.

GasGuzzler wrote:

sealover wrote:
Hello students!

I hope I'm not too late.

Please do not become a member of climate-debate.com for AT LEAST the next two weeks.

When the time comes to post questions, locate the answers a day later by clicking "sealover" by the avatar.

You can avoid the trolls completely by simply waiting a day.

No point hanging out in a place like this with baited breath.

You will be able to tell by the subject title which post relates to your question.

Cheers!

Are you a historian by any chance? I love this quote from Thomas Jefferson.

Thomas Jefferson wrote:
...question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear...

We should question EVERYTHING. This way, in the end, we understand fully what we know and avoid leaning on blind faith.

Blind faith is the cornerstone for the Church of Global Warming. If you actually are a teacher (I doubt it) with some PHD in geobiogeometrics, then why would you try to steer any student away from seeing a fair question or two?

Defining your terms is a foundation for understanding whateverthehell you are trying to say and it's the LEAST you should do when trying to "teach".

Without defining terms, you are not teaching. You are only preaching, and that is EXACTLY what you have come here to do.

sealover wrote:
The trolls use the rules of debate as a guise to control the conversation.

sealover wrote:
"Fallacy", of the various kinds used for deception in debate, is constantly identified.

sealover wrote:
Often the only response to a scientific assertion is: X fallacy. Y fallacy. Z fallacy

sealover wrote:
The trolls prove who's right about the science every time that way, don't they.

sealover wrote:
But who are we even addressing in a debate?

sealover wrote:
Is it a private, personal conversation between two individuals?

sealover wrote:
Aren't both of them trying to persuade an audience that their position is correct?

sealover wrote:
Who will the audience find to be more credible?

GasGuzzler wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

sealover wrote:
Hello students!

I hope I'm not too late.

Please do not become a member of climate-debate.com for AT LEAST the next two weeks.

When the time comes to post questions, locate the answers a day later by clicking "sealover" by the avatar.

You can avoid the trolls completely by simply waiting a day.

No point hanging out in a place like this with baited breath.

You will be able to tell by the subject title which post relates to your question.

Cheers!

Are you a historian by any chance? I love this quote from Thomas Jefferson.

Thomas Jefferson wrote:
...question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear...

We should question EVERYTHING. This way, in the end, we understand fully what we know and avoid leaning on blind faith.

Blind faith is the cornerstone for the Church of Global Warming. If you actually are a teacher (I doubt it) with some PHD in geobiogeometrics, then why would you try to steer any student away from seeing a fair question or two?

Defining your terms is a foundation for understanding whateverthehell you are trying to say and it's the LEAST you should do when trying to "teach".

Without defining terms, you are not teaching. You are only preaching, and that is EXACTLY what you have come here to do.

sealover wrote:
The trolls use the rules of debate as a guise to control the conversation.

How the hell can anyone control conversation here when we all have a different location and keyboard?! We are each in control of only what we wish to say.

GasGuzzler wrote:

sealover wrote:
"Fallacy", of the various kinds used for deception in debate, is constantly identified.

Wrong. It is used to point out a fallacy. I thought you were a PHD.

GasGuzzler wrote:

sealover wrote:
Often the only response to a scientific assertion is: X fallacy. Y fallacy. Z fallacy

true. Biogeogibberbabble will provoke a fallacy call.

GasGuzzler wrote:

sealover wrote:
The trolls prove who's right about the science every time that way, don't they.

No one ever proves science right. Science in a set of falsifiable theories. It is only proven wrong.

GasGuzzler wrote:

sealover wrote:
But who are we even addressing in a debate?

Sometimes it's difficult to tell. It would help if you would learn how to quote correctly.

GasGuzzler wrote:

sealover wrote:
Aren't both of them trying to persuade an audience that their position is correct?

Typically you are being shown to be horribly incorrect. This is what attracts sarcasm laced responses from IBdaMann. He's so talented with the adjectives. Don't you think so?

GasGuzzler wrote:

sealover wrote:
Who will the audience find to be more credible?

It's not about credibility. When I came here a few years back, I had the blind faith I talked about above. I BELEIVED that CO2 had no capability to warm the earth, but I didn't know why. It was my religion, and I would preach what I thought I knew.

The ''trolls'' you speak of, they are amazing teachers. I would learn, and they would patiently TEACH more and more. It was not about credibility. It was answering my questions using and explaining the applicable theories of science that have not yet been falsified.

GasGuzzler wrote:
Oh, and by the way....100% honesty...There are one or two here that I initially thought were TOTAL nut jobs. I tried to prove them wrong more than once. I can't do it. Now, I have nothing but respect.

GasGuzzler wrote:
You are certainly free to your opinions, and that is the beauty of this forum. No opinion will be silenced, and we talk about a wide range of shit here, not just Climate. Translation-all your bullshit is welcome.

GasGuzzler wrote:
Good times ahead. Hope you stick around.

Into the Night wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

sealover wrote:
Hello students!

I hope I'm not too late.

Please do not become a member of climate-debate.com for AT LEAST the next two weeks.

When the time comes to post questions, locate the answers a day later by clicking "sealover" by the avatar.

You can avoid the trolls completely by simply waiting a day.

No point hanging out in a place like this with baited breath.

You will be able to tell by the subject title which post relates to your question.

Cheers!

Are you a historian by any chance? I love this quote from Thomas Jefferson.

Thomas Jefferson wrote:
...question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear...

We should question EVERYTHING. This way, in the end, we understand fully what we know and avoid leaning on blind faith.

Blind faith is the cornerstone for the Church of Global Warming. If you actually are a teacher (I doubt it) with some PHD in geobiogeometrics, then why would you try to steer any student away from seeing a fair question or two?

Defining your terms is a foundation for understanding whateverthehell you are trying to say and it's the LEAST you should do when trying to "teach".

Without defining terms, you are not teaching. You are only preaching, and that is EXACTLY what you have come here to do.

sealover wrote:
The trolls use the rules of debate as a guise to control the conversation.

How the hell can anyone control conversation here when we all have a different location and keyboard?! We are each in control of only what we wish to say.

Quite right. He seems to think he has power over people that post here. He seems to think is he is God or something here. Obviously, he isn't. He's just another clueless schmuck.

GasGuzzler wrote:

sealover wrote:
"Fallacy", of the various kinds used for deception in debate, is constantly identified.

Wrong. It is used to point out a fallacy. I thought you were a PHD.

Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. I really don't care. Credentials have no meaning here. I've known plenty of PhD's that don't know any logic. Quite a few of them fail at math and/or science too.

It seems that colleges and universities will hand out degree papers to any schmuck that buys them these days.

I've seen graduate level electronics engineers that didn't know which end of a soldering iron to hold. I've seen software engineer graduates that couldn't code their way out of a wet paper bag. I've seen mechanical engineers that couldn't figure out how to operate a drill press.

A college degree is pretty meaningless from many schools.

Even grade school is affected. Kids graduate these unable to perform simple arithmetic, are unable to construct correct English when writing, can't read beyond the 2nd or 3rd grade level (some can't read at all, though they graduated!), and even truly believe that the Earth is somehow warming due to a magick gas, that covid19 has killed millions of people, that we are running out oil, and these poor kids can't even locate their own State on a map, or the location of Ukraine.

Why is our education system so poor? Democrats took it over long ago, that's why. Schools are no longer centers of education. They are centers of indoctrination. They are government institutions.

While we argue over whether 2+2 is racist (this is actually happening in Oregon schools, for example), Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Mexico are producing chips we can't build here, surface mount technology in resistors (not built here), inductors (not built here), capacitors (not built here), displays (not built here), LED's (not built here), transistors (not built here) or vacuum tubes (not built here). All the States can claim are a few minor memory chip fabs, a few development fabs, and no ability to build resistors, inductors, or capacitors, the four basic components in all electronics.

And WW3 is threatening the world today.

GasGuzzler wrote:

sealover wrote:
Often the only response to a scientific assertion is: X fallacy. Y fallacy. Z fallacy

true. Biogeogibberbabble will provoke a fallacy call.

Quite right. He is not making any scientific assertion. He is only using meaningless buzzwords.

GasGuzzler wrote:

sealover wrote:
The trolls prove who's right about the science every time that way, don't they.

No one ever proves science right. Science in a set of falsifiable theories. It is only proven wrong.

Quite right. It is not possible to prove any theory True.
Sealover, like so many before him, completely discount logic. Not a personal insult, it's simply that he never learned it. He also completely discounts philosophy, which defines words like 'science' and 'religion'. Again, he never learned it.

He is flailing and angry because I call him on his buzzwords. He has no ability to understand why 'science' and 'religion' are defined the way they are. Indeed, he completely discounts etymology as well. He never learned about languages, how they developed, or how words themselves are defined.

So he flails, horribly unequipped to even understand why. Thus, he turns to insults and posts attempting to puff himself up. He is a nothing, but he so desperately wants to matter.

It's sad, really.

GasGuzzler wrote:

sealover wrote:
But who are we even addressing in a debate?

Sometimes it's difficult to tell. It would help if you would learn how to quote correctly.

Quite right. The quoting system on this forum is really not that hard to understand. I've tried to fix some of the severe quoting damage in his posts, but he insists on continuing to not understand how to use it, and so I just delete everything but his own post now when I respond to him.

GasGuzzler wrote:

sealover wrote:
Aren't both of them trying to persuade an audience that their position is correct?

Typically you are being shown to be horribly incorrect. This is what attracts sarcasm laced responses from IBdaMann. He's so talented with the adjectives. Don't you think so?

Quite right. IBdaMann is not very tolerant of people that are religious nuts and lost the ability to think for themselves, and particularly of people that stoop to throwing insults and trying to puff themselves up with gibber-babble. I can't blame him really. He knows he can't change the mind of the incurably religious, so he turns to sarcasm. Frankly, I think they deserve it.

GasGuzzler wrote:

sealover wrote:
Who will the audience find to be more credible?

It's not about credibility. When I came here a few years back, I had the blind faith I talked about above. I BELEIVED that CO2 had no capability to warm the earth, but I didn't know why. It was my religion, and I would preach what I thought I knew.

The ''trolls'' you speak of, they are amazing teachers. I would learn, and they would patiently TEACH more and more. It was not about credibility. It was answering my questions using and explaining the applicable theories of science that have not yet been falsified.

*humble bow*

You describe your history very well here. You have learned a LOT. My congratulations to you! I merely showed you the way. I didn't poor knowledge into you. You taught yourself, using the guide posts that I and IBdaMann have provided. It is I that should be congratulating you. You did all the hard work.

Oh...and why I'm here, allow me to extend my congratulations to gfm. He too came here looking for answers and willing to learn. Like you, he has learned a LOT. Both of you can easily hold your own now against the Church of Global Warming and the Church of Green propaganda.

Both of you have overcome tremendous odds to come here, to be willing to learn and discover for yourselves various important theories of science, various branches of mathematics, and enough logic to understand what the various fallacies are and what they mean, to learn and discover across many subjects, including the Constitution of the United States, the constitutions of the various States, microbiology and virology, engineering practices, and all the common tactics used by the Church of Global Warming, the Church of Green, and the Church of Covid.

What you have done is incredible. There simply can be no other way to put it. You have taught yourselves, despite these odds, and now wield great power through the knowledge you have gained.

I must thank you again for allowing me to be a humble and serving aid to your path of discovery.

GasGuzzler wrote:
Oh, and by the way....100% honesty...There are one or two here that I initially thought were TOTAL nut jobs. I tried to prove them wrong more than once. I can't do it. Now, I have nothing but respect.

Again...*humble bow*.

GasGuzzler wrote:
You are certainly free to your opinions, and that is the beauty of this forum. No opinion will be silenced, and we talk about a wide range of shit here, not just Climate. Translation-all your bullshit is welcome.

Indeed it is. If nothing else, it keeps the forum alive and interesting. Watching the different tactics of deception develop through the year for these religions, and watching people begin to realize the falseness of it, and watching some finally open their eyes enough to begin to learn...to do what you have already have done. It brings joy to my heart, and hope to the future of the nation, that the republic may be restored, and that someday a constitution will again bless this nation with liberty once again.

GasGuzzler wrote:
Good times ahead. Hope you stick around.

Yes. It may seem dark at times, and even hopeless to some, yet you have enough light within you now to help those in the prison of ignorance. You have enough now to teach others just as I have done. Both of you are already starting to do this. As you are both beginning to discover, even opening the door of the prison doesn't mean the prisoner wants to leave. You cannot force them, but instead guide those that do leave to learn just as you have.

Do not despair, for the darkness of ignorance need not be yours to endure any longer.

sealover wrote:
WOW!

Am I really that special to you?

..deleted extensive trolling...

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.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Climate Change is centered around clowns, like Al Gore, and Micheal Mann. And they ain't funny either, but seem to draw a crowd. Climatology is pretty much the same as Scientology, or Christian Science, you have to believe, and regurgitate what you are told about it. No way to verify or confirm any of it.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Climate Change is centered around clowns, like Al Gore, and Micheal Mann. And they ain't funny either, but seem to draw a crowd. Climatology is pretty much the same as Scientology, or Christian Science, you have to believe, and regurgitate what you are told about it. No way to verify or confirm any of it.

sealover wrote:
Aren't you embarrassed by the "scientist" who posts the ugly clowns?

sealover wrote:
Or were you just pretending to want to have a serious discussion?

sealover wrote:
Don't you feel you should at least distance yourself from some of his comments, if you are unwilling to disown him completely?

sealover wrote:
Is this clown face the face of your debate?

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
Aren't you embarrassed by the "scientist" who posts the ugly clowns?

Scientists can post what they want. Meh. That includes IBdaMann, a scientist. It also includes me, also a scientist.

sealover wrote:
Or were you just pretending to want to have a serious discussion?

You are describing yourself.

sealover wrote:
Don't you feel you should at least distance yourself from some of his comments, if you are unwilling to disown him completely?

The clown isn't making comments.

sealover wrote:
Is this clown face the face of your debate?

No, it's YOURS.

Into the Night wrote:The Church of Global Warming, like the Church of Scientology, is a fundamentalist style religion. So is the Church of the Ozone Hole, the Church of Covid, the Church of Green, and the Church of Karl Marx.

Into the Night wrote:Every religion is based on some initial circular argument, with arguments extending from that.

Into the Night wrote:In the case of the Church of Global Warming, the initial circular argument is that the Earth is somehow warming. ALL other arguments stem from that initial circular argument.

Into the Night wrote:Attempting to prove any circular argument either True or False creates the circular argument fallacy.

Into the Night wrote:The Church of Global Warming is one of them. It MUST attempt to prove itself True, since the whole point is to create fear mongering and implement tyranny.

Into the Night wrote:It does not 'save the planet'. The Earth is big enough to take care of itself. It doesn't need to be 'saved'.

Into the Night wrote:To believe that we can destroy the Earth or even make it inhabitable or that we can control it's weather is the height of arrogance.

Into the Night wrote:Claim of owning science

sealover wrote:
Aren't you embarrassed by the "scientist" who posts the ugly clowns?

Or were you just pretending to want to have a serious discussion?

Don't you feel you should at least distance yourself from some of his comments, if you are unwilling to disown him completely?

Is this clown face the face of your debate?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

HarveyH55 wrote:
Climate Change is centered around clowns, like Al Gore, and Micheal Mann. And they ain't funny either, but seem to draw a crowd. Climatology is pretty much the same as Scientology, or Christian Science, you have to believe, and regurgitate what you are told about it. No way to verify or confirm any of it.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:The Church of Global Warming, like the Church of Scientology, is a fundamentalist style religion. So is the Church of the Ozone Hole, the Church of Covid, the Church of Green, and the Church of Karl Marx.

Great post. I'd like to build on it.

I realize your list was not meant to be exhaustive, but you omitted the Church of No God which gives me particular heartburn and I wanted to make mention.

This particular faith is very much like Global Warming in that it is a branch of Marxism and absolutely HATES Christianity. This point cannot be overstated. Christians stand as a bulwark against the hedonism that Marxists push in order to lure people into dependence on the government. Christians, as a matter of religious dogma, require certain standards of behavior, which requires personal responsibility and of doing the right thing. This is entirely antithetical to the Marxists' drive to eliminate any and all standards of morality and behavior so that the government can then start from a clean slate and dictate what is "moral" and what is "acceptable behavior" ... and to be able to change it on the fly as needed.

Because the No-Gods are fanatical competitors to Christianity, they naturally demonize everything about Christians, especially the tenets of their faith. The primary tenet, of course, being that there is a God who created all things, that God is the ultimate authority, not the government, that God is the ultimate judge to administer justice, not the government, and that God is the only one with any say over one's personal life (personal conduct/behavior/responsibility) and not the government.

This central tenet is naturally the target of Marxists and they will not waste any opportunity to express their counter-tenet, i.e. "There is no God." Of course, the wording will change per the individual discussion but all arguments come down to this. Please note that this is a totally unfalsifiable position. It is a religious tenet, a Marxist tenet that is a counter-tenet to the Christian God. I would point out that you will simply not find Marxists bashing Allah. They never say "There is no Allah." This is because all of their attention is focused on defeating Christians ... and capitalism of course.

Christians are the primary competing religion and the No-Gods readily broadcast this ... and people wonder how I can so quickly recognize a warmizombie without Global Warming or Climate Change ever being mentioned.

Into the Night wrote:Every religion is based on some initial circular argument, with arguments extending from that.

In my lexicon, I use the word "assumption." Any science model and any proof (logic or math) must first list all assumptions. The reason we have science and math, is to help us discern what assumptions can be considered false and to help us make better decisions and to help us predict and to control nature.

Religion's purpose is to help us make better decisions, about how we live, about how we treat others, etc because it's an overly complicated, convoluted world in which we live and a greatly simplified rule set is value-added. It may not cover everything but we all seek to have a body of doctrine that encapsulates as much wisom as possible upon which we can draw to make the right decisions as needed. In that vein, Marxism's purpose is to help us submit to the government, to find ways to be happy about ceding personal freedoms to the government along with all personal wealth, and to live our lives according to the government's plan, regardless of how much suffering or denial is required in this life.

Note: Religions come first. People prioritize their faiths as the top priority. Formal religions usually entail giving all wealth, dedicating one's life, and submitting entirely, to some all-powerful deity. In Marxism, the government is that all-powerful deity.

Marxism, like other religions, uses the fact that we all live in a complicated, convoluted world as a hook to latch on. Then the dogma flows, explaining how one will find so many people tempting him to pursue happiness on his own, totally cutting government out of the equation. Marxism teaches us that we should leverage the full power of the government, to answer only to the government, and that nobody else has any right to judge our personal behavior or decisions or actions in this life. By submitting to Marxism, one becomes free and transforms into a genius of some sort, whether it be a science genius, a logic wizard, an economics guru, whatever and gives one great powers as though it were the dark side of the Force. Marxist faiths teach us that the government loves us unconditionally and that the government will take care of us. Amen. Marxist dogma teaches us that everything Christian is a perversion and that believers can be certain of this truth by noting that everything about every Marxist faith is thettled thienth (more on this point below).

Into the Night wrote:In the case of the Church of Global Warming, the initial circular argument is that the Earth is somehow warming. ALL other arguments stem from that initial circular argument.

I see that as being purely incidental. I see the primary religious assumption as being human activity must be thoroughly controlled by the government, after all it's human activity that spawns the evil greenhouse gas which, among other evils, causes the earth to roast ... a problem only the government can understand and control ... provided we surrender sufficient wealth for them to solve this problem for us. Global Warming, resulting from human activity which obviously needs to be regulated by the government, calls for draconian measures like clamp-down prohibitions and stiff new taxes to pay for it all.

Into the Night wrote:Attempting to prove any circular argument either True or False creates the circular argument fallacy.

From a logic/mathematics perspective, this is not a fallacy. It is called a "trivial" conclusion because it is only one intuitive step away from one of the statements in the argument or from one of the assumptions, e.g.

PROOF:

* I assume that Into the Night likes all ice cream

1) Ice cream is made from fresh cream and other ingredients
2) Some of the ingredients come from farms.
3) There are many farms in Montana
3a) There are many good things in Montana

Conclusion: Into the Night likes vanilla ice cream.

Essentially, religions make assumptions and then attribute things directly to those assumptions and it therefore becomes trivial to "prove." You are saved ... because Jesus died so that you would be saved. Everything happens according to God's plan ... because God had a plan when He created everything.

My absolute favorite example is Intelligent Design (ID). ID assumes that everything is "creation" and then goes on to conclude that there must have been a "creator." You can't very well argue with that, now can you? This sort of argument forces the assumption(s) to be called into question ... and the answer is always "it's an unfalsifiable religious dogma and you therefore cannot prove it false." Period. End of story.

... *EXCEPT* in the cases of the Marxist religions. *THEY* claim to be thettled thienth. They claim to be entirely falsifiable. They *BEG* for the scientific method to brought in to thoroughly scrutinize every word.

They bend over backwards to render their WACKY unfalsifiable beliefs FALSE.

seal over is a perfect example. Knowing that he is going to preach his Marxist religion, his very first act is to proclaim that science is about to be preached ... ummmm ... I mean "taught" ... yes, that's it ... science is about to be taught and there will be no otherwise pointless, one-way religious sermons in which terms will not be defined and questions not answered ... right?

We see how that works. The Marxist religions see the label of "religion" to mean that it isn't true, and so therefore hijack the label "science" as being that which is true, even though science doesn't confirm anything as being true. Then, Marxists immediately pretend that their own WACKY personal opinions carry the same weight as falsifiable science that has already passed the scrutiny of the scientific method and can therefore not be questioned and speaks for all of the world's smart people.

Allow me to recap that point:

A Marxist's WACKY opinion = the science of all the world's smart people

... and what of the Word of Godvernment? What should one believe when faced with differing arguments, one made by, say, IBDaMann or a chart with the NASA logo? Of course, you go with the logo. That debate ended decades ago. The only question now is whether it has the NOAA logo as well.

Into the Night wrote:The Church of Global Warming is one of them. It MUST attempt to prove itself True, since the whole point is to create fear mongering and implement tyranny.

By the same token, the No-Gods need to be "True" as well ... and they wrap themselves in the label of "science". They seek to PROVE their main counter-tenet, i.e. there is no God, by claiming that it is thettled thienth. They will claim that Darwin's theory and the Big Bang are also thettled thienth.

... *THEN* they top it all off by claiming to be ATHEISTS. The FUQQERS!

How I wish Christians wouldn't fall for it, but then again, I wish nobody would fall for the claims of "thettled thienth." Many do, and I don't blame then to the extent that they are trying to sort it all out, that they are willing to exert the mental effort to be honest and to apply critical reasoning. Those who find it easier to just avoid the bullying and intimidation by acquiescing, end up accepting the disinformation that atheists are worshipers of Marxist religions.

I always announce upfront that I am an atheist, and I have to brace myself for the long road ahead of having to explain that no, I am not a No-God, that I am not a Marxist, that I don't hate Christians and that I am not trying to show Christianity to be FALSE. Nonetheless, as you have witnessed, there always seem to be some Christians who won't believe me and who will insist on declaring what I believe and don't believe. I blame the No-God fuqqers.

I'll tell you this, this is the main reason you don't hear more actual atheists like me announcing that they are atheists (all that claim to be atheists are entirely Marxist Global Warming Climate Change Death-toCapitalism warmizombies) is that it just brings about a lot of headaches that just require a lot of additional work that makes posting not worth it. It's usually better to just avoid the point entirely.

Into the Night wrote:It does not 'save the planet'. The Earth is big enough to take care of itself. It doesn't need to be 'saved'.

The earth most certainly needs to be saved. This is also incidental. Remember, human activity must be controlled. Therefore, the planet definitely needs to be saved ... from whom? I'll give you three guesses. While you're thinking about that, ask yourself "Who desperately needs relief from being a total loser and who needs to be afforded an escape fantasy of becoming a superhero who saves, you guessed it, the planet and humanity?" You get three guesses for that as well.

Of course, you don't need any guesses. Christians want to join Christ in heaven. Marxists want to be saved from the misery of their pathetic existences and be transformed into superheroes. Neither is too much to ask but both are oh, so important.

Into the Night wrote:To believe that we can destroy the Earth or even make it inhabitable or that we can control it's weather is the height of arrogance.

It's a religion. Christians believe that Jesus had (has) magical superpowers to perform physics-defying miracles and that Satan is the evil deceiver who wants to enslave humanity. Marxists believe that certain gases have magical superpowers to perform physics-defying miracles and that GREEDY conservatives/capitalists are the evil deceivers who want to enslave humanity.

Again, the only substantive difference is that Marxists believe that their religion is thettled thienth ... and get a rude wake-up call when they are forced to deny the science to which they point. Didn't seal over cite science as his reason for not unambiguously defining his terms? Didn't seal over claim to be a Ph.D? I wonder if he is therefore claiming that he didn't unambiguously define his terms in his doctoral thesis ... or is he claiming that he never had to draft any doctoral thesis because the other "scientists" already understand.

Didn't seal over confuse peer-review with science? Hmmmmm.

Into the Night wrote:Claim of owning science

Yes. Hijacking science in the name of Marxism.

Remember, you stupid Christians are so stupid that you believe there was a great flood which CAN'T HAPPEN. You idiots believe that the ocean level somehow prevailed 15 cubits (27-32 feet) and that extreme weather somehow killed all the life on the planet. That CAN'T HAPPEN you morons! You should be thmart like us in acknowledging the science of Climate Change that will inevitably result in a sea level rise (SLR) of around 27 - 32 feet (~15 cubits) by the end of the century and in extreme weather killing all life on planet earth.


[*find-allaboutreligionmarxismatheism]

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.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:The Church of Global Warming, like the Church of Scientology, is a fundamentalist style religion. So is the Church of the Ozone Hole, the Church of Covid, the Church of Green, and the Church of Karl Marx.

Great post. I'd like to build on it.

I realize your list was not meant to be exhaustive, but you omitted the Church of No God which gives me particular heartburn and I wanted to make mention.

IBdaMann wrote:
This particular faith is very much like Global Warming in that it is a branch of Marxism and absolutely HATES Christianity. This point cannot be overstated. Christians stand as a bulwark against the hedonism that Marxists push in order to lure people into dependence on the government. Christians, as a matter of religious dogma, require certain standards of behavior, which requires personal responsibility and of doing the right thing. This is entirely antithetical to the Marxists' drive to eliminate any and all standards of morality and behavior so that the government can then start from a clean slate and dictate what is "moral" and what is "acceptable behavior" ... and to be able to change it on the fly as needed.

Because the No-Gods are fanatical competitors to Christianity, they naturally demonize everything about Christians, especially the tenets of their faith. The primary tenet, of course, being that there is a God who created all things, that God is the ultimate authority, not the government, that God is the ultimate judge to administer justice, not the government, and that God is the only one with any say over one's personal life (personal conduct/behavior/responsibility) and not the government.

This central tenet is naturally the target of Marxists and they will not waste any opportunity to express their counter-tenet, i.e. "There is no God." Of course, the wording will change per the individual discussion but all arguments come down to this. Please note that this is a totally unfalsifiable position. It is a religious tenet, a Marxist tenet that is a counter-tenet to the Christian God. I would point out that you will simply not find Marxists bashing Allah. They never say "There is no Allah." This is because all of their attention is focused on defeating Christians ... and capitalism of course.

Christians are the primary competing religion and the No-Gods readily broadcast this ... and people wonder how I can so quickly recognize a warmizombie without Global Warming or Climate Change ever being mentioned.

Yes. I have also noticed this pattern.
Believers in the Church of Covid, the Church of Green, the Church of Global Warming are also believers in the Church of No God. This is because they are believers in the Church of Karl Marx. To them, Government is God.

IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:Every religion is based on some initial circular argument, with arguments extending from that.

In my lexicon, I use the word "assumption." Any science model and any proof (logic or math) must first list all assumptions. The reason we have science and math, is to help us discern what assumptions can be considered false and to help us make better decisions and to help us predict and to control nature.

IBdaMann wrote:
Religion's purpose is to help us make better decisions, about how we live, about how we treat others, etc because it's an overly complicated, convoluted world in which we live and a greatly simplified rule set is value-added. It may not cover everything but we all seek to have a body of doctrine that encapsulates as much wisom as possible upon which we can draw to make the right decisions as needed. In that vein, Marxism's purpose is to help us submit to the government, to find ways to be happy about ceding personal freedoms to the government along with all personal wealth, and to live our lives according to the government's plan, regardless of how much suffering or denial is required in this life.

IBdaMann wrote:
Note: Religions come first. People prioritize their faiths as the top priority. Formal religions usually entail giving all wealth, dedicating one's life, and submitting entirely, to some all-powerful deity. In Marxism, the government is that all-powerful deity.

IBdaMann wrote:
Marxism, like other religions, uses the fact that we all live in a complicated, convoluted world as a hook to latch on. Then the dogma flows, explaining how one will find so many people tempting him to pursue happiness on his own, totally cutting government out of the equation. Marxism teaches us that we should leverage the full power of the government, to answer only to the government, and that nobody else has any right to judge our personal behavior or decisions or actions in this life. By submitting to Marxism, one becomes free and transforms into a genius of some sort, whether it be a science genius, a logic wizard, an economics guru, whatever and gives one great powers as though it were the dark side of the Force. Marxist faiths teach us that the government loves us unconditionally and that the government will take care of us. Amen. Marxist dogma teaches us that everything Christian is a perversion and that believers can be certain of this truth by noting that everything about every Marxist faith is thettled thienth (more on this point below).

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:In the case of the Church of Global Warming, the initial circular argument is that the Earth is somehow warming. ALL other arguments stem from that initial circular argument.

I see that as being purely incidental. I see the primary religious assumption as being human activity must be thoroughly controlled by the government, after all it's human activity that spawns the evil greenhouse gas which, among other evils, causes the earth to roast ... a problem only the government can understand and control ... provided we surrender sufficient wealth for them to solve this problem for us. Global Warming, resulting from human activity which obviously needs to be regulated by the government, calls for draconian measures like clamp-down prohibitions and stiff new taxes to pay for it all.

Into the Night wrote:Attempting to prove any circular argument either True or False creates the circular argument fallacy.

IBdaMann wrote:
It is called a "trivial" conclusion because it is only one intuitive step away from one of the statements in the argument or from one of the assumptions, e.g.

PROOF:

* I assume that Into the Night likes all ice cream

1) Ice cream is made from fresh cream and other ingredients
2) Some of the ingredients come from farms.
3) There are many farms in Montana
3a) There are many good things in Montana

Conclusion: Into the Night likes vanilla ice cream.

IBdaMann wrote:
Essentially, religions make assumptions and then attribute things directly to those assumptions and it therefore becomes trivial to "prove." You are saved ... because Jesus died so that you would be saved. Everything happens according to God's plan ... because God had a plan when He created everything.

IBdaMann wrote:
My absolute favorite example is Intelligent Design (ID). ID assumes that everything is "creation" and then goes on to conclude that there must have been a "creator." You can't very well argue with that, now can you?

IBdaMann wrote:
This sort of argument forces the assumption(s) to be called into question ... and the answer is always "it's an unfalsifiable religious dogma and you therefore cannot prove it false." Period. End of story.

IBdaMann wrote:
... *EXCEPT* in the cases of the Marxist religions. *THEY* claim to be thettled thienth.

IBdaMann wrote:
They claim to be entirely falsifiable.

IBdaMann wrote:
They *BEG* for the scientific method to brought in to thoroughly scrutinize every word.

IBdaMann wrote:
They bend over backwards to render their WACKY unfalsifiable beliefs FALSE.

IBdaMann wrote:
seal over is a perfect example. Knowing that he is going to preach his Marxist religion, his very first act is to proclaim that science is about to be preached ... ummmm ... I mean "taught" ... yes, that's it ... science is about to be taught and there will be no otherwise pointless, one-way religious sermons in which terms will not be defined and questions not answered ... right?

IBdaMann wrote:
We see how that works. The Marxist religions see the label of "religion" to mean that it isn't true, and so therefore hijack the label "science" as being that which is true, even though science doesn't confirm anything as being true. Then, Marxists immediately pretend that their own WACKY personal opinions carry the same weight as falsifiable science that has already passed the scrutiny of the scientific method and can therefore not be questioned and speaks for all of the world's smart people.

IBdaMann wrote:
Allow me to recap that point:

A Marxist's WACKY opinion = the science of all the world's smart people

... and what of the Word of Godvernment? What should one believe when faced with differing arguments, one made by, say, IBDaMann or a chart with the NASA logo? Of course, you go with the logo. That debate ended decades ago. The only question now is whether it has the NOAA logo as well.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:The Church of Global Warming is one of them. It MUST attempt to prove itself True, since the whole point is to create fear mongering and implement tyranny.

By the same token, the No-Gods need to be "True" as well

IBdaMann wrote:
... and they wrap themselves in the label of "science". They seek to PROVE their main counter-tenet, i.e. there is no God, by claiming that it is thettled thienth.

IBdaMann wrote:
They will claim that Darwin's theory

IBdaMann wrote:
and the Big Bang are also thettled thienth.

IBdaMann wrote:
... *THEN* they top it all off by claiming to be ATHEISTS. The FUQQERS!

IBdaMann wrote:
I'll tell you this, this is the main reason you don't hear more actual atheists like me announcing that they are atheists (all that claim to be atheists are entirely Marxist Global Warming Climate Change Death-toCapitalism warmizombies) is that it just brings about a lot of headaches that just require a lot of additional work that makes posting not worth it. It's usually better to just avoid the point entirely.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:It does not 'save the planet'. The Earth is big enough to take care of itself. It doesn't need to be 'saved'.

The earth most certainly needs to be saved. This is also incidental. Remember, human activity must be controlled. Therefore, the planet definitely needs to be saved ... from whom? I'll give you three guesses. While you're thinking about that, ask yourself "Who desperately needs relief from being a total loser and who needs to be afforded an escape fantasy of becoming a superhero who saves, you guessed it, the planet and humanity?" You get three guesses for that as well.

IBdaMann wrote:
Of course, you don't need any guesses. Christians want to join Christ in heaven. Marxists want to be saved from the misery of their pathetic existences and be transformed into superheroes. Neither is too much to ask but both are oh, so important.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:To believe that we can destroy the Earth or even make it inhabitable or that we can control it's weather is the height of arrogance.

It's a religion. Christians believe that Jesus had (has) magical superpowers to perform physics-defying miracles and that Satan is the evil deceiver who wants to enslave humanity. Marxists believe that certain gases have magical superpowers to perform physics-defying miracles and that GREEDY conservatives/capitalists are the evil deceivers who want to enslave humanity.

Again, the only substantive difference is that Marxists believe that their religion is thettled thienth ... and get a rude wake-up call when they are forced to deny the science to which they point. Didn't seal over cite science as his reason for not unambiguously defining his terms? Didn't seal over claim to be a Ph.D? I wonder if he is therefore claiming that he didn't unambiguously define his terms in his doctoral thesis ... or is he claiming that he never had to draft any doctoral thesis because the other "scientists" already understand.

IBdaMann wrote:
Didn't seal over confuse peer-review with science? Hmmmmm.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Claim of owning science

Yes. Hijacking science in the name of Marxism.

Remember, you stupid Christians are so stupid that you believe there was a great flood which CAN'T HAPPEN.

You idiots believe that the ocean level somehow prevailed 15 cubits (27-32 feet) and that extreme weather somehow killed all the life on the planet.

That CAN'T HAPPEN you morons!

You should be thmart like us in acknowledging the science of Climate Change that will inevitably result in a sea level rise (SLR) of around 27 - 32 feet (~15 cubits) by the end of the century and in extreme weather killing all life on planet earth.

sealover wrote:
WAY TOO LONG to even START TO READ. Keep it short and I MIGHT read the next one.

My time and my creative energy are valuable to me.

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
WAY TOO LONG to even START TO READ. Keep it short and I MIGHT read the next one.

My time and my creative energy are valuable to me.

Guess you can't read then.

You would rather spend your time trolling and spamming, eh?