Remember me
▼ Content

Climate Change - Be careful or you might learn something



Page 1 of 5123>>>
Climate Change - Be careful or you might learn something11-03-2022 04:57
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
Greetings newcomers!

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

The title "Climate Debate" suggested it might be a place where useful information was being exchange and something was being learned.

If you are like me, your first impression of this website was not encouraging.

HANG IN THERE!

You might be pleasantly surprised.

Be careful or you might learn something.
11-03-2022 05:59
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12547)
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.
RE: please introduce us to the experts12-03-2022 21:42
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
IBdaMann wrote:
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.


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

Please introduce us to some of the resident science experts.
13-03-2022 00:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12547)
sealover wrote:Please introduce us to some of the resident science experts.

Sure. I'll be happy to. I like to address people by their avatar name (as you probably have noticed). Who comprises the "us" I am addressing?
RE: The Royal We13-03-2022 01:02
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:Please introduce us to some of the resident science experts.

Sure. I'll be happy to. I like to address people by their avatar name (as you probably have noticed). Who comprises the "us" I am addressing?


Oh, my. You still don't get it. What could it be other than the royal we?
13-03-2022 01:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12547)
sealover wrote:Oh, my. You still don't get it. What could it be other than the royal we?

Nope. You mean to ask "What could it be other than the Marxist "we"?

This means you were trying to get me to spam the board as you have been doing.

I'll pass.
RE: Science! Who knows what it even is?14-03-2022 05:48
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
The climate debate cannot be evaluated without some understanding of science?

But what is "science"?

We've got that Scientific Method thing, for starters, if we want to talk science.

How do we really even know anything at all?

Who is really a scientist?
14-03-2022 06:46
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12547)
sealover wrote:The climate debate cannot be evaluated without some understanding of science?

That's like saying "The Rapture debate cannot be evaluated without some understanding of science."

Nope. No science understanding is needed for any religion.

sealover wrote:But what is "science"?

Are you asking me to teach you? Are you asking me to tell you the correct answer?

sealover wrote:We've got that Scientific Method thing, for starters, if we want to talk science.

Nope. The scientific method isn't any science. It is a systematic methodology for validating science ... or killing it.

sealover wrote:How do we really even know anything at all?

Is that the Marxist "we" again? Are you trying to paint your shortcomings onto all of humanity so that you don't feel singled out?

sealover wrote:Who is really a scientist?

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

.
RE: The Science Corner - A place for learning14-03-2022 07:05
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
IBdaMann wrote:

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


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

THE SCIENCE CORNER - A PLACE FOR LEARNING

If you are a newcomer visiting this website, you will find a very unique and valuable resource.

If you speak science, there is accurate and up to date information about biogeochemistry presented.

If you don't speak science, there is still a lot that can be learned from it.
14-03-2022 09:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19208)
sealover wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

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


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

THE SCIENCE CORNER - A PLACE FOR LEARNING

If you are a newcomer visiting this website, you will find a very unique and valuable resource.

If you speak science, there is accurate and up to date information about biogeochemistry presented.

If you don't speak science, there is still a lot that can be learned from it.

Science isn't meaningless buzzwords. Science isn't a language.


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
14-03-2022 15:33
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(3184)
sealover wrote:
The climate debate cannot be evaluated without some understanding of science?

Global Warming Mythology need not any understanding of science. In fact, it requires its lemmings to outright DENY science. (and logic... and mathematics... and critical thinking skills of any sort).

sealover wrote:
But what is "science"?

Do you wish to learn about science?

sealover wrote:
We've got that Scientific Method thing, for starters, if we want to talk science.

"That 'scientific method' thing" is not a part of science. This brings us back to your prior question and if you wish to learn about science or not.

sealover wrote:
How do we really even know anything at all?

Who is "we"? Your illiteracy in science (and apparently also everything else, according to you) is your own. Own it.

sealover wrote:
Who is really a scientist?

A scientist is. Otherwise, there would be no need for the word.
14-03-2022 18:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19208)
sealover wrote:
The climate debate cannot be evaluated without some understanding of science?

What's to evaluate? The Church of Global Warming is a fundamentalist style religion. It denies science and mathematics.
sealover wrote:
But what is "science"?

A set of falsifiable theories.
sealover wrote:
We've got that Scientific Method thing, for starters, if we want to talk science.

Science isn't a method or a procedure. It isn't a talk.
sealover wrote:
How do we really even know anything at all?

Are you 'we'? How personalities do you have in your disorder?
sealover wrote:
Who is really a scientist?

One who creates a falsifiable theory(s) and tests them.

There are lot of people calling themselves 'scientists' that never created any theory of any kind, much less a falsifiable one.

Climate 'scientists' are actually priests. They deny science. Specifically, they deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. They also deny statistical mathematics, probability mathematics, and random number mathematics.


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: Climate Debate - Clear Contrast15-03-2022 01:31
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
Welcome again newcomers!

The "climate debate" can be daunting.

I would encourage you to watch and learn from it.

I would encourage you to post questions, if you really want to join the site.

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

The contrast is clear.

This month marks my return to the Internet climate "debate", after more than ten years of absence.

Then, like now, there were a lot of hecklers and bullies.

Most of the insults I received, based on the fact that most of my posts were about environmental chemistry, were accusations of scientific ignorance.

The Scientific Method was their sacrosanct authority upon which they based their rejection of prevailing scientific conclusions.

This website is a bit different. Not just the science of climate change, but the scientific method itself is belittled and dismissed.

Don't take the bait, unless you enjoy the comedy of seeing every sentence you write dissected word for word to support a contrarian conclusion.

Don't take the bait, unless you want to be informed that you are a Communist conspirator with a nefarious hidden agenda.

You don't have to actually go down into the rabbit hole.

You can just watch from a safe distance and see what can be learned.




Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
The climate debate cannot be evaluated without some understanding of science?

What's to evaluate? The Church of Global Warming is a fundamentalist style religion. It denies science and mathematics.
sealover wrote:
But what is "science"?

A set of falsifiable theories.
sealover wrote:
We've got that Scientific Method thing, for starters, if we want to talk science.

Science isn't a method or a procedure. It isn't a talk.
sealover wrote:
How do we really even know anything at all?

Are you 'we'? How personalities do you have in your disorder?
sealover wrote:
Who is really a scientist?

One who creates a falsifiable theory(s) and tests them.

There are lot of people calling themselves 'scientists' that never created any theory of any kind, much less a falsifiable one.

Climate 'scientists' are actually priests. They deny science. Specifically, they deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. They also deny statistical mathematics, probability mathematics, and random number mathematics.
15-03-2022 02:07
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4323)
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.


What's to debate, the 'science' is settled. There was a consensus among liberals. Why would anyone question the consensus, individual thought is not allowed. The government will tell you what to think, what you will do, and when. Freewill is a myth...

We are all going to die one day. Either horribly, the liberal way, or in one of the more traditional ways.
15-03-2022 03:03
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12547)
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.
RE: yes, the contrast is clear15-03-2022 04:51
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
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.
15-03-2022 06:25
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12547)
Note to all newcomers.

Almost all residents of this site will require unambiguous definitions for the primary terms of your arguments. Meaningless buzzwords are usually discarded.

Otherwise, feel free to use the language you understand. There are no word cops here, only the occasional buzzword scheister pitching some WACKY Marxist religion. You can instantly recognize them because your requests for definitions will garner only lame excuses and double-downs on dishonesty.

Again, don't fall for the phony claims of authority or expertise. This is an anonymous forum so credentials are meaningless. 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.
RE: Caution Beware of Doxing15-03-2022 06:43
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
Welcome newcomers!

If you do decide to join this discussion, a word of caution.

Some of these people are off their meds.

Do not publish personal information here.

I have already put myself at risk of doxing.

Do not follow my example.

Remain anonymous.

Unfortunately, their those who relish in insulting people who care about climate change.

You may find that anything you say about yourself will be used against you.

Maybe better just to watch from a distance if you're not used to this.

Some of these people are off their meds.

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

IBdaMann wrote:
Note to all newcomers.

Almost all residents of this site will require unambiguous definitions for the primary terms of your arguments. Meaningless buzzwords are usually discarded.

Otherwise, feel free to use the language you understand. There are no word cops here, only the occasional buzzword scheister pitching some WACKY Marxist religion. You can instantly recognize them because your requests for definitions will garner only lame excuses and double-downs on dishonesty.

Again, don't fall for the phony claims of authority or expertise. This is an anonymous forum so credentials are meaningless. 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.
15-03-2022 10:00
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12547)
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!
15-03-2022 10:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12547)
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!
15-03-2022 10:53
duncan61
★★★★★
(2003)
Sealover wrote,
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.

I get where you are going with this however can you clear up something for me.
.When will climate change from AGW start or has it already started?
.Do you still need warming or is it going to happen anyway?
.If you need the warming where has it gone?
RE: "Watch for trolls" and don't feed them15-03-2022 15:17
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
"Watch for trolls who hide behind word games.."

Yes!

And please don't feed them.

It only encourages them to keep coming back.

Sometimes the bait is hard to resist.

Insults, accusations, outrageous claims that just HAVE to be challenged.

But they'll only thrive on it if you respond, and next thing you know, you've followed them down a rabbit hole of useless discussion.

Still, I wish I could get an "unambiguous definition" for "buzzword".

Apparently some of us use way too many of them, whatever they are.

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


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!
15-03-2022 16:25
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(3184)
sealover wrote:
Welcome again newcomers!

Let's see here...

Into The Night: 17,225 posts -- 10/08/15 (#1)
IBdaMann: 11,134 posts -- 10/09/14 (#2)
gfm7175: 3,006 posts -- 11/19/18 (#7)
HarveyH55: 3,994 posts -- 10/09/18 (#5)
GasGuzzler: 2,357 posts -- 12/30/16 (#9)
tmiddles: 3,941 posts -- 07/07/19 (#6)
keepit: 2,558 posts -- 05/27/19 (#8)

sealover: 155 posts -- 01/07/22 (#34)

It seems to me that YOU are the newcomer here...

sealover wrote:
The "climate debate" can be daunting.

... for the scientifically illiterate...

sealover wrote:
I would encourage you to watch and learn from it.

I would encourage you to take your own advice.

sealover wrote:
I would encourage you to post questions, if you really want to join the site.

One can "join the site" without posting any questions... really... it's rather straightforward. Posting questions does assist in learning though, for some people anyway.

sealover wrote:
I would discourage you going down any rabbit holes of useless discussion.

... says the person who consistently makes use of meaningless buzzwords such as "climate change", "feedback", "forcing", "greenhouse gas", "greenhouse effect", "oxygen catastrophe", etc... I would consider THAT to be useless discussion.

sealover wrote:
The contrast is clear.

That it is.

sealover wrote:
This month marks my return to the Internet climate "debate", after more than ten years of absence.

Welcome back to internet forum discussion. I am glad that you are here and hope that you stick around and learn a thing or two.


sealover wrote:
Then, like now, there were a lot of hecklers and bullies.

You are going to encounter such behavior from time to time. That's just "a part of it".

sealover wrote:
Most of the insults I received, based on the fact that most of my posts were about environmental chemistry, were accusations of scientific ignorance.

If you are ignorant of science, yet pretend to be well-versed in it, then people who actually know more than you do are going to call you out on it.

sealover wrote:
The Scientific Method was their sacrosanct authority upon which they based their rejection of prevailing scientific conclusions.

Science is not a method.

sealover wrote:
This website is a bit different. Not just the science of climate change, but the scientific method itself is belittled and dismissed.

"Climate change" is not science; it is only ever used as a meaningless buzzword.

sealover wrote:
Don't take the bait, unless you enjoy the comedy of seeing every sentence you write dissected word for word to support a contrarian conclusion.

You don't like it when people explain to you why your favored religion is in complete denial of logic, science, and mathematics??

sealover wrote:
Don't take the bait, unless you want to be informed that you are a Communist conspirator with a nefarious hidden agenda.

The truth can sting sometimes, eh?

sealover wrote:
You don't have to actually go down into the rabbit hole.

You can just watch from a safe distance and see what can be learned.

It's too bad that you, as of so far, seem unwilling to learn.
15-03-2022 20:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19208)
sealover wrote:
Welcome again newcomers!

The "climate debate" can be daunting.

Nah. It's easy to discuss climate. Earth has many climates. Which one do you want to discuss? A desert climate? A marine climate? An arctic climate?
sealover wrote:
I would encourage you to watch and learn from it.

I would encourage you to post questions, if you really want to join the site.

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

Like you do?
sealover wrote:
The contrast is clear.

This month marks my return to the Internet climate "debate", after more than ten years of absence.

You are still going to have to define 'climate change', 'global warming', 'climate crisis', and the other numerous buzzwords you use.
sealover wrote:
Then, like now, there were a lot of hecklers and bullies.

Like you?
sealover wrote:
Most of the insults I received, based on the fact that most of my posts were about environmental chemistry, were accusations of scientific ignorance.

It is what it is, pal. You are illiterate in science. You have demonstrated this in numerous posts.
sealover wrote:
The Scientific Method was their sacrosanct authority upon which they based their rejection of prevailing scientific conclusions.

Science isn't a method or procedure. It is not a conclusion. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all.
sealover wrote:
This website is a bit different. Not just the science of climate change, but the scientific method itself is belittled and dismissed.

Science isn't a method or procedure. There is no branch of science called 'climate change'. Science isn't buzzwords. Define 'climate change'.
sealover wrote:
Don't take the bait, unless you enjoy the comedy of seeing every sentence you write dissected word for word to support a contrarian conclusion.

You are not making conclusions. You are making void argument fallacies. You can't use buzzwords in a sentence without generating a void argument fallacy. You have to define your terms. Define 'climate change'. Define 'climate crisis'. Define 'global warming'.
sealover wrote:
Don't take the bait, unless you want to be informed that you are a Communist conspirator with a nefarious hidden agenda.

The Church of Global Warming does stem from the Church of Karl Marx. Obviously, you don't get that.
sealover wrote:
You don't have to actually go down into the rabbit hole.

You can just watch from a safe distance and see what can be learned.

You are not learning.


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
15-03-2022 20:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19208)
sealover wrote:
Not all of the "resident science experts" will require "unambiguous definitions" before anything can be discussed.

You must define everything you discuss when describing a theory of science. No exceptions. Science has no 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.

Until you define your words, you are not saying anything.
sealover wrote:
It's not always easy to tune out the noise.

You are the noise. Apparently it's not as easy as you thought.


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
15-03-2022 20:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19208)
sealover wrote:
Welcome newcomers!

If you do decide to join this discussion, a word of caution.

Some of these people are off their meds.

Do not publish personal information here.

I have already put myself at risk of doxing.

Do not follow my example.

Remain anonymous.

Unfortunately, their those who relish in insulting people who care about climate change.

You may find that anything you say about yourself will be used against you.

Maybe better just to watch from a distance if you're not used to this.

Some of these people are off their meds.


Insult fallacies. Define 'climate change'. Trolling.


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
15-03-2022 20:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19208)
sealover wrote:
"Watch for trolls who hide behind word games.."

Yes!

And please don't feed them.

I'm bored at the moment. I'll feed you anyway.
sealover wrote:
It only encourages them to keep coming back.

Sometimes the bait is hard to resist.

Insults, accusations, outrageous claims that just HAVE to be challenged.

But they'll only thrive on it if you respond, and next thing you know, you've followed them down a rabbit hole of useless discussion.

You DO like to go down such rabbit holes. You could avoid all that by defining your buzzwords.
sealover wrote:
Still, I wish I could get an "unambiguous definition" for "buzzword".

A word without meaning. Usually used to embellish a conversation. It's use as the subject in a sentence creates the void argument fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Apparently some of us use way too many of them, whatever they are.

Your list of buzzwords is impressive. I will not repeat them all here, but here are the ones you really need to define most of all:

Climate change
Climate crisis
Global warming

Let's just start with those.


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: "Buzzwords" make sense to most folks15-03-2022 21:03
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
"Buzzwords" is a term frequently used on this website.

What are "buzzwords"?

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

Apparently, the list of "buzzwords" includes:

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

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

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

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

I promise not to tell anyone.

____________________________________________
It seems to me that YOU are the newcomer here...

... says the person who consistently makes use of meaningless buzzwords such as "climate change", "feedback", "forcing", "greenhouse gas", "greenhouse effect", "oxygen catastrophe", etc... I would consider THAT to be useless discussion.

sealover wrote:
Then, like now, there were a lot of hecklers and bullies.

You are going to encounter such behavior from time to time. That's just "a part of it".

sealover wrote:
Most of the insults I received, based on the fact that most of my posts were about environmental chemistry, were accusations of scientific ignorance.

If you are ignorant of science, yet pretend to be well-versed in it, then people who actually know more than you do are going to call you out on it.

sealover wrote:
The Scientific Method was their sacrosanct authority upon which they based their rejection of prevailing scientific conclusions.

Science is not a method.

"Climate change" is not science; it is only ever used as a meaningless buzzword.


sealover wrote:
Don't take the bait, unless you want to be informed that you are a Communist conspirator with a nefarious hidden agenda.

The truth can sting sometimes, eh?

It's too bad that you, as of so far, seem unwilling to learn.[/quote]
15-03-2022 23:54
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(3184)
Troll feeding time, since I'm enjoying it atm...

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

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

sealover wrote:
What are "buzzwords"?

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

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

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

RQAA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Those definitions can be found here.

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

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

sealover wrote:
I promise not to tell anyone.

Shhhhhhh, it's a secret!
16-03-2022 01:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19208)
sealover wrote:
"Buzzwords" is a term frequently used on this website.

Because people like you keep using them.
sealover wrote:
What are "buzzwords"?

A word that is meaningless. Typically they are used to embellish a conversation. When used as the subject of a sentence, a void argument results.
sealover wrote:
I've never been sure myself how they were defined.

That is how they are defined.
sealover wrote:
Apparently, the list of "buzzwords" includes:

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

And you have never defined any of them.
sealover wrote:
That's kind of gag order for me if I'm not allowed to use them.

You can use them, but you aren't saying anything when you do.
sealover wrote:
What word should I say instead if "feedback" is just a meaningless "buzzword"?

Define the 'feedback' mechanism in a way that is definable and doesn't conflict with any theory of science or the rules of mathematics.
sealover wrote:
Maybe some of us can sneak off and have our own discussion, using "buzzwords".

You want to restrict yourself to the kiddie pool, yes?


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: please let us have the kiddie pool16-03-2022 01:28
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
Into the Night wrote:s.
sealover wrote:
Maybe some of us can sneak off and have our own discussion, using "buzzwords".

You want to restrict yourself to the kiddie pool, yes?


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you!

Can you let us have the kiddie pool?

I hear that there aren't any hecklers or bullies there.

Can't you start a decent thread of your own?

I promise that my friends and I will stay off it.
16-03-2022 01:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19208)
sealover wrote:
Into the Night wrote:s.
sealover wrote:
Maybe some of us can sneak off and have our own discussion, using "buzzwords".

You want to restrict yourself to the kiddie pool, yes?


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you!

Can you let us have the kiddie pool?

I hear that there aren't any hecklers or bullies there.

Can't you start a decent thread of your own?

I promise that my friends and I will stay off it.

Already started such a thread. Works for me. You couldn't conform to the rules of that thread anyway.


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: conform to the rules of that thread16-03-2022 02:08
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
[b]Into the Night wrote:

Already started such a thread. Works for me. You couldn't conform to the rules of that thread anyway.[/quote]

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

Excellent!

So there is a way for each thread to have its own rules?

Please tell me how that works.

I'm trying to figure a good way to make my threads troll-resistant.

I have some work to do before I ready to send out the invites.

Believe it or not, I have "colleagues".

I promise. Swear to God promise I will never post on any of your threads.

I can't control what my colleagues do.

It's a pretty safe bet they won't want to participate in your threads, either.

Deal?
16-03-2022 02:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19208)
sealover wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Already started such a thread. Works for me. You couldn't conform to the rules of that thread anyway.


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

Excellent!

So there is a way for each thread to have its own rules?[/quote]
The rules on my threads are informal, but clearly defined.
[b]sealover wrote:
I'm trying to figure a good way to make my threads troll-resistant.

You can't, since you are trolling.
sealover wrote:
I have some work to do before I ready to send out the invites.

Believe it or not, I have "colleagues".

I promise. Swear to God promise I will never post on any of your threads.

You haven't yet.
sealover wrote:
I can't control what my colleagues do.

It's a pretty safe bet they won't want to participate in your threads, either.

Deal?

So off to the kiddie pool you go then! Can't handle swimming with the adults!


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 other kids will think you're scary16-03-2022 02:32
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
Into the Night wrote: sealover wrote:
I have some work to do before I ready to send out the invites.

Believe it or not, I have "colleagues".

I promise. Swear to God promise I will never post on any of your threads.

You haven't yet.
sealover wrote:
I can't control what my colleagues do.

It's a pretty safe bet they won't want to participate in your threads, either.

Deal?

So off to the kiddie pool you go then! Can't handle swimming with the adults![/quote]

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

Thank you.

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.
16-03-2022 04:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12547)
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: they will be warned about you16-03-2022 04:56
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
I don't imagine you could prevent yourself from behaving in any other way.

They will be warned.

It will be like the vampires. They can look real scary standing at the doorstep. But they can't come inside unless they are invited.

You might get a few invitations.

I can't require everyone to follow my advice.

Those who don't will quickly discover it's better to stop inviting the vampire in.

You might get some of your sadistic joy, but not as much as you hope.

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


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.

16-03-2022 07:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19208)
sealover wrote:
I don't imagine you could prevent yourself from behaving in any other way.

They will be warned.

It will be like the vampires. They can look real scary standing at the doorstep. But they can't come inside unless they are invited.

You might get a few invitations.

I can't require everyone to follow my advice.

Those who don't will quickly discover it's better to stop inviting the vampire in.

You might get some of your sadistic joy, but not as much as you hope.

Into where?


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: Resident Hecklers and Bullies16-03-2022 15:41
sealover
★★★☆☆
(804)
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.

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

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

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

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

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

It will be a manageable nuisance.

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

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.

16-03-2022 20:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19208)
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.


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
Page 1 of 5123>>>





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