| 05-09-2024 06:16 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(22812) |
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Do you know the name of the acid that forms from less than 1% of the carbon dioxide that dissolves in water?
Is it possible that you were WRONG the many, many times you called it "carbolic acid"?
Do you even know what carbolic acid is?
RQAA
Intellectual honesty is not your strong suit.
Do you deny that you repeatedly claimed that carbolic acid is formed from about 1% of the carbon dioxide dissolved in water?
In case its RQAA, humor me and pretend I was too dumb to see where you answered this one previously.
It's a simple yes or no.
RQAA
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 |
| 10-09-2024 19:41 |
Im a BM★★★★☆
(1605) |
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Do you know the name of the acid that forms from less than 1% of the carbon dioxide that dissolves in water?
Is it possible that you were WRONG the many, many times you called it "carbolic acid"?
Do you even know what carbolic acid is?
RQAA
It takes four key strokes to write "RQAA"
It only takes three key strokes to write "yes"
And only two key strokes to write "no"
It takes more key strokes to avoid giving an honest answer than to give one.
"You cannot acidify an alkaline" takes more than 30 keystrokes.
Much more effort to give a non answer than an intellectually honest one.
More than 300 key strokes to write that sentence ten times in a single post.
So much more effort put into NOT saying anything than saying something.
Repetition fallacy = a way to say something without saying anything.
Intellectual honesty is not your strong suit.
Do you deny that you repeatedly claimed that carbolic acid is formed from about 1% of the carbon dioxide dissolved in water?
In case its RQAA, humor me and pretend I was too dumb to see where you answered this one previously.
It's a simple yes or no.
RQAA |
| 18-09-2024 01:52 |
Im a BM★★★★☆
(1605) |
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Do you know the name of the acid that forms from less than 1% of the carbon dioxide that dissolves in water?
Is it possible that you were WRONG the many, many times you called it "carbolic acid"?
Do you even know what carbolic acid is?
RQAA
Intellectual honesty is not your strong suit.
Do you deny that you repeatedly claimed that carbolic acid is formed from about 1% of the carbon dioxide dissolved in water?
In case its RQAA, humor me and pretend I was too dumb to see where you answered this one previously.
It's a simple yes or no.
RQAA
Perhaps it should come as no surprise that someone who is GULLIBLE enough to believe that Haitians steal pets and eat them would be GULLIBLE enough to fall for the lunatic fringe conspiracy theory about climate change as a "hoax".
Not just a hoax, an undefinable non existent not even theoretically possible kind of buzzword. There is no such thing as climate change. Chant 100 times. |
| 18-09-2024 03:38 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(22812) |
Im a BM wrote:
Perhaps it should come as no surprise that someone who is GULLIBLE enough to believe that Haitians steal pets and eat them
They do. Denying it won't work, Robert.
Im a BM wrote:
would be GULLIBLE enough to fall for the lunatic fringe conspiracy theory
The Church of Global Warming is a conspiracy. It is no theory.
Im a BM wrote:
about climate change as a "hoax".
Climate cannot change.
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 |
| 18-09-2024 07:03 |
Im a BM★★★★☆
(1605) |
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Perhaps it should come as no surprise that someone who is GULLIBLE enough to believe that Haitians steal pets and eat them
They do. Denying it won't work, Robert.
Im a BM wrote:
would be GULLIBLE enough to fall for the lunatic fringe conspiracy theory
The Church of Global Warming is a conspiracy. It is no theory.
Im a BM wrote:
about climate change as a "hoax".
Climate cannot change.
DING DONG THE WITCH IS DEAD! |
|
| 18-09-2024 09:52 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(22812) |
Im a BM wrote:
DING DONG THE WITCH IS DEAD!
Random phrase. No apparent coherency. No argument presented.
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 |
| 18-09-2024 15:53 |
IBdaMann ★★★★★
(14932) |
Im a BM wrote: Not just a hoax, an undefinable non existent not even theoretically possible kind of buzzword.
For the record, you have been asked repeatedly, since you arrived at this site, to define your terms Climate Change and Global Warming, and now you are revealing, perhaps unwittingly, that they are undefinable and non-existent. |
| 18-09-2024 19:08 |
Im a BM★★★★☆
(1605) |
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote: Not just a hoax, an undefinable non existent not even theoretically possible kind of buzzword.
For the record, you have been asked repeatedly, since you arrived at this site, to define your terms Climate Change and Global Warming, and now you are revealing, perhaps unwittingly, that they are undefinable and non-existent.
For the record, you have been repeatedly asked to identify ONE journal that meets your standards for being "truly scientific".
You say that the journal NATURE is a shit-rag, and I wouldn't know a truly scientific journal if one were handed to me.
The journals that published my discoveries (Nature, Biogeochemistry, Plant and Soil, Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis) don't qualify.
So, can you name ONE journal that you agree is "truly scientific"?
If you do, I will show you yet another journal where they do NOT define their terms properly.
Show me the "truly scientific journal" where the "true scientists" always define their terms, including the term "climate change".
Then I will confess my sins and admit that I violated the sacred code of science.
NO SUCH JOURNAL EXISTS.
Keepit used the word "inept" to describe what it looks like to the outsider. |
| 18-09-2024 19:37 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(3056) |
Im a BM wrote:
For the record, you have been repeatedly asked to identify ONE journal that meets your standards for being "truly scientific".
Why don't you get it? Science is NOT a school, a study, a paper, or a fuking journal.
Science IS a set of falsifiable theories that predict the natural world we live in (which you habitually ignore). So, YOU should please explain how a journal can be science. Best of luck, I'm actually rooting for you so we can move the conversation forward.
Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan |
| 18-09-2024 19:48 |
Im a BM★★★★☆
(1605) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
For the record, you have been repeatedly asked to identify ONE journal that meets your standards for being "truly scientific".
Why don't you get it? Science is NOT a school, a study, a paper, or a fuking journal.
Science IS a set of falsifiable theories that predict the natural world we live in (which you habitually ignore). So, YOU should please explain how a journal can be science. Best of luck, I'm actually rooting for you so we can move the conversation forward.
IBdaMann tells me that I "wouldn't know a truly scientific journal if one were handed to (me)" and I was told "This is a truly scientific journal"
IBdaMann has yet to define his terms.
What is "a truly scientific journal"?
Because that is where you see that scientists always define their terms.
IBdaMann made it quite clear that the journals that published my widely-cited discoveries are NOT truly scientific.
The journal NATURE is just a "shit-rag"... So, show me one of the good ones. |
| 19-09-2024 00:04 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(22812) |
Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote: Not just a hoax, an undefinable non existent not even theoretically possible kind of buzzword.
For the record, you have been asked repeatedly, since you arrived at this site, to define your terms Climate Change and Global Warming, and now you are revealing, perhaps unwittingly, that they are undefinable and non-existent.
For the record, you have been repeatedly asked to identify ONE journal that meets your standards for being "truly scientific".
Science isn't a journal.
Im a BM wrote:
You say that the journal NATURE is a shit-rag, and I wouldn't know a truly scientific journal if one were handed to me.
Science isn't a journal.
Im a BM wrote:
The journals that published my discoveries (Nature, Biogeochemistry, Plant and Soil, Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis) don't qualify.
Science isn't a journal or magazine.
Im a BM wrote:
So, can you name ONE journal that you agree is "truly scientific"?
Science isn't a journal.
Im a BM wrote:
If you do, I will show you yet another journal where they do NOT define their terms properly.
Show me the "truly scientific journal" where the "true scientists" always define their terms, including the term "climate change".
Science isn't a journal. Climate cannot change.
Im a BM wrote:
Then I will confess my sins and admit that I violated the sacred code of science.
Science isn't a 'sacred code'.
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 |
| 19-09-2024 00:06 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(22812) |
Im a BM wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
For the record, you have been repeatedly asked to identify ONE journal that meets your standards for being "truly scientific".
Why don't you get it? Science is NOT a school, a study, a paper, or a fuking journal.
Science IS a set of falsifiable theories that predict the natural world we live in (which you habitually ignore). So, YOU should please explain how a journal can be science. Best of luck, I'm actually rooting for you so we can move the conversation forward.
IBdaMann tells me that I "wouldn't know a truly scientific journal if one were handed to (me)" and I was told "This is a truly scientific journal"
IBdaMann has yet to define his terms.
Inversion fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
What is "a truly scientific journal"?
Science isn't a journal.
Im a BM wrote:
Because that is where you see that scientists always define their terms.
You don't define any of your terms.
Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann made it quite clear that the journals that published my widely-cited discoveries are NOT truly scientific.
Science isn't a journal.
Im a BM wrote:
The journal NATURE is just a "shit-rag"... So, show me one of the good ones.
Science isn't a journal.
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 |
| 19-09-2024 01:12 |
Im a BM★★★★☆
(1605) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
For the record, you have been repeatedly asked to identify ONE journal that meets your standards for being "truly scientific".
Why don't you get it? Science is NOT a school, a study, a paper, or a fuking journal.
Science IS a set of falsifiable theories that predict the natural world we live in (which you habitually ignore). So, YOU should please explain how a journal can be science. Best of luck, I'm actually rooting for you so we can move the conversation forward.
IBdaMann tells me that I "wouldn't know a truly scientific journal if one were handed to (me)" and I was told "This is a truly scientific journal"
IBdaMann has yet to define his terms.
What is "a truly scientific journal"?
Because that is where you see that scientists always define their terms.
IBdaMann made it quite clear that the journals that published my widely-cited discoveries are NOT truly scientific.
The journal NATURE is just a "shit-rag"... So, show me one of the good ones.
I do not speak for all the world's scientists.
I believe that there would be a predictable result if they could be accurately polled.
Question: Is there a scientific journal more prestigious than NATURE?
Among the US scientists, the majority answer would be "YES"
They would put the journal SCIENCE up as the most prestigious, with NATURE in second place.
Among scientists of all other nations the vote would be split.
Probably more than half would say "NO", there is not a scientific journal more prestigious than NATURE.
Less than half would say "YES", with NATURE in second place after SCIENCE.
But NATURE does not meet the standards as a truly scientific journal for purposes of "The Board" at this website.
Sooooo... Is there ANY journal that is "truly scientific"? Does it have a name?
I understand that we can't move on with the discussion until I provide an unambiguous definition of climate change that does not violate the laws of thermodynamics.
I just want to know the name of a "truly scientific journal" where true scientists communicate by always defining their terms, including "climate change". |
| 19-09-2024 01:50 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(22812) |
Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann tells me ...
Stop spamming.
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 |
| 21-09-2024 21:21 |
Im a BM★★★★☆
(1605) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
For the record, you have been repeatedly asked to identify ONE journal that meets your standards for being "truly scientific".
Why don't you get it? Science is NOT a school, a study, a paper, or a fuking journal.
Science IS a set of falsifiable theories that predict the natural world we live in (which you habitually ignore). So, YOU should please explain how a journal can be science. Best of luck, I'm actually rooting for you so we can move the conversation forward.
Actually, SCIENCE is a journal. The journal titled "Science" is one of the two best scientific journals in the world.
I would say that it qualifies as the kind of "truly scientific journal" that IBdaMann says I wouldn't even recognize as a "truly scientific journal".
My personal opinion is that YOU, IBdaMann, Into the Night, and others whose names I won't mention because they seem to have stopped posting, do not even know what science is.
I bet that YOU cannot provide the name of ONE scientific publication that meets the mythical standard which journals such as NATURE do not.
According to the Church of Thermodenial, scientists ALWAYS provide unambiguous definitions for their terms when they use them.
I bet you will not find ONE "truly scientific journal" where papers include anything that resembles an "unambiguous definition of climate change that does not violate the laws of thermodynamics".
As you point out, NOBODY gets to "move the conversation forward" until someone explains how a journal can be science.
I'm just trying to figure out what it takes for a journal to be "truly scientific".
Do you have any idea how "inept" you look trying to pretend you understand science better than a PhD with widely cited publications, with many of those citations in the mythical field of "climate science"?
Perhaps we should survey "The Board".
I predict that when the 9th and 10th anniversaries of Into the Night's and IBdaMann's joining the website arrive next month, they will be virtually alone in the echo chamber they created by driving everyone else away.
YOU might be there.
Maybe some of the others from the old troll team will drop in to say hello.
But I predict that in just a few weeks they will reap what they have sown.
An empty echo chamber, where everyone who attempted to have some kind of rational discussion about climate change has been systematically driven away.
1713 members, in theory.
5 active members, in actual practice.
A DEAD WEBSITE.
And YOU, GasGuzzler, helped them KILL it.
Enjoy the anniversary party! NOBODY IS COMING!
NOBODY WANTS TO PLAY WITH YOU GUYS!
"Why don't you get it?" - GasGuzzler |
|
| 23-09-2024 00:52 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(22812) |
Im a BM wrote:
Actually, SCIENCE is a journal. The journal titled "Science" is one of the two best scientific journals in the world.
Science is not a journal or magazine.
Im a BM wrote:
I would say that it qualifies as the kind of "truly scientific journal" that IBdaMann says I wouldn't even recognize as a "truly scientific journal".
Science is not a journal.
Im a BM wrote:
My personal opinion is that YOU, IBdaMann, Into the Night, and others whose names I won't mention because they seem to have stopped posting, do not even know what science is.
Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself again.
Im a BM wrote:
I bet that YOU cannot provide the name of ONE scientific publication that meets the mythical standard which journals such as NATURE do not.
Science is not a journal or magazine.
Im a BM wrote:
According to the Church of Thermodenial, scientists ALWAYS provide unambiguous definitions for their terms when they use them.
The Church of Global warming defines almost nothing. You also routinely deny science and mathematics.
Im a BM wrote:
I bet you will not find ONE "truly scientific journal" where papers include anything that resembles an "unambiguous definition of climate change that does not violate the laws of thermodynamics".
Science is not a journal. Climate cannot change.
Im a BM wrote:
As you point out, NOBODY gets to "move the conversation forward" until someone explains how a journal can be science.
Science is not a journal.
Im a BM wrote:
I'm just trying to figure out what it takes for a journal to be "truly scientific".
Science is not a journal.
Im a BM wrote:
Do you have any idea how "inept" you look trying to pretend you understand science better than a PhD with widely cited publications, with many of those citations in the mythical field of "climate science"?
Climate is not a branch of science. Science is not a degree or title, publication, journal, or magazine.
Im a BM wrote:
Perhaps we should survey "The Board"....deleted whining...
Science is not a survey. There is no voting bloc in science.
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
Edited on 23-09-2024 00:53 |
| RE: "Sociopathic" to consider climate change?13-10-2024 16:47 |
Im a BM★★★★☆
(1605) |
DO YOU AGREE WITH JD VANCE?
According to JD Vance, it is "sociopathic" to consider climate change when deciding whether or not to have children. It is "deranged" for women to refuse to become baby factories just because they are afraid of climate change.
Is it "sociopathic" to consider climate change when making plans for the future?
Or is it sociopathic to NOT consider climate change in planning for the future?
Should we refuse to build higher sea walls for coastal cities because it is "sociopathic" and "deranged" to allow engineers to consider climate change?
JD Vance is ALL IN on climate denial now. "Sociopathic" and "deranged" to even THINK about climate change for future plans.
Im a BM wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
For the record, you have been repeatedly asked to identify ONE journal that meets your standards for being "truly scientific".
Why don't you get it? Science is NOT a school, a study, a paper, or a fuking journal.
Science IS a set of falsifiable theories that predict the natural world we live in (which you habitually ignore). So, YOU should please explain how a journal can be science. Best of luck, I'm actually rooting for you so we can move the conversation forward.
IBdaMann tells me that I "wouldn't know a truly scientific journal if one were handed to (me)" and I was told "This is a truly scientific journal"
IBdaMann has yet to define his terms.
What is "a truly scientific journal"?
Because that is where you see that scientists always define their terms.
IBdaMann made it quite clear that the journals that published my widely-cited discoveries are NOT truly scientific.
The journal NATURE is just a "shit-rag"... So, show me one of the good ones.
I do not speak for all the world's scientists.
I believe that there would be a predictable result if they could be accurately polled.
Question: Is there a scientific journal more prestigious than NATURE?
Among the US scientists, the majority answer would be "YES"
They would put the journal SCIENCE up as the most prestigious, with NATURE in second place.
Among scientists of all other nations the vote would be split.
Probably more than half would say "NO", there is not a scientific journal more prestigious than NATURE.
Less than half would say "YES", with NATURE in second place after SCIENCE.
But NATURE does not meet the standards as a truly scientific journal for purposes of "The Board" at this website.
Sooooo... Is there ANY journal that is "truly scientific"? Does it have a name?
I understand that we can't move on with the discussion until I provide an unambiguous definition of climate change that does not violate the laws of thermodynamics.
I just want to know the name of a "truly scientific journal" where true scientists communicate by always defining their terms, including "climate change". |
| 13-10-2024 20:17 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(22812) |
Im a BM wrote:
DO YOU AGREE WITH JD VANCE?
According to JD Vance, it is "sociopathic" to consider climate change when deciding whether or not to have children. It is "deranged" for women to refuse to become baby factories just because they are afraid of climate change.
Climate cannot change. Paranoia is sociopathic. So are you, by the way.
Im a BM wrote:
Is it "sociopathic" to consider climate change when making plans for the future?
Climate cannot change.
Im a BM wrote:
Or is it sociopathic to NOT consider climate change in planning for the future?
Climate cannot change.
Im a BM wrote:
Should we refuse to build higher sea walls for coastal cities because it is "sociopathic" and "deranged" to allow engineers to consider climate change?
Climate cannot change.
Im a BM wrote:
JD Vance is ALL IN on climate denial now. "Sociopathic" and "deranged" to even THINK about climate change for future plans.
Climate cannot change.
Paranoia, such as yours, is a sociopathic behavior.
Stop spamming.
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
Edited on 13-10-2024 20:18 |
| 14-10-2024 02:43 |
Spongy Iris ★★★★☆
(1922) |
Im a BM wrote:
DO YOU AGREE WITH JD VANCE?
According to JD Vance, it is "sociopathic" to consider climate change when deciding whether or not to have children. It is "deranged" for women to refuse to become baby factories just because they are afraid of climate change.
Is it "sociopathic" to consider climate change when making plans for the future?
Or is it sociopathic to NOT consider climate change in planning for the future?
Should we refuse to build higher sea walls for coastal cities because it is "sociopathic" and "deranged" to allow engineers to consider climate change?
JD Vance is ALL IN on climate denial now. "Sociopathic" and "deranged" to even THINK about climate change for future plans.
Im a BM wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
For the record, you have been repeatedly asked to identify ONE journal that meets your standards for being "truly scientific".
Why don't you get it? Science is NOT a school, a study, a paper, or a fuking journal.
Science IS a set of falsifiable theories that predict the natural world we live in (which you habitually ignore). So, YOU should please explain how a journal can be science. Best of luck, I'm actually rooting for you so we can move the conversation forward.
IBdaMann tells me that I "wouldn't know a truly scientific journal if one were handed to (me)" and I was told "This is a truly scientific journal"
IBdaMann has yet to define his terms.
What is "a truly scientific journal"?
Because that is where you see that scientists always define their terms.
IBdaMann made it quite clear that the journals that published my widely-cited discoveries are NOT truly scientific.
The journal NATURE is just a "shit-rag"... So, show me one of the good ones.
I do not speak for all the world's scientists.
I believe that there would be a predictable result if they could be accurately polled.
Question: Is there a scientific journal more prestigious than NATURE?
Among the US scientists, the majority answer would be "YES"
They would put the journal SCIENCE up as the most prestigious, with NATURE in second place.
Among scientists of all other nations the vote would be split.
Probably more than half would say "NO", there is not a scientific journal more prestigious than NATURE.
Less than half would say "YES", with NATURE in second place after SCIENCE.
But NATURE does not meet the standards as a truly scientific journal for purposes of "The Board" at this website.
Sooooo... Is there ANY journal that is "truly scientific"? Does it have a name?
I understand that we can't move on with the discussion until I provide an unambiguous definition of climate change that does not violate the laws of thermodynamics.
I just want to know the name of a "truly scientific journal" where true scientists communicate by always defining their terms, including "climate change".
This conversation is right up my alley.
Honestly it only makes sense to plan to not have children anymore, if you're planning to live forever.
%20(1).png) |
| 14-10-2024 21:19 |
Spongy Iris★★★★☆
(1922) |
Spongy Iris wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
DO YOU AGREE WITH JD VANCE?
According to JD Vance, it is "sociopathic" to consider climate change when deciding whether or not to have children. It is "deranged" for women to refuse to become baby factories just because they are afraid of climate change.
Is it "sociopathic" to consider climate change when making plans for the future?
Or is it sociopathic to NOT consider climate change in planning for the future?
Should we refuse to build higher sea walls for coastal cities because it is "sociopathic" and "deranged" to allow engineers to consider climate change?
JD Vance is ALL IN on climate denial now. "Sociopathic" and "deranged" to even THINK about climate change for future plans.
Im a BM wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
For the record, you have been repeatedly asked to identify ONE journal that meets your standards for being "truly scientific".
Why don't you get it? Science is NOT a school, a study, a paper, or a fuking journal.
Science IS a set of falsifiable theories that predict the natural world we live in (which you habitually ignore). So, YOU should please explain how a journal can be science. Best of luck, I'm actually rooting for you so we can move the conversation forward.
IBdaMann tells me that I "wouldn't know a truly scientific journal if one were handed to (me)" and I was told "This is a truly scientific journal"
IBdaMann has yet to define his terms.
What is "a truly scientific journal"?
Because that is where you see that scientists always define their terms.
IBdaMann made it quite clear that the journals that published my widely-cited discoveries are NOT truly scientific.
The journal NATURE is just a "shit-rag"... So, show me one of the good ones.
I do not speak for all the world's scientists.
I believe that there would be a predictable result if they could be accurately polled.
Question: Is there a scientific journal more prestigious than NATURE?
Among the US scientists, the majority answer would be "YES"
They would put the journal SCIENCE up as the most prestigious, with NATURE in second place.
Among scientists of all other nations the vote would be split.
Probably more than half would say "NO", there is not a scientific journal more prestigious than NATURE.
Less than half would say "YES", with NATURE in second place after SCIENCE.
But NATURE does not meet the standards as a truly scientific journal for purposes of "The Board" at this website.
Sooooo... Is there ANY journal that is "truly scientific"? Does it have a name?
I understand that we can't move on with the discussion until I provide an unambiguous definition of climate change that does not violate the laws of thermodynamics.
I just want to know the name of a "truly scientific journal" where true scientists communicate by always defining their terms, including "climate change".
This conversation is right up my alley.
Honestly it only makes sense to plan to not have children anymore, if you're planning to live forever.
They talked about faith in the interview, and Vance signaled his virtue as a convert to Catholicism.
A great segway, into the most obvious question for any Catholic priest.
Do you seriously expect me to believe anything other than 100% of priests break their celibacy vows?
I mean when that psycho profiler depicted in the Spotlight movie said it was 50%, GET REAL PAL!
Edited on 14-10-2024 21:22 |
| 15-10-2024 07:39 |
Im a BM★★★★☆
(1605) |
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
DO YOU AGREE WITH JD VANCE?
According to JD Vance, it is "sociopathic" to consider climate change when deciding whether or not to have children. It is "deranged" for women to refuse to become baby factories just because they are afraid of climate change.
Climate cannot change. Paranoia is sociopathic. So are you, by the way.
Im a BM wrote:
Is it "sociopathic" to consider climate change when making plans for the future?
Climate cannot change.
Im a BM wrote:
Or is it sociopathic to NOT consider climate change in planning for the future?
Climate cannot change.
Im a BM wrote:
Should we refuse to build higher sea walls for coastal cities because it is "sociopathic" and "deranged" to allow engineers to consider climate change?
Climate cannot change.
Im a BM wrote:
JD Vance is ALL IN on climate denial now. "Sociopathic" and "deranged" to even THINK about climate change for future plans.
Climate cannot change.
Paranoia, such as yours, is a sociopathic behavior.
Stop spamming.
Apology accepted. |
| 15-10-2024 20:22 |
Spongy Iris★★★★☆
(1922) |
Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
DO YOU AGREE WITH JD VANCE?
According to JD Vance, it is "sociopathic" to consider climate change when deciding whether or not to have children. It is "deranged" for women to refuse to become baby factories just because they are afraid of climate change.
Is it "sociopathic" to consider climate change when making plans for the future?
Or is it sociopathic to NOT consider climate change in planning for the future?
Should we refuse to build higher sea walls for coastal cities because it is "sociopathic" and "deranged" to allow engineers to consider climate change?
JD Vance is ALL IN on climate denial now. "Sociopathic" and "deranged" to even THINK about climate change for future plans..
This conversation is right up my alley.
Honestly it only makes sense to plan to not have children anymore, if you're planning to live forever.
They talked about faith in the interview, and Vance signaled his virtue as a convert to Catholicism.
A great segway, into the most obvious question for any Catholic priest.
Do you seriously expect me to believe anything other than 100% of priests break their celibacy vows?
I mean when that psycho profiler depicted in the Spotlight movie said it was 50%, GET REAL PAL!
The profiler depicted in Spotlight did no great service to Catholicism by accurately assessing that 6% of Catholic priests are pedophiles.
It is no great service because it is at best a minor correction.
Actually, it looks more like a scapegoat than a correction, holding the feet of few bad apples to the fire, while everybody else gets to feel good about their self, reeks of a scapegoating ritual.
Estimating that 50% of priests hold fast to their celibacy vows is a failure in statistics because he is half wrong about the entire sample. It is statistically insignificant if he was correct about a tiny 6% subset in the sample.
But really, if half of priests had held fast to their celibacy vows, they would be qualified to lead Man to salvation. Instead they just burn incense, wail at the sky, and live a lie.
Edited on 15-10-2024 20:23 |