climate-debate.com - Where have all the members gone?

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > climate-debate.com - Where have all the members gone? > Page 2

Page 2 of 2

14-06-2023 00:24
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2938)	Swan wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: Im a BM wrote: A list of the most active users reveals that only 10 members have posted more than 2500 times. Some of those ten haven't posted in years. I propose an experiment: A thread called "For members with fewer than 2500 posts" Those with more than 2500 posts have hundreds of other threads to post on. The thread may get no takers. It certainly will not attract anyone new if the ten most active users post there. It would only work if the handful of most active users voluntarily restrain themselves from posting on it. But even if just those most active users posting on THIS thread were to agree to have ONE thread that they do not interfere with. "How would the 99.75% read the posts of the four excluded members?" There would be only one thread where they would NOT be able to read them. If the 99.75% want to read the posts of the most active four members, it is pretty difficult to avoid them. They dominate EVERY thread. And there have been years of data that show how few other members find it to be a discussion they choose to participate in. This year alone, several of the newest members attempted to participate actively. Ironically, they were all climate "skeptics", quite willing to go along with the disdain for all who accept the scientific consensus. But they weren't willing to go far enough. They wouldn't provide unambiguous definitions for terms such as "fossil fuel". They didn't believe in anthropogenic climate change. But they weren't even supposed to believe in climate. How about just ONE thread for those who believe that climate is real? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IBdaMann wrote: Im a BM wrote:A quick glance at the "most active users" list reveals that only 1% of the 1659 members have posted more than 1300 times. You are completely omitting all of the members who only want to read posts but not post anything themselves. Im a BM wrote:What if there were even just ONE thread for the other 99%? They have all of the threads already. Im a BM wrote:What if the other 99% had even just ONE thread where the 1% leave them alone? Why would they look to read posts where there aren't any? Im a BM wrote: Just ONE thread where they won't have to read comments like, "you are a moron." Who would erase those comments? Censors? Im a BM wrote: A thread for the 99.75% would only exclude four members. How would the 99.75% read the posts of the four excluded members? You could always start your own website, if this one, or any other doesn't fit your wants and needs. We often do get threads, where only the person who started it, was the only person who started it, posted... Would be odd to start a thread actually related to climate-debate, but reject any who would debate. I do agree that the amphibious 'fossil-fuels' crap is annoying. The term has been used over 50 years. Stubborn refusal to acknowledge a long accept label, simply because it's not philosophically-correct is childish. It's a label, doesn't necessarily need to be accurate. The concept of a 'global-climate' is idiotic. Average doesn't apply, since there are several areas on this planet, that never, ever share similar conditions. What areas roughly conform to the 'average-global-climate'? Average global temperature is equally pointless, other than for politics. sounds impressive, but doesn't actually mean much in the real world. Every planet has a global climate, or are you saying that all planets are equal? If you has an IQ you would see this So if you lived on Mars and won a free 1 week trip to Earth, via teleportation, what type of clothing would you pack in your suitcase? Come on man, you say you own my brain, you might as well use it. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
14-06-2023 00:33
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	Im a BM wrote: You could always start your own website, if this one, or any other doesn't fit your wants and needs. We often do get threads, where only the person who started it, was the only person who started it, posted... Would be odd to start a thread actually related to climate-debate, but reject any who would debate. I do agree that the amphibious 'fossil-fuels' crap is annoying. The term has been used over 50 years. Stubborn refusal to acknowledge a long accept label, simply because it's not philosophically-correct is childish. It's a label, doesn't necessarily need to be accurate. The concept of a 'global-climate' is idiotic. Average doesn't apply, since there are several areas on this planet, that never, ever share similar conditions. What areas roughly conform to the 'average-global-climate'? Average global temperature is equally pointless, other than for politics. sounds impressive, but doesn't actually mean much in the real world. HarveyH55 correctly notes that I or anyone could simply start their own website. But this particular rabbit hole has a special quality that would be hard to duplicate on a new website. I just did a Google search for "climate change discussion website". This website was fifth on the list, just ahead of The Nature Conservancy. New viewers get drawn in every day. Obviously, they don't like what they see or we would be hearing from them. I could start my own website. But I wouldn't know how to make it appear that 50-200 "Guests online" have suddenly taken an interest in my website for a few minutes. Several times each day and night. I would never be able to game the system so that a Google search shows my website fifth on the list for "climate change discussion websites". So, I'm trying to do it here.[/quote] Search engines rate website by traffic and usage (changes in content). You won't know if you can compete, if you don't put up your own site. You should have trouble getting members, by inviting those you know. As site owner, you get to ban trolls, delete posts, even setup an actual library. Been a long time since I looked at forum software, or prices. There are probably still a few free options. This site isn't going to change, without owner intervention. An un-moderated forum, is a playground. This one must get some moderation. No spambots, no porn, or anything else illegal, or grossly immoral.
14-06-2023 00:36
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2938)	HarveyH55 wrote: I do agree that the 'fossil-fuels' crap is annoying. The term has been used over 50 years. Stubborn refusal to acknowledge a long accept label, simply because it's not philosophically-correct is childish. ....and 50 years from now progressives will still be liberals. You always call them out for what they are. Progressive is a political agenda term. Fossil fuel is also a political agenda term. Do you disagree? Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
14-06-2023 01:18
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	GasGuzzler wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: I do agree that the 'fossil-fuels' crap is annoying. The term has been used over 50 years. Stubborn refusal to acknowledge a long accept label, simply because it's not philosophically-correct is childish. ....and 50 years from now progressives will still be liberals. You always call them out for what they are. Progressive is a political agenda term. Fossil fuel is also a political agenda term. Do you disagree? Fossil fuels are just a specific group of fuels. The label itself wouldn't matter, just easier than listing each, individually, every time you wish to refer to them. Re-branding to hydrocarbons isn't better, since only a few hydrocarbons are included in fossil-fuels. I like less typing, the term has been used for decades, even before the politics.
14-06-2023 01:21
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	GasGuzzler wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: I do agree that the 'fossil-fuels' crap is annoying. The term has been used over 50 years. Stubborn refusal to acknowledge a long accept label, simply because it's not philosophically-correct is childish. ....and 50 years from now progressives will still be liberals. You always call them out for what they are. Progressive is a political agenda term. Fossil fuel is also a political agenda term. Do you disagree? Fossil fuels are just a specific group of fuels. The label itself wouldn't matter, just easier than listing each, individually, every time you wish to refer to them. Re-branding to hydrocarbons isn't better, since only a few hydrocarbons are included in fossil-fuels. I like less typing, the term has been used for decades, even before the politics.

14-06-2023 08:31
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14470)	HarveyH55 wrote:Fossil fuels are just a specific group of fuels. Except they're not. Hydrocarbons are not in the same category as coal, but they are if you are trying to push a political agenda that is trying to demonize cheap, plentiful energy. You have been made aware of the physical differences and of the correct terminology, yet you bitch and gripe about people who simply want to be technically correct. You get upset and "annoyed" by people who don't like to be tools for a political agenda as you insist on doing. Harvey, why is it annoying to type "hydrocarbons" instead of "fossil fuels"? It's exactly the same number of characters. Is it because hydrocarbons is correct and that bothers you? Why is it annoying to type "coal" instead of "fossil fuels"? "Coal" only has four characters to type and is correct and specific. Is that what bothers you? Is that what you find annoying? I realize that you have a religious belief that hydrocarbons and coal are actually fossils, and you believe that you would be mocked if you were to express this belief, as well as your 2nd law of thermodynamics-violating belief that living organisms rot/decay into a higher energy form ... so instead you loathe others who don't use your faith-justifying term of "fossil fuels." I get it. But if you are going to take swipes at others for not facilitating your faith, you should expect commentary. You won't learn about the specifics of Fischer-Tropsh for the same reason that fundamentalist Christians won't read "On the Origin of Species", i.e. fear that it might be antithetical to the faith. HarveyH55 wrote: The label itself wouldn't matter, No Harvey, it means everything to you. It's like your drug and you become irritable and suffer from withdrawal if you are deprived of it. HarveyH55 wrote: just easier than listing each, individually, every time you wish to refer to them. Incorrect. I just went over that above. Instead of convoluting sources of energy so as to help defeat capitalism, you could make it easier on yourself and your audience by typing the same amount, or fewer, characters and being both specific and technically correct. Hydrocarbons or coal. Done. No life-altering changes are required, except that you would face your withdrawal, yes, I'll grant you that. HarveyH55 wrote: Re-branding to hydrocarbons isn't better, It's not a "rebranding." Hydrocarbons are what they are. You, however, are rebranding them to "fossils" so as to facilitate your religious faith. Not rebranding them, and leaving them called "hydrocarbons" is best. Rebranding them to "fossils" is a very bad idea and begs to be mocked. HarveyH55 wrote: I like less typing, Nope. You like to type twelve characters every time, instead of typing only four when you are discussing coal. HarveyH55 wrote: the term has been [mis]used for decades, The term "nigger" has been used for decades. Should we expect you to pepper your posts with that term as well?
14-06-2023 14:46
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	No, actually, I do get it. It's a philosophic argument, that doesn't really matter, other than winning a point for convincing the other. I just don't value winning those points, and why I didn't take to philosophy in college. I accept that not everyone is going to use precise terminology. I use the more commonly accepted terminology, why complicate things. I'm not looking to confuse the issue discussed, or derail it. It the same argument as 'alligators are amphibians'. They are amphibious, but not in the same classification as amphibians, which was the context of that discussion derailed. Alligators and frogs share the same water, nothing else. As do a lot of other plants and critters. But, you philosophy training won't let you accept that.
14-06-2023 15:59
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14470)	HarveyH55 wrote: No, actually, I do get it. It's a philosophic argument, that doesn't really matter, other than winning a point for convincing the other. Booolsch't. It's a matter of religious faith for you (and others). On the other hand, people such as myself just want to be clear in a forum of ideas where words are all we have. You get all pissy with me when I'm just trying to be technically correct. At first I was trying to help you see the error of your ways, but I didn't realize how deeply ingrained your faith was on this matter. You find people being technically correct to be annoying. I find WACKY preachers to be annoying. I'm not the only one. HarveyH55 wrote: I just don't value winning those points, You are trying to protect the plausibility of your beliefs that run counter to science. I get it. Why do you have to jab at others who don't share your beliefs? HarveyH55 wrote: I accept that not everyone is going to use precise terminology. Why attack the ones who do? Why not admit "Yes, 'hydrocarbons' (or 'coal') is the correct term but I prefer to lump hydrocarbons and coal together into one category, even though they don't belong in the same category, because treating them that way makes me feel better. I find a technically correct treating of those energy sources to be a bit abrasive and I want my guarantee of twelve characters"? That would be honest, as opposed to sniveling and griping when someone reminds you that coal is not a fossil and is not a hydrocarbon, and that hydrocarbons are not fossils and are not coal/carbon. HarveyH55 wrote: I use the more commonly accepted terminology, why complicate things. Because erroneous terminology that plays on common misconceptions ... is what complicates things. It would be so much simpler (and honest) if you were to refer to hydrocarbons as "hydrocarbons" and to coal as "coal" ... your withdrawal symptoms notwithstanding. HarveyH55 wrote: I'm not looking to confuse the issue discussed, or derail it. You are looking to defend your faith. Whatever happens to the discussion is secondary. HarveyH55 wrote: It the same argument as 'alligators are amphibians'. Sure. You are fully aware that alligators are amphibious, but you become unhinged when someone insists on this being true. I have no idea what stake you have in propagating the notion that amphibious animals are somehow not amphibious; you wouldn't explain any of the times I asked, but yes, it would be so much simpler (and honest) if you would refer to amphibians as "amphibians" ... or at least not melt like the wicked witch of the west when someone else does. I'm not asking you to pursue a PhD in English but it would help if you were to brush up on this one point. HarveyH55 wrote: They are amphibious, but not in the same classification as amphibians, I'll tell you again, Harvey, the way the English language works, amphibious animals are amphibian animals and are amphibians. It's the English language. You are objectively incorrect. Only if you specify a context of biological taxonomy does your statement become true/correct. In none of the cases where the word "amphibian" was used was the context of biological taxonomy stipulated. The only context was the English language, the language used for discussions on this forum. HarveyH55 wrote: Alligators and frogs share the same water, nothing else. Big deal. Both are amphibious. Ergo, both are amphibian. Ergo, both are amphibians. Wait. Did you want to stipulate biological taxonomy instead of the assumed English language basis of communication? Great. Then you will be correct. Specify the context before you start attacking others for getting English correct. Do you think I'm just making this up? Do you think I'm trying to revise English or preserve it? What about hydrocarbons? Do you think I made up the term?
14-06-2023 19:22
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	IBdaMann wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: No, actually, I do get it. It's a philosophic argument, that doesn't really matter, other than winning a point for convincing the other. Booolsch't. It's a matter of religious faith for you (and others). On the other hand, people such as myself just want to be clear in a forum of ideas where words are all we have. You get all pissy with me when I'm just trying to be technically correct. At first I was trying to help you see the error of your ways, but I didn't realize how deeply ingrained your faith was on this matter. You find people being technically correct to be annoying. I find WACKY preachers to be annoying. I'm not the only one. HarveyH55 wrote: I just don't value winning those points, You are trying to protect the plausibility of your beliefs that run counter to science. I get it. Why do you have to jab at others who don't share your beliefs? HarveyH55 wrote: I accept that not everyone is going to use precise terminology. Why attack the ones who do? Why not admit "Yes, 'hydrocarbons' (or 'coal') is the correct term but I prefer to lump hydrocarbons and coal together into one category, even though they don't belong in the same category, because treating them that way makes me feel better. I find a technically correct treating of those energy sources to be a bit abrasive and I want my guarantee of twelve characters"? That would be honest, as opposed to sniveling and griping when someone reminds you that coal is not a fossil and is not a hydrocarbon, and that hydrocarbons are not fossils and are not coal/carbon. HarveyH55 wrote: I use the more commonly accepted terminology, why complicate things. Because erroneous terminology that plays on common misconceptions ... is what complicates things. It would be so much simpler (and honest) if you were to refer to hydrocarbons as "hydrocarbons" and to coal as "coal" ... your withdrawal symptoms notwithstanding. HarveyH55 wrote: I'm not looking to confuse the issue discussed, or derail it. You are looking to defend your faith. Whatever happens to the discussion is secondary. HarveyH55 wrote: It the same argument as 'alligators are amphibians'. Sure. You are fully aware that alligators are amphibious, but you become unhinged when someone insists on this being true. I have no idea what stake you have in propagating the notion that amphibious animals are somehow not amphibious; you wouldn't explain any of the times I asked, but yes, it would be so much simpler (and honest) if you would refer to amphibians as "amphibians" ... or at least not melt like the wicked witch of the west when someone else does. I'm not asking you to pursue a PhD in English but it would help if you were to brush up on this one point. HarveyH55 wrote: They are amphibious, but not in the same classification as amphibians, I'll tell you again, Harvey, the way the English language works, amphibious animals are amphibian animals and are amphibians. It's the English language. You are objectively incorrect. Only if you specify a context of biological taxonomy does your statement become true/correct. In none of the cases where the word "amphibian" was used was the context of biological taxonomy stipulated. The only context was the English language, the language used for discussions on this forum. HarveyH55 wrote: Alligators and frogs share the same water, nothing else. Big deal. Both are amphibious. Ergo, both are amphibian. Ergo, both are amphibians. Wait. Did you want to stipulate biological taxonomy instead of the assumed English language basis of communication? Great. Then you will be correct. Specify the context before you start attacking others for getting English correct. Do you think I'm just making this up? Do you think I'm trying to revise English or preserve it? What about hydrocarbons? Do you think I made up the term? Project much? I make no demands on anyone to accept my views. No one has to conform to my rules. I don't bend that easy either. We were discussing reptile and amphibian DNA, biology context... Alligators are amphibious, would have been a correct observation, but not relevant. Using 'amphibian'was deliberately wrong, for the context of the discussion, with intent to start a philosophical argument, and score some points.
15-06-2023 10:48
Into the Night★★★★★ (21671)	Swan wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: Swan wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: Swan wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: Swan wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: Swan wrote: Im a BM wrote: Yesterday, the 1657th member joined this website. That makes 75 new members in the past year, after I first joined. Yet, only five to ten members actually participate in the discussion. And ALL of the new members who joined after I did have given up already. The handful of members who do post have been here for years. There must be something very unattractive about the discussion that repels even those who thought they wanted to be part of it at one time. This is not a real website, it is a closed loop only for certain people. A real climate discussion page would have millions of participants. I thought you knew? It is a real website, and we could discus climate, if there was anything there to discus. It's a scam, enough said... So, we discus other things like AI generated, quantum GMO, moraine-grown tomatoes. That the FBI doesn't want anyone to know about. Bet you just can't wait, another month or so, you'll be chokin'-the-chicken, as you squeeze the snot and seeds out of them tomatoes, making you special 'sauce'... Again if this were a real website there would be at least one million members active every day instead of 3 to 5. Furthermore every real website sells ads to generate income this site does nothing as it is fully government funded and deep cover for schizzos Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa So, why are you here, and not using a 'real' website? Where millions of users can be annoyed by you. Oh, you already made an ass of yourself, and got banned, learned nothing. So much for that almost 'genius' IQ... Bet you even got kicked off the tomato growers forum. Web hosting isn't always expensive. Some website accept ads from their host, to reduce cost. Some large sites might monetize, and sell ad space. It's not always about making money. Your mind seems to function as a small child. With your stated intelligence, and finances, you don't seem to do much with the resources you claim. I have no trouble learning new skills. I don't need to learn everything required for certification. Just a functional knowledge to complete a task. And once learned, I remember, and can apply that knowledge to similar tasks. Not hard to figure out how to deal with what might be different. Actually it is all about making money as without revenue a website cannot maintain itself, proving that this dump is government funded. I am here as your support group as without me this site shuts down out of boredom. THAT SAID WHO WOULD ADVERTISE ON A PAGE WITH 4 USERS............. HE HE HE You really are a clueless moron... You pay for server space, to host your website. You can created/maintain it yourself, or you can pay a professional service. A website doesn't really require much maintenance, other than keeping the content below the amount of server space you paid for. This site does seem well maintained though. Other than you, and Buddha, there isn't a spambot problem... LOL, the other 3 schizzos do seem to agree with you. However as said no company would actually have a logical reason to advertise to myself and 3 schizzos A lot of website accept ads from their host, for a reduced price, even free. They don't make money, just get a discount. Ads are mostly annoying, sometimes distracts from the website's content. In reality ads earn websites millions in revenue, but not to fake websites with 4 total active users. Argument from randU fallacy. Compositional error fallacy. Some websites (most) do not have ads at all. Those that do get minimal money for them. You don't become a millionaire by ads on websites. This site is run as a hobby. It has no ads. Other forum sites run on donations from their users as their primary means of paying for the site. Facebook is not a forum. It's currently losing money. Youtube is not a forum. It makes a lot of money by playing ads from ad servers (very poorly) during videos. It eventually sold to Google, which also makes money using ad servers. Because both Google and Youtube censor, people have turned to other video playback sites (such as Rumble) and other search engines (such as DuckDuckGo). Amazon makes a lot of money. It only advertises itself (it's catalog system). Most of Amazon's revenue comes not from the Amazon store, but from AWS, which sells no ads at all. Most government sites are not permitted to use place ads on their site by law. Most of the web sites out there you've never heard of. They generally don't use ads to pay for themselves. There is no such thing as a 'fake website'. If a server is using the HTTP or HTTPS protocol, it's a real website. 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
15-06-2023 10:53
Into the Night★★★★★ (21671)	Im a BM wrote: A list of the most active users reveals that only 10 members have posted more than 2500 times. ...deleted extended whining... How would the 99.75% read the posts of the four excluded members? So you just want to talk to yourself and post spam....gotit. 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
15-06-2023 10:59
Into the Night★★★★★ (21671)	Im a BM wrote: HarveyH55 correctly notes that I or anyone could simply start their own website. Yes you can. Im a BM wrote: But this particular rabbit hole has a special quality that would be hard to duplicate on a new website. Starting a website isn't a rabbit hole or any other hole. Im a BM wrote: I just did a Google search for "climate change discussion website". This website was fifth on the list, just ahead of The Nature Conservancy. The Nature Conservancy is not a forum. Im a BM wrote: New viewers get drawn in every day. Obviously, they don't like what they see or we would be hearing from them. I could start my own website. Yes you can. Im a BM wrote: But I wouldn't know how to make it appear that 50-200 "Guests online" have suddenly taken an interest in my website for a few minutes. Several times each day and night. So you say you can't. Im a BM wrote: I would never be able to game the system so that a Google search shows my website fifth on the list for "climate change discussion websites". There is no 'gaming the system'. Google is also not the only search engine out there. Im a BM wrote: So, I'm trying to do it here. So you admit that you crave the attention, and you wouldn't get that by starting your own website. 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
15-06-2023 11:00
Into the Night★★★★★ (21671)	Swan wrote: Every planet has a global climate, or are you saying that all planets are equal? There is no such thing as a 'global climate' on any planet. 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
15-06-2023 11:09
Into the Night★★★★★ (21671)	HarveyH55 wrote: Fossil fuels are just a specific group of fuels. Nope. Fossils don't burn. HarveyH55 wrote: The label itself wouldn't matter, It does matter. HarveyH55 wrote: just easier than listing each, individually, every time you wish to refer to them. Listing each fossil means nothing. Fossils don't burn. HarveyH55 wrote: Re-branding to hydrocarbons isn't better, since only a few hydrocarbons are included in fossil-fuels. Fossils aren't hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons are not fossils. Hydrocarbons include methane, propane, butane, hexane, septane, octane, etc. Gasoline is a blend of hydrocarbons. Natural gas is methane. HarveyH55 wrote: I like less typing, the term has been used for decades, even before the politics. The term has been used to refer to coal, oil, and natural gas because the schools shoved it on people, even though the use of the term is horribly incorrect. These same schools teach that a tomato is a vegetable too. It isn't. They also teach that CO2 is capable of warming the Earth. It can't. 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
15-06-2023 11:14
Into the Night★★★★★ (21671)	HarveyH55 wrote: IBdaMann wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: No, actually, I do get it. It's a philosophic argument, that doesn't really matter, other than winning a point for convincing the other. Booolsch't. It's a matter of religious faith for you (and others). On the other hand, people such as myself just want to be clear in a forum of ideas where words are all we have. You get all pissy with me when I'm just trying to be technically correct. At first I was trying to help you see the error of your ways, but I didn't realize how deeply ingrained your faith was on this matter. You find people being technically correct to be annoying. I find WACKY preachers to be annoying. I'm not the only one. HarveyH55 wrote: I just don't value winning those points, You are trying to protect the plausibility of your beliefs that run counter to science. I get it. Why do you have to jab at others who don't share your beliefs? HarveyH55 wrote: I accept that not everyone is going to use precise terminology. Why attack the ones who do? Why not admit "Yes, 'hydrocarbons' (or 'coal') is the correct term but I prefer to lump hydrocarbons and coal together into one category, even though they don't belong in the same category, because treating them that way makes me feel better. I find a technically correct treating of those energy sources to be a bit abrasive and I want my guarantee of twelve characters"? That would be honest, as opposed to sniveling and griping when someone reminds you that coal is not a fossil and is not a hydrocarbon, and that hydrocarbons are not fossils and are not coal/carbon. HarveyH55 wrote: I use the more commonly accepted terminology, why complicate things. Because erroneous terminology that plays on common misconceptions ... is what complicates things. It would be so much simpler (and honest) if you were to refer to hydrocarbons as "hydrocarbons" and to coal as "coal" ... your withdrawal symptoms notwithstanding. HarveyH55 wrote: I'm not looking to confuse the issue discussed, or derail it. You are looking to defend your faith. Whatever happens to the discussion is secondary. HarveyH55 wrote: It the same argument as 'alligators are amphibians'. Sure. You are fully aware that alligators are amphibious, but you become unhinged when someone insists on this being true. I have no idea what stake you have in propagating the notion that amphibious animals are somehow not amphibious; you wouldn't explain any of the times I asked, but yes, it would be so much simpler (and honest) if you would refer to amphibians as "amphibians" ... or at least not melt like the wicked witch of the west when someone else does. I'm not asking you to pursue a PhD in English but it would help if you were to brush up on this one point. HarveyH55 wrote: They are amphibious, but not in the same classification as amphibians, I'll tell you again, Harvey, the way the English language works, amphibious animals are amphibian animals and are amphibians. It's the English language. You are objectively incorrect. Only if you specify a context of biological taxonomy does your statement become true/correct. In none of the cases where the word "amphibian" was used was the context of biological taxonomy stipulated. The only context was the English language, the language used for discussions on this forum. HarveyH55 wrote: Alligators and frogs share the same water, nothing else. Big deal. Both are amphibious. Ergo, both are amphibian. Ergo, both are amphibians. Wait. Did you want to stipulate biological taxonomy instead of the assumed English language basis of communication? Great. Then you will be correct. Specify the context before you start attacking others for getting English correct. Do you think I'm just making this up? Do you think I'm trying to revise English or preserve it? What about hydrocarbons? Do you think I made up the term? Project much? I make no demands on anyone to accept my views. No one has to conform to my rules. I don't bend that easy either. Fallacy fallacy. He is not projecting anything. If you want to continue to show your illiteracy, that's your choice. HarveyH55 wrote: We were discussing reptile and amphibian DNA, biology context... Alligators are amphibious, would have been a correct observation, but not relevant. Using 'amphibian'was deliberately wrong, for the context of the discussion, with intent to start a philosophical argument, and score some points. Do not discount philosophy. Alligators are amphibians. This is not philosophy, this is English. ALL animals that are amphibious are amphibians. 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

15-06-2023 15:35
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	Into the Night wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: IBdaMann wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: No, actually, I do get it. It's a philosophic argument, that doesn't really matter, other than winning a point for convincing the other. Booolsch't. It's a matter of religious faith for you (and others). On the other hand, people such as myself just want to be clear in a forum of ideas where words are all we have. You get all pissy with me when I'm just trying to be technically correct. At first I was trying to help you see the error of your ways, but I didn't realize how deeply ingrained your faith was on this matter. You find people being technically correct to be annoying. I find WACKY preachers to be annoying. I'm not the only one. HarveyH55 wrote: I just don't value winning those points, You are trying to protect the plausibility of your beliefs that run counter to science. I get it. Why do you have to jab at others who don't share your beliefs? HarveyH55 wrote: I accept that not everyone is going to use precise terminology. Why attack the ones who do? Why not admit "Yes, 'hydrocarbons' (or 'coal') is the correct term but I prefer to lump hydrocarbons and coal together into one category, even though they don't belong in the same category, because treating them that way makes me feel better. I find a technically correct treating of those energy sources to be a bit abrasive and I want my guarantee of twelve characters"? That would be honest, as opposed to sniveling and griping when someone reminds you that coal is not a fossil and is not a hydrocarbon, and that hydrocarbons are not fossils and are not coal/carbon. HarveyH55 wrote: I use the more commonly accepted terminology, why complicate things. Because erroneous terminology that plays on common misconceptions ... is what complicates things. It would be so much simpler (and honest) if you were to refer to hydrocarbons as "hydrocarbons" and to coal as "coal" ... your withdrawal symptoms notwithstanding. HarveyH55 wrote: I'm not looking to confuse the issue discussed, or derail it. You are looking to defend your faith. Whatever happens to the discussion is secondary. HarveyH55 wrote: It the same argument as 'alligators are amphibians'. Sure. You are fully aware that alligators are amphibious, but you become unhinged when someone insists on this being true. I have no idea what stake you have in propagating the notion that amphibious animals are somehow not amphibious; you wouldn't explain any of the times I asked, but yes, it would be so much simpler (and honest) if you would refer to amphibians as "amphibians" ... or at least not melt like the wicked witch of the west when someone else does. I'm not asking you to pursue a PhD in English but it would help if you were to brush up on this one point. HarveyH55 wrote: They are amphibious, but not in the same classification as amphibians, I'll tell you again, Harvey, the way the English language works, amphibious animals are amphibian animals and are amphibians. It's the English language. You are objectively incorrect. Only if you specify a context of biological taxonomy does your statement become true/correct. In none of the cases where the word "amphibian" was used was the context of biological taxonomy stipulated. The only context was the English language, the language used for discussions on this forum. HarveyH55 wrote: Alligators and frogs share the same water, nothing else. Big deal. Both are amphibious. Ergo, both are amphibian. Ergo, both are amphibians. Wait. Did you want to stipulate biological taxonomy instead of the assumed English language basis of communication? Great. Then you will be correct. Specify the context before you start attacking others for getting English correct. Do you think I'm just making this up? Do you think I'm trying to revise English or preserve it? What about hydrocarbons? Do you think I made up the term? Project much? I make no demands on anyone to accept my views. No one has to conform to my rules. I don't bend that easy either. Fallacy fallacy. He is not projecting anything. If you want to continue to show your illiteracy, that's your choice. HarveyH55 wrote: We were discussing reptile and amphibian DNA, biology context... Alligators are amphibious, would have been a correct observation, but not relevant. Using 'amphibian'was deliberately wrong, for the context of the discussion, with intent to start a philosophical argument, and score some points. Do not discount philosophy. Alligators are amphibians. This is not philosophy, this is English. ALL animals that are amphibious are amphibians. It's a deception, by repetition. You wish to convert me to your way of thinking, with repeating the same garbage, over, and over. Maybe someday, I'll tire of fighting it, and start blindly accepting everything you post. Unfortunately, it's a ridiculous argument. The alligator game, most obvious. We were discussing biology, when you inject 'alligators are amphibians'. Being amphibious, is only one characteristic. Whole lot of things are amphibious, so not really relevant to that discussion. You had already demonstrated you had some knowledge of biology, so your insistence that alligators are not reptiles, is false. And you know it. Philosophy is a tool/skill. It can used, abused, mis-used. Not everyone is going to be amused... I didn't find it amusing in college, and still not amused. You use philosophy for entertainment, so everything you post is left to question. Likely, much of it is fossils, and amphibians...
15-06-2023 16:05
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14470)	HarveyH55 wrote:Project much? You are the one who routinely puts the topic at hand on hold to take swipes at me for using correct wording. You just finished explaining how "annoying" you find it. Now, you are characterizing your anti-science/anti-English dogma as somehow being my projection. Great. HarveyH55 wrote:I make no demands on anyone to accept my views. Because you are ashamed to openly state your views. Instead, you mock those who endeavor to be correct, and you do so without even the courtesy of an honest explanation that includes your beliefs. HarveyH55 wrote: I don't bend that easy either. Nobody relinquishes a religious faith easily. HarveyH55 wrote: We were discussing reptile and amphibian DNA, biology context... We were discussing animals, and a particular individual correctly mentioned that an amphibious animal was an amphibian. What followed were insults at the mention of amphibious animals being amphibians, and denial of how English works. You decided to dig into the "I don't speak English" side and to start hurling insults at those on the correct English side of the fence. Sure, no one needs to adhere to your anti-English beliefs, but you will attack them if they don't HarveyH55 wrote: Alligators are amphibious, would have been a correct observation, I immediately made this very observation, in an attempt to point out that amphibious animals are amphibians. I really thought that that would have been the end of it, i.e. that at least you would have had the wherewithal to realize your error ... but I was obviously mistaken on that point. Instead, you pretended to become "annoyed" at my correct usage of English while refusing to explain what your problem was. You were thoroughly dishonest. I asked you several times why being amphibious wasn't somehow good enough for you. You never gave me an answer that wasn't an accusation that I was simply trying to "win" some sort of argument. You also never explained why you blame others for your erroneous belief that dead organisms rot/decay into higher energy forms. To this day, you take swipes at others for calling hydrocarbons "hydrocarbons" and for extending to you the courtesy of reminding you that hydrocarbons are not fossils. HarveyH55 wrote:but not relevant. It's entirely relevant. It's everything. It's how English works. You are simply being dismissive of that which goes against the grain of your beliefs. Why did you choose a religious belief that is base on a grammatical error? HarveyH55 wrote: Using 'amphibian'was deliberately wrong, It can't be deliberately wrong if it is correct. Your belief is what is incorrect and you never saw me taking swipes at you for it. I simply tried to explain your error to you, while you did nothing but give me the Heisman and throw more jabs. Otters are amphibians. Deal with it. In a standard biology taxonomy, which does not own the English language, otters are not "amphibians." Deal with it. Note, that if you don't put the word "amphibian" in either quotes or italics to specifically denote it as a term, the default is the standard English usage of the word.
15-06-2023 20:12
Into the Night★★★★★ (21671)	HarveyH55 wrote: It's a deception, by repetition. English is not a deception. HarveyH55 wrote: You wish to convert me to your way of thinking, I wish for you to understand what 'amphibious' and 'amphibian' mean. HarveyH55 wrote: with repeating the same garbage, over, and over. English is not garbage. HarveyH55 wrote: Maybe someday, I'll tire of fighting it, and start blindly accepting everything you post. You mean some day you'll accept English, science, mathematics, logic, and philosophy? HarveyH55 wrote: Unfortunately, it's a ridiculous argument. English is not a ridiculous argument. It's not an argument at all. HarveyH55 wrote: The alligator game, most obvious. 'Alligator' is not any game I'm aware of. Perhaps someday someone will create a game with that name. HarveyH55 wrote: We were discussing biology, when you inject 'alligators are amphibians'. They are. HarveyH55 wrote: Being amphibious, is only one characteristic. If they are amphibious, they are amphibians. HarveyH55 wrote: Whole lot of things are amphibious, so not really relevant to that discussion. And every one of them is amphibian. HarveyH55 wrote: You had already demonstrated you had some knowledge of biology, so your insistence that alligators are not reptiles, is false. Alligators are reptiles. I never said they weren't. HarveyH55 wrote: And you know it. No, you are hallucinating and word stuffing. HarveyH55 wrote: Philosophy is a tool/skill. It can used, abused, mis-used. Not possible. Obviously, you never understood what philosophy is. Philosophy is an argument and the reasoning for it. That's it. That's all. It has only one rule, you must present your OWN reasoning. You can't steal from anyone else (or it isn't your argument or reasoning). There. Now you know philosophy. HarveyH55 wrote: Not everyone is going to be amused... I didn't find it amusing in college, and still not amused. College doesn't really teach philosophy. They think classes on the sound of one hand clapping and other strange loops is 'philosophy'. It isn't. HarveyH55 wrote: You use philosophy for entertainment, so everything you post is left to question. If you have a question, ask it. No one preventing you from asking questions. Philosophy is not an entertainment or a stage show. HarveyH55 wrote: Likely, much of it is fossils, and amphibians... Nah. You just want to redefine words. The problem here is that you are trying to do this to an eytomologist. I understand how words get defined, and why. You don't. BTW, college doesn't teach THAT either. The word 'amphibian' first appeared in the English lexicon around 1630. It stems from the Greek word 'amphibia' meaning 'double life', and 'gwei' or 'bios', meaning 'to live'. The 'double life' generally refers to land and water, but it doesn't have to be. To be amphibious is to be an amphibian. In English, 'bious' converts to 'bian' in some words when used as a noun instead of an adjective. The word 'fossil' first appeared in the English lexicon around 1610 and stems from the Latin 'fossus', a past participle of 'fodere', meaning 'to dig'. It is used to refer to any image of a plant or animal cast in stone. Coal is basically carbon. It may contain fossils, but it is not a fossil in and of itself. Carbon is an element on the periodic table of elements, having an atomic weight of 12.011. Oil is a liquid. It contains no image of any plant or animal. Liquids can't do that. Natural gas is a gas. It contains no image of any plant or animal. Gasses can't do that. Hydrocarbons are any molecule made up solely of carbon and hydrogen. That is not any image of a plant or animal. It is a definition of a class of molecules. Fossils are images of a plant or animal cast in stone, generally a silica (usually calcium silicate). This material doesn't burn. Fossils can also present an image of a plant or animal as a void in stone. A void cannot burn. Neither coal, oil, or natural gas are 'fossils', and never have been. The term 'fossil fuel' is junk taught by the same sort of schools that teach a tomato is a vegetable (it isn't). Now if you want to insist that hydrocarbons or carbon is a 'fossil', that's YOUR problem. It only shows your programming by idiot schools and your susceptibility by religious nuts where the term is also used to classify certain fuels as 'bad' by idiot environmentalists (aka the Church of Green). It's time to put aside this religion and accept what coal, oil, and natural gas really are: different fuels, with different characteristics, different advantages in using them, and different disadvantages on using them. BTW, no energy is 'green' (other than green light, which is electromagnetic energy in the frequency range of 566 THz, or a wavelength of 530nm). This is a buzzword in the Church of Green designating any form of energy as 'good'. It's a buzzword, meaningless. Currently, the Church of Green is designating electricity generated from wind and energy generated from direct conversion solar panels to be 'green energy'. These methods of generating electricity are very expensive. The most expensive is solar, followed by wind, comparing watt for watt. They both generate piddle power. Not a lot of energy for the resource used. Of course, the Church of Green is driven by Democrats, who have, as their goal, shutting down industry and making everyone dependent on the government. They want nothing less than government to be God and want every aspect of society dependent on government. They will kill to achieve their agenda. 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 2 of 2

Join the debate climate-debate.com - Where have all the members gone?:

Threads	Replies	Last post
This thread is only for members with more than 2500 posts	2	14-06-2023 03:45
This thread is only for members with fewer than 2500 posts	0	13-06-2023 23:08
The Biden's are literally CCP (Chink Communist Party) members.	0	08-09-2022 15:35
Intelligence Committee members warn US of bioweapons targeting DNA of individual Americans	0	24-07-2022 15:05
Kenney says while he believes humans cause climate change, not all UCP members have to agree on that	0	22-03-2019 15:52