"Define your terms." WTF? CITE your SOURCES, punk!

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > "Define your terms." WTF? CITE your SOURCES, punk!

"Define your terms." WTF? CITE your SOURCES, punk!04-08-2026 18:58
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3736)	"Define your terms" is a phrase one can find repeated many, many times by the trolls who dominate the discussion at this website. Apparently, there isn't a common enough understanding of what terms such as "fossil fuel" or "climate change" mean. They must be defined, once again, to satisfy "The Board" at this website. As a scientist who has published widely-cited basic research, I understand that when a NEW term is introduced, it must be clearly defined. On the other hand, when a scientific term can be found in any dictionary or textbook, is is not appropriate to waste space repeating the definition. As a scientist who has published widely-cited basic research with conclusions that contradict the dominant paradigm, I do understand how important it is to CITE my SOURCES for any extraordinary claims I made. For example, if I tried to tell them that they were completely overlooking an important cog in the nitrogen cycle, I would have been laughed at or ignored if I didn't have some extraordinary evidence to back up my assertions. At this website, one can find many extraordinary claims that contradict the prevailing paradigm accepted by the scientific community. A quick montage of unsupported contrarian assertions made by the pair of trolls who have driven every discussion here into the muck for more than 11 years: Climate cannot change. It is not possible to measure global (anything). There is no such thing as (half the terms in science). Science is not (anything they don't want it to be). (name of specific ion) is not a chemical. You cannot (anything they don't want to accept). And when one gets into the specific assertions regarding environmental chemistry, the scientific illiteracy of the local trolls becomes self evident. Dilution is buffering. Evaporation neutralizes acid. Carbon dioxide and carbonic acid are less dense than water and cannot be found more than three meters below the sea water surface. Carbonate is not a chemical. There is no such thing as the "carbonate system" buffering sea water pH. Sulfate cannot be reduced. Lignin, tannin, and vegetable oil are all carbohydrates. Fossil fuel carbon does NOT originate from dead organisms. Magic petroleum forms abiotically and endlessly from deep beneath the Earth's surface. There is no such thing as a "terminal electron acceptor". There is no such thing as "oxidation" in chemistry. Hydrogen and helium cannot escape the atmosphere to float off to outer space. Carbonic acid cannot be found near the sea floor. Okay, so the trolls drove all the scientists away years before I got here. Taking refuge in their "define your terms" bullshit, they continue to make ABSURD and extraordinary assertions about the nature of environmental chemistry. To that I say, CITE your SOURCES, punk! You cannot. There is NO citable source that will support your absurd contrarian assertions. You will find NO published paper or textbook that agrees with the assertion that carbon dioxide and carbonic acid are not dense enough to sink more than a few meters at most. What you WILL find are tons of papers showing that dissolved CO2 and carbonic acid are found at HIGHER concentration as one goes deeper beneath the sea water surface. Perhaps most irritating are the constant claims that "there is no such thing as.." and these are always things that anyone can verify the existence of with a simple dictionary, textbook, or search engine inquiry. The very same scientifically-illiterate trolls who would prevent ANY discussion of climate change until someone first complies with the demand to "define your terms"... these same punks REFUSE to define their terms regarding chemistry. Buffering? pH? Define your terms, punks! But more important, CITE your SOURCES if you are going to make a claim about basic FACTS. For example, it is a basic FACT that higher concentrations of dissolved CO2 and carbonic acid are encountered as one goes deeper below the sea water surface. Any claim to the contrary is truly extraordinary and requires some kind of citable EVIDENCE to back it up. "Climate cannot change". BULLSHIT! This absolutely absurd assertion has no support whatsoever from any published scientific research. It is no coincidence that neither of the two trolls who account for more than a third of ALL POSTS EVER on this website can identify ONE SINGLE JOURNAL or TEXTBOOK that they accept as being "scientific" or credible for citation. "Nature is a shit rag". I guess they totally discredited MY most famous pub. But they won't identify ANY journal that is NOT a shit rag. And as far as my widely cited pub in the journal Biogeochemistry, these two trolls just keep on insisting that "There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'." When these two punks first joined, there were dozens of members actively discussing the website topic. Among them were many individuals who were actually TRAINED to understand science, such as a PhD climate scientist. When Into the Night put up the first of his 24,260 posts here in October, 2015, six other members posted on that same thread within 24 hours. Now it takes at least a week before six different members post anything on all threads combined. Honestly, it is mostly just an irritant that these two trolls post so much anti scientific bullshit. What is more than just irritating is that they both feel the need to hurl multiple personal insults and false accusations in the process. It is no coincidence that they drove away virtually all the active members who were here when they arrived 11 years ago. And every NEW member who joined after that was greeted with "You won't be here long, you scientifically-illiterate moron" It was almost always true. With only a few exceptions, every new member who joined climate-debate AFTER IBdaMann and Into the Night, 11 years ago, was driven away very quickly. Yes, they created a very ATTRACTIVE place to discuss "science". I understand why neither of them wants to be BANNED for trolling, spamming, or doxing other members. They could LOSE all THIS! And there is almost no other place they could go without being banned. So, CITE your SOURCES, punks! That matters a whole lot more for scientific assertions than "define your terms".
04-08-2026 19:48
Into the Night★★★★★ (24265)	Im a BM wrote: "Define your terms" is a phrase one can find repeated many, many times by the trolls who dominate the discussion at this website. Apparently, there isn't a common enough understanding of what terms such as "fossil fuel" or "climate change" mean. They must be defined, once again, to satisfy "The Board" at this website. Fossils aren't used as fuel. Climate cannot change. There is no 'board' at this website. Im a BM wrote: As a scientist who has published widely-cited basic research, I understand that when a NEW term is introduced, it must be clearly defined. On the other hand, when a scientific term can be found in any dictionary or textbook, is is not appropriate to waste space repeating the definition. You are no scientist. You ignore the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You think chemistry is a bunch of buzzwords. You think Google is science. Im a BM wrote: As a scientist who has published widely-cited basic research with conclusions that contradict the dominant paradigm, I do understand how important it is to CITE my SOURCES for any extraordinary claims I made. For example, if I tried to tell them that they were completely overlooking an important cog in the nitrogen cycle, I would have been laughed at or ignored if I didn't have some extraordinary evidence to back up my assertions. You are not a scientist. Science is not a research or study. Your sources are not any theory of science. Nitrogen is not a cycle. False authority fallacies. Im a BM wrote: At this website, one can find many extraordinary claims that contradict the prevailing paradigm accepted by the scientific community. Science is not a community. Science does not use consensus. Im a BM wrote: And when one gets into the specific assertions regarding environmental chemistry, the scientific illiteracy of the local trolls becomes self evident. Environment is not chemistry. Inversion fallacy. You cannot blame your illilteracy problems on anybody else, Robert. Im a BM wrote: Okay, so the trolls drove all the scientists away years before I got here. You cannot blame your problem on anybody else, Robert. Inversion fallacy. Im a BM wrote: There is NO citable source that will support your absurd contrarian assertions. Already cited. RQAA. Im a BM wrote: You will find NO published paper or textbook that agrees with the assertion that carbon dioxide and carbonic acid are not dense enough to sink more than a few meters at most. What you WILL find are tons of papers showing that dissolved CO2 and carbonic acid are found at HIGHER concentration as one goes deeper beneath the sea water surface. Science is not a paper. Science is not a textbook. Carbon dioxide forms at the surface of the ocean. It doesn't sink. It also vents back into the atmosphere. Carbonic acid follows it. Im a BM wrote: Perhaps most irritating are the constant claims that "there is no such thing as.." and these are always things that anyone can verify the existence of with a simple dictionary, textbook, or search engine inquiry. Science is not a dictionary. Science is not a textbook. Science is not a search engine. Im a BM wrote: But more important, CITE your SOURCES if you are going to make a claim about basic FACTS. For example, it is a basic FACT that higher concentrations of dissolved CO2 and carbonic acid are encountered as one goes deeper below the sea water surface. Any claim to the contrary is truly extraordinary and requires some kind of citable EVIDENCE to back it up. Already sited. Carbon dioxide doesn't sink. Im a BM wrote: "Climate cannot change". BULLSHIT! This absolutely absurd assertion has no support whatsoever from any published scientific research. Climate cannot change. Climate is not science. Science is not a research. Im a BM wrote: It is no coincidence that neither of the two trolls who account for more than a third of ALL POSTS EVER on this website can identify ONE SINGLE JOURNAL or TEXTBOOK that they accept as being "scientific" or credible for citation. Science is not a journal. Science is not a textbook. You have already been presented with the theories of science you choose to ignore. Im a BM wrote: "Nature is a shit rag". I guess they totally discredited MY most famous pub. But they won't identify ANY journal that is NOT a shit rag. And as far as my widely cited pub in the journal Biogeochemistry, these two trolls just keep on insisting that "There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'." Nature magazine is a shitrag. Science is not a publication. Science is not a magazine or journal. There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Im a BM wrote: When these two punks first joined, there were dozens of members actively discussing the website topic. Among them were many individuals who were actually TRAINED to understand science, such as a PhD climate scientist. The Church of Global Warming is effectively dead. Just a few adherents like you. Science is not a religion. Climate is not a science. Science is not a PhD. Science is not a degree, university, college, class, book, journal, magazine, website, search engine, AI, paper, publication, research, study, buzzword, insult, inversion, or religion. You continue to ignore the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You continue to ignore mathematics. You continue to think you can bullshit your way through life with numerous buzzwords. You continue to think you have some sort of censorship capability. 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 04-08-2026 19:49
04-08-2026 20:32
IBdaMann★★★★★ (15332)	Im a BM wrote:"Define your terms" is a phrase one can find repeated many, many times by the trolls who dominate the discussion at this website. Too funny! You feel threatened and become very defensive when you are asked to define your terms. You lash out at those who make such a request because you aren't allowed to formally define the terms of your religious dogma. At least you don't pretend to be a scientist. Im a BM wrote: As a scientist who has published ... Oh, you do pretend to be a scientist ... who becomes defensive when asked clarification questions or is asked to define his terms, who claims that water never evaporates, or that dead organisms drill down through solid rock and then rot into a higher form of energy, who thinks that bodies of matter somehow spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy, that there is a single global local climate (whatever that is supposed to mean), that overlaying the LGBTTQQIAPPIPALPHABETSOUP+ flag over a swirly representation of the periodic table of the elements somehow resonates with Native Americans, who thinks that thriving coral reefs have perished, that lipids are somehow hydrocarbons, that publishing a paper makes one a biogeoflorist. Im a BM wrote: On the other hand, when a scientific term can be found in any dictionary or textbook, is is not appropriate to waste space repeating the definition. Too funny! Robert thinks that a dictionary is a physics textbook! Robert thinks that it is inappropriate to waste space clarifying what he is saying and defining his terms, but his spamming across threads is OK! Im a BM wrote: A quick montage of [obvious] assertions made by the pair of trolls ... * Climate cannot change. [correct] * It is not possible to measure global (anything). [this claim is not made] * There is no such thing as (half the terms in science). [this claim is not made] * Science is not (anything they don't want it to be). [this claim is not made] * [a category is not a chemical in that category] [correct]. * You cannot (anything they don't want to accept). [this claim is not made] * Dilution [meets the definition of buffering]. [correct] * Evaporation neutralizes acid. [this claim is not made] * Carbon dioxide and carbonic acid are less dense than water and cannot be found more than three meters below the sea water surface. [this claim is not made] * Fossil fuel carbon does NOT originate from dead organisms. [gibberish] * [hydrocarbons] form [in the earth's crust via Fischer-Tropsh. [correct] * Hydrogen and helium cannot [defy gravity] [correct] * Carbonic acid cannot be found near the sea floor. [this claim is not made]

Join the debate "Define your terms." WTF? CITE your SOURCES, punk!:

Threads	Replies	Last post
The Church of Thermodenial - DEFINE YOUR TERMS!	58	02-07-2026 18:32
"Define Your Terms!": Battle Cry of climate-debate.com	8	14-01-2026 00:38
Defining terms	23	02-06-2024 22:27
Define 'gravity'	5	07-04-2022 23:40
sources of medical advice	28	10-11-2021 05:47