Remember me
▼ Content

General Question in General Forum.



Page 4 of 4<<<234
25-08-2022 15:40
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
duncan61 wrote:This entire climate debate is about temperature.

Nope.

The entire Climate debate is about destroying capitalism. They fooled you apparently.

How can you tell? Just ask for the unambiguous definition of the global Climate.

Included in the complete lack of any formal definition of Climate is the complete lack of any mention of Temperature.

duncan61 wrote:The genesis of the whole discussion is does manmade CO2 warm the Atmosphere.

Nope.

The genesis was The Communist Manifesto that established in the minds of all Leftists and Marxists the insatiable need for heavily graduated taxation that is guaranteed to crush any economy. Now that they have Big Oil as the primary target, we see the product of burning hydrocarbons (CO2) as being demonized in an effort to weaponize legislation against Big Oil.

duncan61 wrote:I have completed my temperature measurements and am very surprised.

You wasted your time.

duncan61 wrote: The readings I have from my desktop digital thermometer is 36.7.C on the grass, the bonnet of my car in the sun and the road.Its all the same. In the shade on a brick wall it fell to 24.8. This is the air temperature not a surface reading.

Try telling someone that you measured different things of the same temperature. See how "surprised" they are.

duncan61 wrote:The grass feels heaps colder.

You used the "feels" word. That's perception, which is entirely relative and subjective ... i.e. dismissed.

duncan61 wrote:I might get a surface measurement.

Yay!

I laid out for you some things you could do with your CO2 meter to make meaningful measurements from which you could draw meaningful conclusions, but you opted not to do them. You then made it clear that you intended to fabricate data to support your pre-existing conclusions and religious beliefs, thus discarding your credibility.

You are wasting your time with measurements at this point.

.

.
26-08-2022 01:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
duncan61 wrote:
This entire climate debate is about temperature.

Nope. The entire climate debate is about fascism and religion.
duncan61 wrote:
The genesis of the whole discussion is does manmade CO2 warm the Atmosphere.

No. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
duncan61 wrote:
I have completed my temperature measurements and am very surprised.

You cannot measure the temperature of the Earth.
duncan61 wrote:
The readings I have from my desktop digital thermometer is 36.7.C on the grass, the bonnet of my car in the sun and the road.Its all the same. In the shade on a brick wall it fell to 24.8. This is the air temperature not a surface reading.The grass feels heaps colder.I might get a surface measurement.

Not the temperature of the Earth. False equivalence fallacy.


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
26-08-2022 02:36
duncan61
★★★★★
(2003)
I wished to measure the air temperature above different matter.While the surface temperature is different the air temperature is constant. My next field of research was to try to get a handle on why IBDm and ITN have a problem with change. This topic has answered this. Paranoid Americans. Its all about the bad guys hiding in the closet.

duncan61 wrote:
This entire climate debate is about temperature.

Nope. The entire climate debate is about fascism and religion.

The genesis of the whole discussion is does manmade CO2 warm the Atmosphere.

No. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.

Not the Earth. The atmosphere, Which can not reheat the Earth as hot air rises and you cannot heat a warmer surface with colder air. The energy leaving the Earth can have more residence time in the atmosphere.I love that term thanks Sealover
duncan61 wrote:
I have completed my temperature measurements and am very surprised.

You cannot measure the temperature of the Earth.
Never said I did.

duncan61 wrote:I have completed my temperature measurements and am very surprised.

You wasted your time.

21 years of theology was a waste of my time. This is my time to waste on this subject paranoid boy
26-08-2022 03:27
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
duncan61 wrote:I wished to measure the air temperature above different matter.

You have to understand how completely uninteresting that is and how you cannot draw any valid conclusions from that ... except perhaps that you are bored to tears and just want to slit your wrists.

duncan61 wrote:While the surface temperature is different the air temperature is constant.

Dollars to wallabies says that you didn't measure airspeed/direction.

duncan61 wrote:My next field of research was to try to get a handle on why IBDm and ITN have a problem with change.

Naturally it becomes uncomfortable when you have a bunch of it in your pocket(s). That's why I use credit cards almost exclusively.

duncan61 wrote:21 years of theology was a waste of my time.

At least you recognize ATE for what it is.

duncan61 wrote:This is my time to waste on this subject paranoid boy

... and waste it away you will. Enjoy.

.
26-08-2022 17:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
...deleted severely damaged quoting...
duncan61 wrote:
I wished to measure the air temperature above different matter.While the surface temperature is different the air temperature is constant.

Now you are discarding Kirchoff's law. NONE of your measurements are the temperature of the Earth.
duncan61 wrote:
My next field of research was to try to get a handle on why IBDm and ITN have a problem with change.

We don't. Void argument fallacy.
duncan61 wrote:
This topic has answered this. Paranoid Americans. Its all about the bad guys hiding in the closet.

Bad guys generally don't hide in closets.
duncan61 wrote:
Not the Earth. The atmosphere, Which can not reheat the Earth as hot air rises and you cannot heat a warmer surface with colder air. The energy leaving the Earth can have more residence time in the atmosphere.I love that term thanks Sealover

Nope. You cannot slow or trap heat. You are now ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
duncan61 wrote:
I have completed my temperature measurements and am very surprised.

You wasted your time.
duncan61 wrote:
21 years of theology was a waste of my time. This is my time to waste on this subject paranoid boy

You are still studying theology. The Church of Global Warming is a fundamentalist style religion.


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 26-08-2022 17:37
RE: Another One Bites the Dust01-09-2022 09:05
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(197)
Roj475 wrote:
This wasn't the question I came here to ask, but would I be right in saying that this site, climate-debate.com, is more denial site than a debate site?

I typically reside in more scientific forums where a paper is presented with conflicting positions for you to decide which appears more plausible.

In 2 (accidently 3) posts I am into the top few 100 active members which suggests this is a clique of denial/ government agenda etc...

Anyway, the question I was going to originally pose was...

At what point would G. Thun reaslise that there is insufficient support behind her cause and pushing Government is doomed to failure as the public are voting [against] the position... Most typically that they want fuel cheaper to allow more travel as opposed to G. Thun actually wanting emissions [in-part] to be reduced.




Another one bites the dust.

I don't imagine that we will see any more posts from Roj474.

Roy was one of the 32 new members who joined in the last six months.

During those same six months fewer than 16 members (new included) posted more than twice.

Most new members join but choose never to participate.

Fewer than 16 members out of 1619 who joined the site posted more than twice in the last six months.

Less than 1% of the total membership posted more than twice in the last six months.

But those who do post more frequently, they post a LOT.

The absence of the other 99% speaks very poorly of the quality of discussion.

With a dogma of anti science, it looks a lot like a religious cult.
01-09-2022 16:04
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
Im a BM wrote:The absence of the other 99% speaks very poorly of the quality of discussion.

Nope. It speaks very poorly of the morons who are mindlessly drawn to undefined buzzwords and who are totally unprepared for any sort of discussion at the adults' table.

This would include you.

Im a BM wrote:With a dogma of anti science, it looks a lot like a religious cult.

One thing characteristic of your type of moron is total gullibility. You were taught that you could become and thmart, important perthon and save the world with your gamma-spec, if you believe with all your heart, ... and so you believed, with all your heart.

You don't know what science is and you aren't intelligent enough to recognize a religion when it's right in front of you, so you were targeted for indoctrination by a religion of HATE and intolerance. They saw how stupid you are and knew immediately that you would never be able to call boooolsch't on anything they told you.

They told you that matter can spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy ... and you believed it.

They told you that your religion wasn't a religion, that it was thettled thienth ... and you believed it.

They told you that BioGeoHockeyChemiCalligraphy was an actual branch of science, and you believed it.

They told you to forget everything you ever learned about chemistry ... and you OBEYED.

They told you that science and math comprise a religion, that you are to refer to it as a cult, and to dismiss it all as a WACKY belief system ... and you OBEYED.

You still haven't earned a seat at the adult's table.

Please let me know when something changes.

.
RE: Why does the cult remain so small?02-09-2022 10:33
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(197)
Why does the cult remain so small?

Internet search engines all show this website at or near the top of the list for keyword searches such as "climate change discussion website"

1619 people believed, at one time or another, that they wanted to participate in this kind of discussion.

First time visitors view the website every day.

If there were anything attractive or of value going, you'd think there would be more people interested in it.

Why does the cult remain so small?

Perhaps the rant in the post below offers some insight into why all but a very selective little group stay away.

The rant below, by a poster who has been here about eight years now, is practically a form letter.

A nearly identical rant was offered to me within ten hours of my first post.

Get to item #6 in the form letter rant.

"6. You will not be here long." blah blah blah... "One more time: You won't be here long, and it will be your fault for being stupid, uneducated, gullible..."

Same thing I was told when I got my copy of the form letter in march.

Well, part of it was true - about the new member not being here long.

One might imagine it takes a long time to write such a long rant.

But so much of it is identical wording to the rants used to drive away many other posters, it is tempting to imagine that most of it was copy pasted.

Besides, who would waste that much time writing such a long rant?

All but a very select group decided that this website really wasn't attractive enough or of enough value in some other way to be worth sticking around.

"You won't be here long"

With such a select group, it is easy to pretend to be the biggest fish in the toilet.

Especially if you can drive away anyone who might understand actual science.

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


IBdaMann wrote:
Roj475 wrote:YOu guys are really hung up on the intellgent, genius and wisdom scenarios to the point it comes over as one person with multiple accounts or a bot... Who knows...

This is really all I need to quit giving you a wide berth.

Harvey is an honest, straightforward guy who hates when I lay into dishonest warmizombies like you because it frightens them off, and I wanted to make sure you and he had sufficient opportunity to parlay before I began ... and you have ... and you decided to "go there" with the Marxism crap so ... here we go.

Roj475 wrote:This wasn't the question I came here to ask, but would I be right in saying that this site, climate-debate.com, is more denial site than a debate site?

This charade of yours has gone on long enough. The above question is exactly what you came here to ask. More precisely, you came here explicitly to denigrate this site for not being censored by politically militant warmizombies like yourself.

Let's be clear:

1. You are a scientifically illiterate warmizombie who believes in Global Warming, Climate Change, greenhouse effect and other Marxist religions. You want all opposing views to be silenced, including science and math. You are not fooling me.

2. You believe the ocean level is rising and are too cowardly to explain why you believe that crap because you would be thoroughly embarrassed to admit that the reason you believe it is because you are a total loser who was ordered to believe it by some psychological bully who bends you over furniture.

3. You are (presumably) an adult who doesn't even know what science is. That is embarrassing. As such, you don't see any difference between science and religion. You think science is a matter of consensus, or as you put it, "population-driven positions," as religio-political positions are determined. You turn to your holy scripture, i.e. published opinion papers, for guidance on what to believe, rather than turning to logical reasoning and independent thinking at which you obviously suck.

4. You are doing everything you can to hide the fact that your intention is to see what you can do in the way of attacking the deniers on this site, knowing that you are totally unarmed with any science or math, and you have no "The Data" and you are completely unprepared to deal with others who know so much more than you. This is why you are treading so lightly and pretending that you merely happened upon this site because of "an internet search." I don't think you're going to find many people who will buy that. Next time, pick an excuse that's more plausible and not totally cliche.

5. Like most Marxists, you are paranoid. Most religions use fear to keep the congregation in line and Marxist faiths ensure their believers are steeped in paranoid delusion. I'm certain that you are not socially aware enough to realize that the concept of "bots" or "socks" is an entirely leftist/Marxist tactic for engaging in mind games to push an agenda, and is not needed by those who are discussing science and math. You will not find any socks or bots here. But you, on the other hand, have so much in common with other mindless wamizombies that I can imagine countless other avatars for which you could easily be a sock. However, the idea does not drive me to any sort of paranoia.

6. You will not be here long. You are a typical mindless warmizombie who will undoubtedly follow in the footsteps of the other cowardly, dishonest, scientifically illiterate and mathematically incompetent warmizombies who realize that they are thoroughly unprepared to discuss the science and math that debunk their stupid faith and who flee in terror decrying the absence of censorship protecting them from scientific and mathematical threats to their fragile delusionary religion.

One more time: You won't be here long, and it will be your fault for being stupid, uneducated, gullible and falling for a WACKY religion that calls itself "thettled thienth." I imagine that most people on this site are poised to read about you blaming everyone else on this site for being totally cruel and unfair to you by wielding science and math that you don't understand. I think everyone is poised for you to continue pretending that you only came here to engage in scientific discussions ... while you avoid all science in the same way that Democrats avoid COVID.

Now everyone is aware of your purpose/agenda and anticipating your dishonesty. Bring it on.

Roj475 wrote:I did say this site, climate-debate. If I was to start a position, from the pool of posters here, who would debate for Climate [change] and who debate that its fabricated and without any evidence.

This is standard, mindless warmizombie drivel, pretending to already know what everyone's position will be and feeling free to misrepresent the positions of others to force-fit your round peg into the required square hole.

You will NOT find many people here arguing that Climate [change] is "fabricated and without evidence" because mindless warmizombies like you never get their positions out of the starting gate. Ever. You were immediately asked by me for your unambiguous definition of "Climate Change" and of course, you cannot provide any such unambiguous definitions for your terms because your religion is just a religion, and religions don't define their terms. As it stands, you are simply babbling empty buzzwords and not presenting any sort of argument to debate.

As it stands, not many people on this site are of your religion and thus don't worship/revere your sacred dogma.

If you wish to discuss science and math, you need to present your science and math. I will happily welcome that.

If you wish to discuss "The Data" then be prepared to present your "The Data" and make sure to brush up on your statistical math, as well as your acumen on engineering tolerances. Into the Night will happily welcome that, as will I.

Roj475 wrote:Are there anyone that would stand by GW/ CC happening.

I don't know ... are you willing to stop preaching your stupid religion for a moment and offer some unambiguous definitions ... that don't defy physics on their face ... so your discussion can get out of the starting gate?

Until you define your terms, no one can know what you supposedly mean by them, i.e. they remain empty buzzwords. If your objective is to leave them undefined so that they remain invulnerable to physics and math debunking then you acknowledge the religious nature of your faith and the impossibility of your discussion getting out of the starting gate.

Define your terms, unambiguously.

Roj475 wrote:not sure on stretching that to man made, but would assume everyone here is set as it being natural?

I don't know ... define "man-made" ... after you unambiguously define "Climate" as well as "Climate Change."

Roj475 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:Why should any rational adult believe that you go anywhere near science? You refer to science as "denial".

I bet that you are a gullible sort who believes that the Global Warming religion is thettled thienth! ... and that when you talk about debating science, you actually mean debating WACKY religious dogma that you merely call science.
Where have I referred to science as denial as you put it...


... see below.

Roj475 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Rational adults who are not gullible, scientifically illiterate morons know that there is no debating science. Science is science and cannot be debated, due to its inherently falsifiable nature.
Where have I argued for/ against science?

When you wrote this:

Roj475 wrote:As I said at the start, I appreciate this is not a climate debating forum as the only posters here are firmly entrenched in a camp they will never deviate away from.

On this site we focus on science, math and details of empirical observation. You consider this a "camp", i.e. a political position. Your use of the word "entrenched" gives you away. It reveals that you view science and math as fringe political opposition that is "digging in." You aren't fooling anyone.

So let's not pretend that you have any sort of love of either math or science, except when it comes to the name of your WACKY religion, i.e. "thettled thienth!"

Roj475 wrote: I used a search engine and based on the link 'climate-debate' I came here... What I found is a near dead group with a handful of posters.

You are expecting us to believe that you were just wandering the internet, happened upon a dead group ... and was compelled to stop your wandering because now you found a home to hold fascinating discussions ... which include explanations for how dead this site is ... with the implication that all that would change if we were to embrace your WACKY dogma.

Frankly, I don't presume that you are smart enough to realize the unbelievable contradictions in your story.

Roj475 wrote:If two people of the scientific community have differing opinion on what caused a mass extinction, if they present their arguments with evidence... In your world that is termed religion?

No. In this particular case, both are speculating and presenting their reasons for their respective beliefs.

This isn't science. Science does not/cannot speculate about the past.

Now it is possible that one, or both, of those in your example hold his beliefs religiously, at which point, yes, it becomes a religion. Your example above, however, does not discuss the depth of their personal beliefs and/or whether either would change his views with adequate evidence to the contrary.

On this site, we have a poster (Swan) who has a truly strange religion involving certainty (dogma) about unobserved events of the distant past, about magical properties of quantum particles and of polymorphic government agencies, and who sternly denigrates any and all who do not believe exactly as he does. So, yes, it is possible for personal speculation to reach the level of religion and we have a bona fide example here on this site.

So, how long are you going to stay? Should I bid my farewells now?

Are you planning on breaching any actual science or math? I don't believe you know any to discuss but I can remain hopeful that you will surprise me.

Bring it on.

02-09-2022 18:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
Im a BM wrote:Why does the cult remain so small?

Because so few of us adhere to science and math and logic as a matter of course, while so many dishonest morons, such as yourself, seek to maximize deviation from science, math and logic. Morons, such as yourself, simply cannot comply with the requirements of science, math and logic, viewing them as insufferable inconveniences. You recoil at the thought of science and math and logic being absolute requirements and you simply cannot muster the will to comply. So great is your perception of inconvenience that many of your ilk simply leave this site for the ease and convenience of the intellectual vacuity cultivated by mindless collectives that cater to intellectual laziness, cowardice and dishonesty. YAP is my classic reference of a site offering a full compliment of aggressive censors whose censorship of views that differ in any way from the mindless collective is swiftly applied with 99.999% availability, with extremely low latency and high bandwidth resulting in sub-millisecond bannings at scale.

Im a BM wrote:Internet search engines all show this website at or near the top of the list for keyword searches such as "climate change discussion website"

Because this is perhaps the internet's top site for such discussions, i.e. the Premier Division in the big leagues. Your typical person off the street isn't going to be completely prepared to discuss at this level. You certainly aren't.

Of course, all are welcome to participate, ... perhaps even take full advantage of some of GasGuzzler's free clinics, and generally train for ever higher levels of discussion ... until one day, hopefully, being able to strut right on in with all the confidence of the Kenya national track team, armed with all the knowledge necessary to carry on a conversation at the adult's table.

This is naturally a lot to ask of emotional children. Consider this site the Mensa test for identifying which newcomers have potential to grow and to achieve good things.

Im a BM wrote:1619 people believed, at one time or another, that they wanted to participate in this kind of discussion.

1600+ people mistakenly thought this site was a mindless collective. They did not pass the entrance exam and did not attend any clinics. They were unprepared for the rigorous regimen involved in this program.

Im a BM wrote:First time visitors view the website every day.

Morons such as yourself have a compulsive need to assert claims that are not known and to feign omniscience.

Im a BM wrote:If there were anything attractive or of value going, you'd think there would be more people interested in it.

There is very little attractive about work, especially to the lazy. The value of this site is the high-level epiphanies that are achieved through the added work of adhering to science, math, logic and economics.

Morons, such as yourself, rarely find that to be worth the effort.

Im a BM wrote:Why does the cult remain so small?

Because those who ask the question have no idea what science is, and instead mistakenly conflate it for religion, while remaining convinced that their WACKY religion of HATE and intolerance is somehow thettled thienth.

Im a BM wrote:Perhaps the rant in the post below offers some insight into why all but a very selective little group stay away.

Nope. The explanation above provides all needed clarity.

Im a BM wrote:The rant below, by a poster who has been here about eight years now, is practically a form letter.

I'm a form letter ... practically?

I am almost universally recognized as an amorphous letter. You don't know what you are talking about.

Im a BM wrote:A nearly identical rant was offered to me within ten hours of my first post.

You first post was a veiled attack on the posters of this site who think independently and who have not been indoctrinated into your WACKY religion that caused you to waste your life in indentured servitude. Your first post was pure intellectual dishonesty. You came to this site expecting everyone to embrace your stupid views solely based on your claims of authority.

In short, you are a unaccomplished and undistinguished loser who has been relegated to insulting others who know so much more than you because you perceive them as a threat to your delusional fantasy of being THMART! and important.

Im a BM wrote:Get to item #6 in the form letter rant. "6. You will not be here long." blah blah blah... "

He wasn't here long.

Im a BM wrote:Same thing I was told when I got my copy of the form letter in march.

Nope, but that's not surprising since you have no English comprehension. I predicted that you wouldn't be able to stay away, despite your "threats" to leave.

Oh look, you kept coming back time and time again, and here you are posting as prolificly and dishonestly as ever. Ask Into the Night how I called that one.

Im a BM wrote:One might imagine it takes a long time to write such a long rant.

Nope. It takes no time at all because it's not a rant. "Rant" is just your dishonest mischaracterization because you don't know how to write in English and you wouldn't know how to express anything honest if you could.

Im a BM wrote:But so much of it is identical wording to the rants used to drive away many other posters,

I don't copy-paste. Everyone should call boooolsch't on your claim. You can't provide any examples because ... I don't copy-paste (unless I am quoting).

Im a BM wrote:... it is tempting to imagine that most of it was copy pasted.

"Imagined" is all it can be since I don't copy-paste ... which is why you can't provide any examples.

Im a BM wrote:Besides, who would waste that much time writing such a long rant?

I routinely knock out quick, but lengthy, posts. It's funny that you don't mention this.

Im a BM wrote: All but a very select group decided that this website really wasn't attractive enough or of enough value in some other way to be worth sticking around.

All but a very select group of honest people decided that honesty simply isn't worth the effort.

"You won't be here long" is accurate wording for science-intolerant cowards. Your kind of dishonest preacher, however, is easily identified by your need to be the biggest fish in the toilet. You're happy to bring your own schytt and your own gamma-scepter, especially if you can annoy anyone who might understand actual science.

.
02-09-2022 21:24
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(3184)
GIMME FUEL GIMME FIRE GIMME THAT WHICH I DESIRE!!!!!!
02-09-2022 22:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
gfm7175 wrote:GIMME FUEL GIMME FIRE GIMME THAT WHICH I DESIRE!!!!!!

OOOOOOOHH, YEAH-HEH!
RE: 35-200 "guests" on-line - simultaneous and brief03-09-2022 08:09
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(197)
35-200 "guests" on-line - simultaneous and brief.

Internet search engines place climate-debate.com at or near the top of the list of search results for keywords about climate change discussion websites.

The dominant troll has offered a hypothesis to explain this:

"Because this is perhaps the internet's top site for such discussions, i.e. the Primier Division of the big leagues."

In other words, this site hosts a discussion of such world-class quality that search engines know to direct seekers to it.

During a typical minute, day or night, there are fewer than two members logged on, and fewer than a dozen "guests" shown to be viewing the site.

Several times a day, this changes briefly.

In the space of a few minutes, 35-200 "guests" appear as on-line viewers. They don't stay long at all, maybe less than fifteen minutes. Then it's back to fewer than a dozen "guests" on line.

Is the dominant troll correct?

Does this website have a reputation for such high-quality discussion that so many "guests" drop in to view it?

Have they been following the discussion so closely that they only need a few minutes to catch up on the latest developments?

Is the simultaneous timing of their viewing pure coincidence?

Are there really 70-400 human eyes on the site when this happens?

Would it be technologically feasible for a network of computers to create the impression that 35-200 viewers are on-line without any human really seeing it?

Would this create the appearance that thousands of viewers see the website every day, potentially having some influence of Internet search engines?

Who would benefit from this?

Is there an entity committed to ensuring that scientific truth gets a fair hearing, and they are aware this is one of the best places to find honest, well informed discussion among true experts in science?

Would this be an effective way for them to counterbalance the Marxist climate hoax propaganda that has fooled so many gullible people?

Or maybe the Marxist climate hoax liars are manipulating the search engines to advance their own agenda.

Do they know that by directing viewers to this place, they will see an echo chamber of hyperbole, insults, and anti scientific assertions that it reinforces the stereotype they push of an ugly and stupid "climate denier"?

The honest scientists trying to counter the Marxist climate hoax propaganda then look ugly and stupid by association?

Does somebody want to discourage potential activists by directing them to a place where they find it's just too ugly to even try to discuss climate change?

Is it possible that the website owner is aware that a whole bunch of phantom "guests" appear to be on-line viewing the site?

In a world so cynical, could it be that the website owner himself has a network of bots appearing as "guests" for some advertising benefit or other gain.
03-09-2022 16:42
duncan61
★★★★★
(2003)
This forum has prompted me to learn new subjects and do testing.Its worked for me
03-09-2022 21:30
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
Sock Ima wrote:Internet search engines place climate-debate.com at or near the top of the list of search results for keywords about climate change discussion websites.

The dominant troll has offered a hypothesis to explain this:

"Because this is perhaps the internet's top site for such discussions, i.e. the Primier Division of the big leagues."

In other words, this site hosts a discussion of such world-class quality that search engines know to direct seekers to it.

Great summary. I don't mind you referring to me as a "troll" as long as you specify that I am an amorphous letter.

Sock Ima wrote:Does this website have a reputation for such high-quality discussion that so many "guests" drop in to view it?

When discussing the British Premiere League, no one considers the league's "reputation" when discussing the level of play.

You never played competitive sports, did you? Ask me how I know.

Sock Ima wrote:Have they been following the discussion so closely that they only need a few minutes to catch up on the latest developments?

Have you considered that the English-speaking Climate-Debate is just a child site for the main Danish-speaking site. Many Europeans check out the discussions on the more European-leaning Danish site and pop over to the English-speaking site, usually out of curiosity, and to catch some of the answers/correct responses to questions/conversations on the Danish site.

Many don't feel sufficiently comfortable in their English proficiency, such as British posters, to either interject or engage in existing conversations, but many nonetheless do. Often, once they get their answer(s), they return to their other conversations elsewhere.

Sock Ima wrote: Are there really 70-400 human eyes on the site when this happens?

Sure. Of course you have to cross-reference this with what is occurring on other sites, especially the Danish mother-site.
Attached image:


Edited on 03-09-2022 21:31
04-09-2022 00:07
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4323)
Im a BM wrote:
35-200 "guests" on-line - simultaneous and brief.

Internet search engines place climate-debate.com at or near the top of the list of search results for keywords about climate change discussion websites.

The dominant troll has offered a hypothesis to explain this:

"Because this is perhaps the internet's top site for such discussions, i.e. the Primier Division of the big leagues."

In other words, this site hosts a discussion of such world-class quality that search engines know to direct seekers to it.

During a typical minute, day or night, there are fewer than two members logged on, and fewer than a dozen "guests" shown to be viewing the site.

Several times a day, this changes briefly.

In the space of a few minutes, 35-200 "guests" appear as on-line viewers. They don't stay long at all, maybe less than fifteen minutes. Then it's back to fewer than a dozen "guests" on line.

Is the dominant troll correct?

Does this website have a reputation for such high-quality discussion that so many "guests" drop in to view it?

Have they been following the discussion so closely that they only need a few minutes to catch up on the latest developments?

Is the simultaneous timing of their viewing pure coincidence?

Are there really 70-400 human eyes on the site when this happens?

Would it be technologically feasible for a network of computers to create the impression that 35-200 viewers are on-line without any human really seeing it?

Would this create the appearance that thousands of viewers see the website every day, potentially having some influence of Internet search engines?

Who would benefit from this?

Is there an entity committed to ensuring that scientific truth gets a fair hearing, and they are aware this is one of the best places to find honest, well informed discussion among true experts in science?

Would this be an effective way for them to counterbalance the Marxist climate hoax propaganda that has fooled so many gullible people?

Or maybe the Marxist climate hoax liars are manipulating the search engines to advance their own agenda.

Do they know that by directing viewers to this place, they will see an echo chamber of hyperbole, insults, and anti scientific assertions that it reinforces the stereotype they push of an ugly and stupid "climate denier"?

The honest scientists trying to counter the Marxist climate hoax propaganda then look ugly and stupid by association?

Does somebody want to discourage potential activists by directing them to a place where they find it's just too ugly to even try to discuss climate change?

Is it possible that the website owner is aware that a whole bunch of phantom "guests" appear to be on-line viewing the site?

In a world so cynical, could it be that the website owner himself has a network of bots appearing as "guests" for some advertising benefit or other gain.


It doesn't take more than a few minutes, to confirm what most people already suspect. It takes the IPCC 2,800 + pages in their annual reports, to attempt to convince people that Global Warming is still 'real', and the number one crisis on the planet. The OCD, Liberal Arts distractions here, probably makes it take a few minutes longer, than really needed. But, it does make learning the truth fun. It does get annoying, that once some latch on to something, they are compelled to hold onto it. Their compulsion forces them to only allow others to follow along with the object of their obsession. Nothing else matters.
04-09-2022 00:25
duncan61
★★★★★
(2003)
Hi Harvey,I was concerned you had had your last blast and shot through.I personally have enjoyed the ride and feel I have a good handle on the ability to rationalize with other humans on the CC/AGW topic. We all deal with stuff differently. I have had a goods night sleep and am in the mood for debate. Our man Sealover/Im a BM deals with criticism by being a whiny neurotic man child. Perhaps instead of lecturing us on how the ground is all messed up he/she could enjoy a nice day at the beach. When you watch the Florida Gators football team do you chant go Amphibians by any chance
;)
04-09-2022 00:53
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
duncan61 wrote: When you watch the Florida Gators football team do you chant go Amphibians by any chance
;)

Well, that's not their name. He probably doesn't chant "Go Seminoles!" either.
RE: number of "views" versus number of "guests" - doesn't add up.04-09-2022 05:55
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(197)
number of "views" versus number of "guests" - doesn't add up.

This is one of the most active recent threads.

It shows 136 "replies" and 1674 "views" in the three weeks it has been up.

The only other recently active threads showing more than 1000 "views" have all been up for much longer than three weeks.

Yet there were 150 "guests" on-line a little earlier today.

Wouldn't it show up among the number of "views" if they were actually opening up any threads to view?

This most active among all the threads seems to get a little more than 500 "views" per week.

The others all average far fewer views per week.

And this thread, with 136 "replies", just those who are posting on it could easily account for all 1674 "views".

What are all those on-line "guests" who never post doing if they are not opening any threads to view?

Today alone, there were hundreds of them.

How can they be benefitting from this world-class discussion of true science?

The dominant troll assures us that these are all real human beings with eyes on the discussion.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roj475 wrote:

This wasn't the question I came here to ask, but would I be right in saying that this site, climate-debate.com, is more denial site than a debate site?

I typically reside in more scientific forums where a paper is presented with conflicting positions for you to decide which appears more plausible.

In 2 (accidently 3) posts I am into the top few 100 active members which suggests this is a clique of denial/ government agenda etc...

Anyway, the question I was going to originally pose was...

At what point would G. Thun reaslise that there is insufficient support behind her cause and pushing Government is doomed to failure as the public are voting [against] the position... Most typically that they want fuel cheaper to allow more travel as opposed to G. Thun actually wanting emissions [in-part] to be reduced.
04-09-2022 06:07
duncan61
★★★★★
(2003)
Human emissions are doing nothing to the weather. Running out of fuel is economic disaster. Should adults take advice from a very disturbed young girl? Where is she now?
04-09-2022 07:00
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
Im a BM wrote:number of "views" versus number of "guests" - doesn't add up.

I suppose you could include a reason those two figures are somehow required to "add up."

Im a BM wrote: This is one of the most active recent threads. It shows 136 "replies" and 1674 "views" in the three weeks it has been up. The only other recently active threads showing more than 1000 "views" have all been up for much longer than three weeks. Yet there were 150 "guests" on-line a little earlier today.

You are throwing many independent variables around, not dependent variables, as though they are somehow violating a dependency that doesn't exist.

Im a BM wrote:Wouldn't it show up among the number of "views" if they were actually opening up any threads to view?

Are you asking "wouldn't" about something that "didn't"? Since it didn't, it can't.

Im a BM wrote:The others all average far fewer views per week.

Are you arguing that some threads are more popular than others? ... or that some threads see more activity than others?

You make a strong case. OK, I'm convinced.

Im a BM wrote:And this thread, with 136 "replies", just those who are posting on it could easily account for all 1674 "views".

You've solved the case! Now it's Miller time!

Im a BM wrote:What are all those on-line "guests" who never post doing if they are not opening any threads to view?

Have you asked them? Are you presuming that there are omniscient others who know the answer to your question?

Im a BM wrote:How can they be benefitting from this world-class discussion of true science?

Did you ask them? What did they say?

Im a BM wrote:The dominant troll assures us that these are all real human beings with eyes on the discussion.

Oh yes, of course, that's what he said.

.
Attached image:

RE: This is NOT "normal turnover" for discussion website member activity05-09-2022 09:28
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(197)
This is NOT "normal turnover" for member activity.

Roj475 attempted to participate here. Like the other 32 members who joined the site after I did, six months ago, Roj475 does not post anything now.

During those same six months, fewer than 16 members posted more than twice.


Fewer than 6 members supplied the overwhelming majority of all posts. These most prolific of all posters have all been doing it for years.

#1 19,068 posts, since October 2015
#2 12,357 posts, since October 2014
#3 4,307 posts, since November 2018
#4 3,160 posts, since November 2017
#5 2,528 posts, since December 2016

As Roj475 noted, it was as if "bots" had descended in a coordinated response.

Fewer than 1% of this website's members have posted more than twice in the past six months.

New members are systematically driven away with a deluge of hostile responses, including the most bizarre defamatory false accusations.

Mental illness is on full display, and verbal abuse is socially acceptable.

This is not any kind of "normal turnover" for membership activity in a discussion forum.

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


Roj475 wrote:
This wasn't the question I came here to ask, but would I be right in saying that this site, climate-debate.com, is more denial site than a debate site?

I typically reside in more scientific forums where a paper is presented with conflicting positions for you to decide which appears more plausible.

In 2 (accidently 3) posts I am into the top few 100 active members which suggests this is a clique of denial/ government agenda etc...

Anyway, the question I was going to originally pose was...

At what point would G. Thun reaslise that there is insufficient support behind her cause and pushing Government is doomed to failure as the public are voting [against] the position... Most typically that they want fuel cheaper to allow more travel as opposed to G. Thun actually wanting emissions [in-part] to be reduced.
05-09-2022 16:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
Im a BM wrote:This is NOT "normal turnover" for member activity.

It is totally normal and completely in line with essentially all other political forums.

Im a BM wrote:Roj475 attempted to participate here.

... as did other posters who attempted to engage in discussion with him.

Unfortunately Roj475's idea of "participate" was to be dishonest, to engage in one-way proselytizing and to impose a stupid religion upon an honest audience that merely wanted to discuss science and math with him.

Like you, Roj475 recoils at science because he doesn't understand it and cannot tolerate how it runs counter to his faith.

Im a BM wrote:Like the other 32 dishonest proselytizers who joined the site after I did, six months ago, Roj475 does not post anything now.

Science and math are too traumatizing for them. They were all honesty-intolerant.

Im a BM wrote:During those same six months, fewer than 16 members posted more than twice.

On rare occasion, trivia can be fascinating. Unfortunately, your statistics do not rise to that level.

.
Page 4 of 4<<<234





Join the debate General Question in General Forum.:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
A simple question about "climate change"...1513-05-2022 23:09
How Did TrueCompanion Create a New Thread/Post in a Closed Forum?326-08-2021 00:43
The Final Ultimate Global Currency Reset Evolution Details Be Shared Publicly At Only Forum Freejoy.aimoo129-09-2020 10:21
Loaded question2817-06-2020 02:32
There are some paid climate deniers in this forum to spread false information, ignore them13317-02-2020 07:16
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact