General Question in General Forum.

duncan61 wrote:This entire climate debate is about temperature.

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

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

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.

duncan61 wrote:The grass feels heaps colder.

duncan61 wrote:I might get a surface measurement.

duncan61 wrote:
This entire climate debate is about temperature.

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

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

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.

duncan61 wrote:I wished to measure the air temperature above different matter.

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

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

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

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

duncan61 wrote:
I wished to measure the air temperature above different matter.While the surface temperature is different the air temperature is constant.

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

duncan61 wrote:
This topic has answered this. Paranoid Americans. Its all about the bad guys hiding in the closet.

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

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

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

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.

Im a BM wrote:The absence of the other 99% speaks very poorly of the quality of discussion.

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

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.

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

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"

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

gfm7175 wrote:GIMME FUEL GIMME FIRE GIMME THAT WHICH I DESIRE!!!!!!

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.

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

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?

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

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.

duncan61 wrote: When you watch the Florida Gators football team do you chant go Amphibians by any chance

;)

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.

Im a BM wrote:number of "views" versus number of "guests" - doesn't 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.

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

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

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

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

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

Im a BM wrote: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.

Im a BM wrote:This is NOT "normal turnover" for member activity.

Im a BM wrote:Roj475 attempted to participate here.

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.

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

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.

Im a BM wrote:

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.

Why would any rational adult believe that the author of this lengthy rant (above) is a rational adult?

Very few would have the patience to read the entire thing.

Perhaps most revealing... nah, it doesn't deserve that much attention.

Swan wrote:Do all schizzos talk to themselves?

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Do all schizzos talk to themselves?

... and what was your answer?

Swan wrote:Ask by the looney tune that claims that the Earth's climate has been stolen and that there was never an ice age.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Ask by the looney tune that claims that the Earth's climate has been stolen and that there was never an ice age.

I simply presumed that the earth's climate was stolen because you insisted that there was one there previously, and when I noticed that there is no global climate now, the only conclusion I can draw, if I presume your claim to be true, is that it must have been stolen.

Are you now telling me that you were joking, and that there never was a global climate in the first place?

Which is it? Was the earth's global climate stolen or was there never one to begin with?

Also, you are the one who can't explain why a rational adult should believe there was ever an ice age. It would seem that you don't really believe that there ever was an ice age, but that some people who do your thinking for you have ordered you to regurgitate something you don't believe.

Did you want to explain why a rational adult should believe that there was an ice age, or do you not believe there was ever an ice age?

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.

IBdaMann wrote:

Roj475 wrote:... would I be right in saying that this site, climate-debate.com, is more denial site than a debate site?

Can you point out an instance of science denial?

Roj475 wrote:I typically reside in more scientific forums ...

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.

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.

Roj475 wrote: ... where a paper is presented with conflicting positions for you to decide which appears more plausible.

Just as I thought, that isn't science. That's religion. Someone presents some religious text or some Climate scripture and the sect-battles ensue, along with major science denial.

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

You can't claim to be discussing science ... and then bring Greta into it.



Dismissed.

.

Into the Night wrote:

Roj475 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Can you point out an instance of science denial?
.

I do not recall saying anything about science denial.

You are denying science right here in this post of yours.

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.

No evidence needed. Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. Climate cannot change. There is no value associated with climate. There is nothing that can change. There is no such thing as a global climate.

Roj475 wrote:
Are there anyone that would stand by GW/ CC happening. not sure on stretching that to man made, but would assume everyone here is set as it being natural?

Argument from randU fallacy. Base rate fallacy. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

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...

Right here in this post. You are denying mathematics too. So far you are discarding the 1st law of thermodynamics. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

Roj475 wrote:
You've made some position up in your mind... Argued with yourself and put out some strange attack against myself... Perhaps it is to make me post something scientific, perhaps it is just who you are... Only you are able to answer that one.

Science is not a post. Science is not evidence. Science is not a proof or Universal Truth. Science is not a religion. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. You are discarding science right here.

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?

Right here in this post.

Roj475 wrote:
I had a question I wanted to raise re: G. Thun. 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're drawing this out to something that it wasn;t.

It was. You are attempting to deny your own argument.

Roj475 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Just as I thought, that isn't science. That's religion. Someone presents some religious text or some Climate scripture and the sect-battles ensue, along with major science denial.
.

If two people of the scientific community have differing opinion on what caused a mass extinction, if they present their arguments with evidence...

Science is not a community. Science is not speculation or gambling. Science is not data. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

Roj475 wrote:
In your world that is termed religion?

Yes. You are assuming a condition that is not measurable. You are speculating about a cause. That is not science. It is religion.

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.

Im a BM wrote:

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.

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

Since I first posted five months ago, about 30 more members joined the site.

In theory, there are now 1616 people involved here.

So, what happens when "a paper is presented"?

It is dismissed as "buzzwords" and "gibber babble".

Those who understand the buzzwords and gibber babble are deemed to be "scientifically illiterate".

Apparently, only Marxists pretend that actual scientists know anything.

"Climate change" is not debated in any real way.

But the term itself, which apparently requires "unambiguous definition" can be the source of endless "debate".

Fewer than half of the 30 new members ever posted anything.

Among those that did, most gave up after one or two attempts.

Apparently, it is a source of pride among the members who have been here for more than seven years to successfully drive away anyone who doesn't agree with the religious cult paradigm.

But why not give the discussion of a specific paper thing one more try?

My own publications in the journal Nature were of no interest.

Please share with us a paper for discussion.

I'd be happy to demonstrate my scientific illiteracy.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:So, what happens when "a paper is presented"?

You demand that others embrace whatever is written ... just because it is written. You wouldn't know how to operate if your views and beliefs weren't handed to you by people who do your thinking for you.

Im a BM wrote:It is dismissed as "buzzwords" and "gibber babble".

This is because all you present is gibber-babble and empty buzzwords. You only know how to mindlessly regurgitate whatever you are instructed to believe.

Im a BM wrote:Those who [claim to] understand the buzzwords and gibber babble [and who are nonetheless scientifically illiterate snd mathematically incompetent] are deemed to be "scientifically illiterate".

... for good reason.

Im a BM wrote:Apparently, only Marxists pretend that actual [Climate clergy] know anything.

Only Marxists pretend that their clergy are the only ones who know anything while they deny science and math.

Im a BM wrote:"Climate change" is not debated in any real way.

... because it is a religion of HATRED and intolerance and no warmizombie will honestly discuss any tenets of the faith, which amount to empty buzzwords.

Im a BM wrote:But the term itself, which apparently requires "unambiguous definition" can be the source of endless "debate".

You have never debated the notion that science must be unambiguous. Would you care to?

Im a BM wrote: Fewer than half of the 30 new members ever posted anything.

They are probably lurkers. This site has many of them.

Im a BM wrote:But why not give the discussion of a specific paper thing one more try?

Why would "trying again" somehow change the general form and outcome of a discussion surrounding the same empty buzzwords and gibber-babble?

Roj475 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Roj475 wrote:I do not recall giving my position for you to make a claim that I believe what I am told.

That's because you revealed your position without expressly stating it.

On the basis you believe I hold a particular position, I would welcome sources for the claims made here so I may move towards the position you do not believe I have (?).

Roj475 wrote:I asked the poster a question based on their earlier response.

Roj475 wrote:Do you normally defend positions by claiming someone has written or said something they had not?

IBdaMann wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Roj475 wrote:On the basis you believe I hold a particular position, I would welcome sources for the claims made here

You are the only source for your particular positions.

... and you are the only source needed. I could write an entire profile on you from the few posts that you have created on this site.

Let's review:

Roj475 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
So it's essentially another random number they are using to generate random numbers for data.

Hard to say without a link for the basis of this.

The internet is your inerrant Bible. Anything written on the internet must be true, and if there is no link for something, you can't possibly be expected to do any thinking on your own.

Roj475 wrote:

duncan61 wrote:I went to the beach today and the sea is in the same place

If this water was in the same place I assume it is without tides and would more likely be a lake or a river...

You are certain the ocean is rising. Any water source that has not risen must be a lake or a river, right? You dismissed the conclusive evidence to the contrary, i.e. that the ocean hasn't risen discernible in more than a century, because you are not free to believe as you wish; you believe as you are instructed. You OBEY those who do your thinking for you.

Roj475 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:No link necessary. That's attempting to prove a negative. That's a fallacy, dude.

A poster has claimed data.... Another poster refers to the previous poster's position and adds a negative position, but the whole time... The data was never in existence.

This incoherent gibberish confirms that others are doing your thinking for you. You are otherwise totally confused on this subject matter. You cannot even articulate what it is you supposedly understand in a given discussion.

This raises the question: Why do you even believe what you believe?

Of course, the answer is that you are simply believing as ordered. Your thoughts are not you own. You should ask others how obvious this is.

Roj475 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Roj475 wrote:All well and good, but the position I am arguing is ...

Correction: The position you are NOT arguing, but nonetheless hold, is that the ocean is rising.

I do not have a position until I see the story specific to NASA that the poster claimed...

You most certainly do have whatever position your thought-masters tell you to have. Your attempts to deny the obvious are childish and only serve to affirm the obvious.

Why don't you just give us your thoughts on capitalism right now? You know, get it out of the way up front.

Roj475 wrote:Alternatively, where is the NASA information so I can make a position on it?

Why do you believe that NASA has anything to do with the ocean?

Well, of course, ... you were told to believe it. Do you really not understand how obvious it is that someone else controls your thinking?

NASA? The ocean? Not even Swan is that absurd. What's next? Venus temperature data from HUD?

Roj475 wrote:Swan says it is rising and turning desert green... You guys need to get your story straight on which one will be more believable in your world.

You obviously lump all differing views together as the same view. This is a result of extreme intolerance to differing views, which results from being too stupid to learn and from a profound hatred of science and math.

Why are you under the impression that everyone must agree?

Of course, ... it's because that's what you were told to believe, i.e. that everyone is to agree with the positions that are handed to you by those who do your thinking for you.

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?

You came to this site, you saw what you consider to be a prohibited position that was allowed to remain posted without being censored away, and you immediately labelled the entire site a "denial" site. This tells me that Climate Change is your religion. One cannot deny something that hasn't been shown to be true, and you haven't shown Climate Change to be true. You simply presume it to be true, because you were told to believe it to be true by those who do your thinking for you.

Also apparent is your need to hurl slurs at those who were not bent over furniture and indoctrinated as you were. Your total cognitive surrender is entirely your own fault and you did it to yourself. Your transparent attempts to blame others for your own stupidity is as obvious as the sun to those with light sensitivity issues.

Roj475 wrote:I typically reside in more scientific forums where a paper is presented with conflicting positions for you to decide which appears more plausible.

Here you broadcast your desperation to be perceived as a thmart perthon. You are scientifically illiterate and you know it, so you and other under-educated individuals sit around in chat rooms role-playing science geniuses who are debating the merits of thettled thienth! You're fine as long as nobody with any actual understanding of science and math joins the conversation because that would immediately burst the delusional fantasy bubble that you worked so hard to build.

So why did you come to this site? You could see that there are no censors here to shield you from the science and the math that are freely discussed here. There are no censors to delete posts that point out that you are a scientifically illiterate moron who doesn't even know what science is. So why are you here?

Obviously you are here to hurl slurs at those who were not indoctrinated into your stupid religion, who do not assume any of the stupid things that you simply believe on faith, and who do not worship as you do.

Roj475 wrote:I was avoiding denial wording and go for population driven positions.

I already covered this is a previous post. You take this right out of the Marxist playbook. You try to bully/coerce others into believing as you believe, not through logical arguments, but through attempts to lay on shame of being outside the majority, and of course you claim to represent the majority.

That doesn't work here. On this site you will simply be reminded that you haven't presented any sort of coherent argument, and you will be reminded that you are scientifically illiterate and have no business bothering the adults at the adults table.

Have you tried YAP (Yet Another Political) forum? That place is loaded with censors and all those whose views deviated from the proscribed position of the YAP collective have been banned (I am one of them). I'm sure it will be far more to your liking.

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.

Not only do you lump all differing views together as the same view, you view it as a competing religion of fanatics. It's hilarious that you view science and math as a competing religion that must be defeated.

Roj475 wrote:GW still exists in text but for the general population that are unable to grasp it will still snow if a temperature average increased from -10 to -8; then CC was needed to assist the education gap.

You felt compelled to rush to the defense of your faith the moment you felt it was not being accorded full reverence. You weren't about to allow Global Warming to be diminished and dismissed. It is far too important to you, religions being what they are.

You think nobody sees this.

You are mistaken.

Roj475 wrote:If you believe GW has been replaced, then this is an oversight on your part or is not inkeeping with your long term goal of never moving from a set position regardless.

You totally give yourself away. You need for others to revere Global Warming as you revere it. You are not going to sit idly by and let others speak dismissively about your core religious tenets.

Roj475 wrote:

duncan61 wrote:Yes I did and what outages do you speak of.

"Perth smashed its previous heatwave records last week, after sweltering through six days in a row over 40℃ – and 11 days over 40℃ this summer so far. On top of that, Perth has suffered widespread power outages and a bushfire in the city's north."

You did not post this as mere random trivia. You posted this as conclusive proof that Global Warming is not to be dismissed, that Global Warming is real and is active in our lives.

So the NEXT question you won't answer is "What does smashing previous cold-wave records prove?"

Let me know when you get around to providing an unambiguous definition of the global climate that doesn't violate physics right on its face.

Roj475 wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:There is no past data to compare with, just fear and speculation.

It's like telling some people dinosaurs exist and when you hold up a bone, they have an answer why it is fake.

Like most Marxists, you ignore the opposing observation that kills your argument and pretend it was never mentioned. Instead, you quickly change the subject to some bogus position that you are assigning to your opposition and misdirect attention towards that.

I didn't fall for it, just to let you know. Harvey is correct that you have absolutely no "The Data" and you have backed yourself into a corner with no avenue for escape. Your debate is over. You lose.

Roj475 wrote:Harvey does not believe there is past data to compare with.

I didn't fall for your misdirection. You have not produced any such "The Data." The meat was hung for you, you swung and you missed.

Wait, you're a Brit, right? You don't get that reference, do you?

Roj475 wrote:Is it the movement Age in Genesis that believe the Earth to be 6000 years old.

Your need to attack Christians is kind of a giveaway that you're a Marxist, which is kind of a giveaway that you suck at economics as well as sucking at math and science and logic.

This is enough for now. Additional revelations available upon request.


.

Roj475 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Roj475 wrote:On the basis you believe I hold a particular position, I would welcome sources for the claims made here

You are the only source for your particular positions.

... and you are the only source needed. I could write an entire profile on you from the few posts that you have created on this site.

Let's review:
.

I have not presented any position. Members of this community keep telling me I have.

IBdaMann wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Roj475 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
So it's essentially another random number they are using to generate random numbers for data.

Hard to say without a link for the basis of this.

The internet is your inerrant Bible. Anything written on the internet must be true, and if there is no link for something, you can't possibly be expected to do any thinking on your own.

Roj475 wrote:

duncan61 wrote:I went to the beach today and the sea is in the same place

If this water was in the same place I assume it is without tides and would more likely be a lake or a river...

You are certain the ocean is rising. Any water source that has not risen must be a lake or a river, right? You dismissed the conclusive evidence to the contrary, i.e. that the ocean hasn't risen discernible in more than a century, because you are not free to believe as you wish; you believe as you are instructed. You OBEY those who do your thinking for you.

Roj475 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:No link necessary. That's attempting to prove a negative. That's a fallacy, dude.

A poster has claimed data.... Another poster refers to the previous poster's position and adds a negative position, but the whole time... The data was never in existence.

This incoherent gibberish confirms that others are doing your thinking for you. You are otherwise totally confused on this subject matter. You cannot even articulate what it is you supposedly understand in a given discussion.

This raises the question: Why do you even believe what you believe?

Of course, the answer is that you are simply believing as ordered. Your thoughts are not you own. You should ask others how obvious this is.
.

I am open minded but the members of this community keep telling me how I think. After telling me three times, they come to a conclusion I was never part of.
.

IBdaMann wrote:

Roj475 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Roj475 wrote:All well and good, but the position I am arguing is ...

Correction: The position you are NOT arguing, but nonetheless hold, is that the ocean is rising.

I do not have a position until I see the story specific to NASA that the poster claimed...

You most certainly do have whatever position your thought-masters tell you to have. Your attempts to deny the obvious are childish and only serve to affirm the obvious.

Why don't you just give us your thoughts on capitalism right now? You know, get it out of the way up front.
.

Any particular part?

IBdaMann wrote:

Roj475 wrote:Alternatively, where is the NASA information so I can make a position on it?

Why do you believe that NASA has anything to do with the ocean?

Well, of course, ... you were told to believe it. Do you really not understand how obvious it is that someone else controls your thinking?

NASA? The ocean? Not even Swan is that absurd. What's next? Venus temperature data from HUD?

I asked for information. I made no claims... The members of this community keep telling me what I am doing and then decide that is what I am doing.

IBdaMann wrote:

Roj475 wrote:Swan says it is rising and turning desert green... You guys need to get your story straight on which one will be more believable in your world.

You obviously lump all differing views together as the same view. This is a result of extreme intolerance to differing views, which results from being too stupid to learn and from a profound hatred of science and math.

Why are you under the impression that everyone must agree?

Of course, ... it's because that's what you were told to believe, i.e. that everyone is to agree with the positions that are handed to you by those who do your thinking for you.
.

I have not presented any position. Members of this community keep telling me I have.

IBdaMann wrote:

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?

You came to this site, you saw what you consider to be a prohibited position that was allowed to remain posted without being censored away, and you immediately labelled the entire site a "denial" site. This tells me that Climate Change is your religion. One cannot deny something that hasn't been shown to be true, and you haven't shown Climate Change to be true. You simply presume it to be true, because you were told to believe it to be true by those who do your thinking for you.

Also apparent is your need to hurl slurs at those who were not bent over furniture and indoctrinated as you were. Your total cognitive surrender is entirely your own fault and you did it to yourself. Your transparent attempts to blame others for your own stupidity is as obvious as the sun to those with light sensitivity issues.
.

It would seem I will fit in just great in America... Oh, I am. Sure you will be pleased to know I replaced an American whom wasn't fit for purpose.

IBdaMann wrote:

Roj475 wrote:I typically reside in more scientific forums where a paper is presented with conflicting positions for you to decide which appears more plausible.

Here you broadcast your desperation to be perceived as a thmart perthon. You are scientifically illiterate and you know it, so you and other under-educated individuals sit around in chat rooms role-playing science geniuses who are debating the merits of thettled thienth! You're fine as long as nobody with any actual understanding of science and math joins the conversation because that would immediately burst the delusional fantasy bubble that you worked so hard to build.

So why did you come to this site? You could see that there are no censors here to shield you from the science and the math that are freely discussed here. There are no censors to delete posts that point out that you are a scientifically illiterate moron who doesn't even know what science is. So why are you here?

Obviously you are here to hurl slurs at those who were not indoctrinated into your stupid religion, who do not assume any of the stupid things that you simply believe on faith, and who do not worship as you do.
.

I came to this site, pretty much as my first post, to say Greta is a pain and life would be an improvement without her involvement in climate etc...

IBdaMann wrote:

Roj475 wrote:I was avoiding denial wording and go for population driven positions.

I already covered this is a previous post. You take this right out of the Marxist playbook. You try to bully/coerce others into believing as you believe, not through logical arguments, but through attempts to lay on shame of being outside the majority, and of course you claim to represent the majority.

That doesn't work here. On this site you will simply be reminded that you haven't presented any sort of coherent argument, and you will be reminded that you are scientifically illiterate and have no business bothering the adults at the adults table.

Have you tried YAP (Yet Another Political) forum? That place is loaded with censors and all those whose views deviated from the proscribed position of the YAP collective have been banned (I am one of them). I'm sure it will be far more to your liking.
.

We agree on having not placed an argument, hopefully you will stop claiming I believe what I am told now.

IBdaMann wrote:

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.

Not only do you lump all differing views together as the same view, you view it as a competing religion of fanatics. It's hilarious that you view science and math as a competing religion that must be defeated.

Roj475 wrote:GW still exists in text but for the general population that are unable to grasp it will still snow if a temperature average increased from -10 to -8; then CC was needed to assist the education gap.

You felt compelled to rush to the defense of your faith the moment you felt it was not being accorded full reverence. You weren't about to allow Global Warming to be diminished and dismissed. It is far too important to you, religions being what they are.

You think nobody sees this.

You are mistaken.
.

You will be pleased to know this will likely be my last post, bar maybe a response to capitalism form above but I do not have the concentration span to filter through posts this long, bores me.

IBdaMann wrote:

Roj475 wrote:If you believe GW has been replaced, then this is an oversight on your part or is not inkeeping with your long term goal of never moving from a set position regardless.

You totally give yourself away. You need for others to revere Global Warming as you revere it. You are not going to sit idly by and let others speak dismissively about your core religious tenets.

Roj475 wrote:

duncan61 wrote:Yes I did and what outages do you speak of.

"Perth smashed its previous heatwave records last week, after sweltering through six days in a row over 40℃ – and 11 days over 40℃ this summer so far. On top of that, Perth has suffered widespread power outages and a bushfire in the city's north."

You did not post this as mere random trivia. You posted this as conclusive proof that Global Warming is not to be dismissed, that Global Warming is real and is active in our lives.

So the NEXT question you won't answer is "What does smashing previous cold-wave records prove?"

Let me know when you get around to providing an unambiguous definition of the global climate that doesn't violate physics right on its face.
.

I do not recall saying there was an issue, nor do I recall saying anything should be done...

The Earth has warmed and cooled.

I do not recall saying anything on why these events have happened over the planet's history.

IBdaMann wrote:

Roj475 wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:There is no past data to compare with, just fear and speculation.

It's like telling some people dinosaurs exist and when you hold up a bone, they have an answer why it is fake.

Like most Marxists, you ignore the opposing observation that kills your argument and pretend it was never mentioned. Instead, you quickly change the subject to some bogus position that you are assigning to your opposition and misdirect attention towards that.

I didn't fall for it, just to let you know. Harvey is correct that you have absolutely no "The Data" and you have backed yourself into a corner with no avenue for escape. Your debate is over. You lose.
.

I didn't realise there was a winner or a loser in requesting information.

If it pleases you, I am the loser here... Damn!

IBdaMann wrote:

Roj475 wrote:Harvey does not believe there is past data to compare with.

I didn't fall for your misdirection. You have not produced any such "The Data." The meat was hung for you, you swung and you missed.

Wait, you're a Brit, right? You don't get that reference, do you?
.

Yes, but relocated to work in America... I would like to return but the pay is too good here.

Maybe this is the capitalism thing, America, the land of opportunity... Thank you for that.

IBdaMann wrote:

Roj475 wrote:Is it the movement Age in Genesis that believe the Earth to be 6000 years old.

Your need to attack Christians is kind of a giveaway that you're a Marxist, which is kind of a giveaway that you suck at economics as well as sucking at math and science and logic.

This is enough for now. Additional revelations available upon request.
.

Citing the belief of a group of people is not an attack.... I appreciate American's have a strange concept when it comes to attacking though.

IBdaMann wrote:

Roj475 wrote:I have not presented any position. Members of this community keep telling me I have.

I detailed many of your positions in a rather lengthy post. Your denial of your having broadcast your positions is typical of someone who is very much ashamed of his positions.

I'm glad you raised this point again. One position you revealed that was very telling, that I did not previously mention was this:

Roj475 wrote:I can say the Republic party doesn;t exist as we only see change by the Democratic party... We see the problems in the background by the Republic tenure, but they are not to be considered about based on your argument... Probably a good thing to be honest!

Roj475 wrote:I am open minded

I'm not buying it. Maybe duncan will believe you. Try him.

Roj475 wrote: ... the members of this community keep telling me how I think.

They read what you write.

Roj475 wrote:After telling me three times, they come to a conclusion I was never part of..

After being told three times, you fall into steep denial.

Roj475 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:Why don't you just give us your thoughts on capitalism right now? You know, get it out of the way up front.

Any particular part?

The whole thing. Tell us how you really feel.

If you're looking for the ideal starting point, I recommend giving us your thoughts on how we should redistribute the wealth.

Second, you can tell us what we should tax next.

Roj475 wrote:I asked for information.

You were asked to provide the "The Data" that you used.

Roj475 wrote: I made no claims...

We've been over this. You've expressed a myriad of your positions and I detailed them in a lengthy post. The problem is getting you to shut up with your positions and to answer some of the questions put to you.

Second time: What is the unambiguous definition of Global Warming that doesn't violate physics on its face?

Roj475 wrote:The members of this community keep telling me what I am doing and then decide that is what I am doing.

The members of this forum read what you write, see what you're doing and ... well, they realize what you are doing.

What part of this confuses you? [You are easily confused, apparently]

Roj475 wrote:It would seem I will fit in just great in America...

There's a niche for everyone.

Roj475 wrote:Oh, I am. Sure you will be pleased to know I replaced an American whom wasn't fit for purpose.

I imagine he kept telling customers how the burgers are really made and had to be let go.

Then they encountered you and realized that customers won't be able to understand you should you begin to do likewise. They realized they had discovered gold and hired you on the spot.

Then they asked you what your first language is.

Roj475 wrote:I came to this site, pretty much as my first post, to say Greta is a pain and life would be an improvement without her involvement in climate etc...

But your first post was to decry the lack of censorship for differing views. You referred to those who don't worship as you do as being denialists who are entrenched in an extreme political position. You came here to be a bullying Marxist thinking that you were going to intimidate the members of this board with your scientific illiteracy and your mathematical incompetence.

As the moron that you are, you really did come to the wrong place. This site is an adult's table where intelligent conversations are possible, not where intelligent conversations are prohibited. You definitely need a different site, one more suitable as a kid's table.

Roj475 wrote:We agree on having not placed an argument, hopefully you will stop claiming I believe what I am told now.

I'm afraid you will have to demonstrate some independent thinking with critical reasoning before I can dismiss your obvious regurgitations as mere coincidence.

Give me your rationale for believing in greenhouse effect. Notice that I didn't ask you for anyone else's position/opinion; I asked for your position in your own words. Explain why a rational adult should believe in greenhouse effect beyond merely pointing to other faithful worshipers of like mind. Science is preferred.

Roj475 wrote:You will be pleased to know this will likely be my last post, bar maybe a response to capitalism form above but I do not have the concentration span to filter through posts this long, bores me.

I appreciate your acknowledgment of your cognitive shortcomings.

I don't know why you believe that I will somehow be pleased that this will likely be your last post. I am not a Marxist. I am not interested in anyone being silenced or becoming silent. Because I am not a Marxist, I am not an intellectual coward. I do not panic in abject fear from differing views. I welcome all ideas and all forms of amusement.

Roj475 wrote:I do not recall saying there was an issue, nor do I recall saying anything should be done...

I already covered this, as did your schoolteachers while you were sleeping. Your expression was implicit, not explicit.

And a failure on the part of your recollection doesn't change anything.

Roj475 wrote:The Earth has warmed and cooled.

I understand that you were told to say that, and to never question it.

Under what context are you making this claim and why should a rational adult believe it?

Roj475 wrote:I do not recall saying anything on why these events have happened over the planet's history.

... yet you implicitly express certainty that these events happened over the planet's history.

Why should any rational adult accept your position?

Roj475 wrote:I didn't realise there was a winner or a loser in requesting information.

Are you saying that you truly had no idea how much of a loser you are?

Roj475 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:The meat was hung for you, you swung and you missed. Wait, you're a Brit, right? You don't get that reference, do you?

Yes, but relocated to work in America... I would like to return but the pay is too good here.

So you did NOT catch the reference ... because you're a Brit.

Roj475 wrote:Maybe this is the capitalism thing, America, the land of opportunity... Thank you for that.

I could write an essay on what you just revealed right here.

Roj475 wrote:Citing the belief of a group of people is not an attack

Nice pivot.

The subject of the sentence was your need to attack Christians, not what constitutes such an attack.

As a typical Marxist, you presume everyone is as stupid as you are, even those who are so much smarter than you are. You don't have the wherewithal to realize how you give yourself away, post after post.

If you were a light bulb, I'd have no way of knowing that you had been turned on.

Roj475 wrote:.... I appreciate American's have a strange concept when it comes to attacking though.

Probably the sharpest form of attack is to just highlight what a Brit writes.

IBdaMann wrote:

Roj475 wrote:I have not presented any position. Members of this community keep telling me I have.

I detailed many of your positions in a rather lengthy post. Your denial of your having broadcast your positions is typical of someone who is very much ashamed of his positions.

I'm glad you raised this point again. One position you revealed that was very telling, that I did not previously mention was this:

Roj475 wrote:I can say the Republic party doesn;t exist as we only see change by the Democratic party... We see the problems in the background by the Republic tenure, but they are not to be considered about based on your argument... Probably a good thing to be honest!

Roj475 wrote:I am open minded

I'm not buying it. Maybe duncan will believe you. Try him.

Roj475 wrote: ... the members of this community keep telling me how I think.

They read what you write.

Roj475 wrote:After telling me three times, they come to a conclusion I was never part of..

After being told three times, you fall into steep denial.

Roj475 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:Why don't you just give us your thoughts on capitalism right now? You know, get it out of the way up front.

Any particular part?

The whole thing. Tell us how you really feel.

If you're looking for the ideal starting point, I recommend giving us your thoughts on how we should redistribute the wealth.

Second, you can tell us what we should tax next.

Roj475 wrote:I asked for information.

You were asked to provide the "The Data" that you used.

Roj475 wrote: I made no claims...

We've been over this. You've expressed a myriad of your positions and I detailed them in a lengthy post. The problem is getting you to shut up with your positions and to answer some of the questions put to you.

Second time: What is the unambiguous definition of Global Warming that doesn't violate physics on its face?

Roj475 wrote:The members of this community keep telling me what I am doing and then decide that is what I am doing.

The members of this forum read what you write, see what you're doing and ... well, they realize what you are doing.

What part of this confuses you? [You are easily confused, apparently]

Roj475 wrote:It would seem I will fit in just great in America...

There's a niche for everyone.

Roj475 wrote:Oh, I am. Sure you will be pleased to know I replaced an American whom wasn't fit for purpose.

I imagine he kept telling customers how the burgers are really made and had to be let go.

Then they encountered you and realized that customers won't be able to understand you should you begin to do likewise. They realized they had discovered gold and hired you on the spot.

Then they asked you what your first language is.

Roj475 wrote:I came to this site, pretty much as my first post, to say Greta is a pain and life would be an improvement without her involvement in climate etc...

But your first post was to decry the lack of censorship for differing views. You referred to those who don't worship as you do as being denialists who are entrenched in an extreme political position. You came here to be a bullying Marxist thinking that you were going to intimidate the members of this board with your scientific illiteracy and your mathematical incompetence.

As the moron that you are, you really did come to the wrong place. This site is an adult's table where intelligent conversations are possible, not where intelligent conversations are prohibited. You definitely need a different site, one more suitable as a kid's table.

Roj475 wrote:We agree on having not placed an argument, hopefully you will stop claiming I believe what I am told now.

I'm afraid you will have to demonstrate some independent thinking with critical reasoning before I can dismiss your obvious regurgitations as mere coincidence.

Give me your rationale for believing in greenhouse effect. Notice that I didn't ask you for anyone else's position/opinion; I asked for your position in your own words. Explain why a rational adult should believe in greenhouse effect beyond merely pointing to other faithful worshipers of like mind. Science is preferred.

Roj475 wrote:You will be pleased to know this will likely be my last post, bar maybe a response to capitalism form above but I do not have the concentration span to filter through posts this long, bores me.

I appreciate your acknowledgment of your cognitive shortcomings.

I don't know why you believe that I will somehow be pleased that this will likely be your last post. I am not a Marxist. I am not interested in anyone being silenced or becoming silent. Because I am not a Marxist, I am not an intellectual coward. I do not panic in abject fear from differing views. I welcome all ideas and all forms of amusement.

Roj475 wrote:I do not recall saying there was an issue, nor do I recall saying anything should be done...

I already covered this, as did your schoolteachers while you were sleeping. Your expression was implicit, not explicit.

And a failure on the part of your recollection doesn't change anything.

Roj475 wrote:The Earth has warmed and cooled.

I understand that you were told to say that, and to never question it.

Under what context are you making this claim and why should a rational adult believe it?

Roj475 wrote:I do not recall saying anything on why these events have happened over the planet's history.

... yet you implicitly express certainty that these events happened over the planet's history.

Why should any rational adult accept your position?

Roj475 wrote:I didn't realise there was a winner or a loser in requesting information.

Are you saying that you truly had no idea how much of a loser you are?

Roj475 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:The meat was hung for you, you swung and you missed. Wait, you're a Brit, right? You don't get that reference, do you?

Yes, but relocated to work in America... I would like to return but the pay is too good here.

So you did NOT catch the reference ... because you're a Brit.

Roj475 wrote:Maybe this is the capitalism thing, America, the land of opportunity... Thank you for that.

I could write an essay on what you just revealed right here.

Roj475 wrote:Citing the belief of a group of people is not an attack

Nice pivot.

The subject of the sentence was your need to attack Christians, not what constitutes such an attack.

As a typical Marxist, you presume everyone is as stupid as you are, even those who are so much smarter than you are. You don't have the wherewithal to realize how you give yourself away, post after post.

If you were a light bulb, I'd have no way of knowing that you had been turned on.

Roj475 wrote:.... I appreciate American's have a strange concept when it comes to attacking though.

Probably the sharpest form of attack is to just highlight what a Brit writes.