General Question in General Forum.

IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]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...

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?

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.

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

Im a BM wrote:
Regarding "..the impossibility of your discussion getting out of the starting gate".

Im a BM wrote:
No discussion can get out of the starting gate until IBdaMann is satisfied that you ANSWERED THE QUESTION about providing an unambiguous definition of climate change that does not violate the laws of thermodynamics.

Im a BM wrote:
And, as IBdaMann explains in this post, that has NEVER HAPPENED with ANY new member who tried to join the discussion.

Im a BM wrote:
The gatekeepers at the starting gate are just a pair of scientifically illiterate trolls whose lives are so empty they take comfort in anonymously insulting people on the Internet.

Im a BM wrote:
They are remarkably effective in their efforts to ensure that NO discussion EVER "gets out of the starting gate".

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.

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.


.

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: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:
...deleted spam...

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.