General Question in General Forum.
| 27-05-2024 20:36 | |
| Im a BM★★★★☆ (1120) |
Regarding "..the impossibility of your discussion getting out of the starting gate". 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. And, as IBdaMann explains in this post, that has NEVER HAPPENED with ANY new member who tried to join the discussion. 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. They are remarkably effective in their efforts to ensure that NO discussion EVER "gets out of the starting gate". IBdaMann wrote:Blah blah blah. Harvey is an honest, straightforward guy who hates when I lay into dishonest warmizombies like you because it frightens them off, blah blah blah ... and you decided to "go there" with the Marxism crap so ... blah blah blah 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?Blah blah blah you came here explicitly to denigrate this site for not being censored by politically militant warmizombies like yourself. blah blah blah 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. Blah blah blah 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. blah blah blah 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. Blah blah blah 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. Blah blah blah 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. is an entirely leftist/Marxist tactic for engaging in mind games to push an agenda,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 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." Blah blah blah 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, blah blah blah You will NOT find many people here arguing blah blah blah 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 [b]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. [/b] As it stands, not many people on this site are of your religion and thus don't worship/revere your sacred dogma. 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 [b]unambiguous definitions ... that don't defy physics on their face ... so your discussion can get out of the starting gate? [/b] [b]Until you define your terms,blah blah blah they remain empty buzzwords.[/b] blah blah blah acknowledge the religious nature of your faith and the impossibility of your discussion getting out of the starting gate. Define your terms, [b]unambiguously. [/b]IBdaMann wrote:Where have I referred to science as denial as you put it... ... see below.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 [b]thettled thienth! ... and that when you talk about debating science, you actually mean debating WACKY religious dogma that you merely call science. [/b] ][quote]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. So, how long are you going to stay? Should I bid my farewells now? Blah blah blah |
| 28-05-2024 08:33 | |
Into the Night ★★★★★(22456) |
Im a BM wrote: The 'gate' is open, but you won't start the race. You would rather whine in the starting box. Im a BM wrote: Climate cannot change. You ignore the laws of thermodynamics. Im a BM wrote: No one has ever managed to define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without violating the laws of thermodynamics. Go ahead. Im a BM wrote: The 'gate' is open, dummy. You just refuse to start and would rather whine in the starting box. Im a BM wrote: Nope. That is YOUR problem. You cannot blame YOUR problem on anybody else, Robert. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
Join the debate General Question in General Forum.:
Related content
| Threads | Replies | Last post |
| Global Change Science and Applied Biogeochemistry Moderated Sub Forum | 15 | 18-07-2024 21:11 |
| Spam in forum | 11 | 12-06-2024 03:44 |
| How would YOU know? It's a valid question. | 66 | 10-05-2024 00:30 |
| Does the forum have push notifications? | 0 | 07-04-2024 06:37 |
| 12V DC motor question | 24 | 18-02-2024 23:24 |