Remember me
▼ Content

General Question in General Forum.



Page 1 of 4123>>>
General Question in General Forum.11-08-2022 17:04
Roj475
★☆☆☆☆
(60)
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.
11-08-2022 18:28
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2548)
[b]Roj475 wrote:[/b
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.

Better questions....
At what point does Gretta grow up and realize she is only a puppet and a slave to her handlers and speech writers who have done all her thinking for her?

At what point do Gretta's worshippers return to basic science that was once upon a time taught in schools and realize this climate change bullshit doesn't add up?

At what point does Gretta realize that CO2 is not a pollutant, but instead a life essential compound that if drastically reduced, will cause worldwide food shortages?

At what point does Gretta realize the damage she has done to the world by regurgitating the claims of mindless fear mongering agenda driven morons who stand in defiance of science?


Studies show that if you force several tubs of peanut butter down the throats of newborns, in some cases it could potentially be toxic. In cities where infant-PB-stuffing is more common, infant deaths increased by over 47% with corresponding increases in dead-infant obesity.. -IBdaMann
Edited on 11-08-2022 18:45
11-08-2022 19:23
Roj475
★☆☆☆☆
(60)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Better questions....


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

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.
11-08-2022 19:31
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2548)
Roj475 wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Better questions....


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

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.

Why should anyone deviate away from unfalsified science?


Studies show that if you force several tubs of peanut butter down the throats of newborns, in some cases it could potentially be toxic. In cities where infant-PB-stuffing is more common, infant deaths increased by over 47% with corresponding increases in dead-infant obesity.. -IBdaMann
11-08-2022 19:34
duncan61
★★★★★
(2003)
I have looked at this AGW/CC from a neutral start for over 3 years and have found no evidence to support manmade influence on the weather
.The polar bears did not die
.The ice as not melted
.The sea has not gone up
.It has not got warmer
.The coral reefs have not died
I would like to think I have generated a new class called queries
11-08-2022 22:17
Roj475
★☆☆☆☆
(60)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Roj475 wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Better questions....


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

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.

Why should anyone deviate away from unfalsified science?


I'm not raising anything in connection with falsified science in my thoughts for g. Thun.
11-08-2022 22:19
Roj475
★☆☆☆☆
(60)
duncan61 wrote:
I have looked at this AGW/CC from a neutral start for over 3 years and have found no evidence to support manmade influence on the weather
.The polar bears did not die
.The ice as not melted
.The sea has not gone up
.It has not got warmer
.The coral reefs have not died
I would like to think I have generated a new class called queries


You're wasted in messaging here... anyone becoming an expert in any field in 3 years of self study is destined to succeed and with make a name for themselves and/ or become incredibly wealthy.

Fair play to you.
11-08-2022 22:32
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2548)
Roj475 wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
I have looked at this AGW/CC from a neutral start for over 3 years and have found no evidence to support manmade influence on the weather
.The polar bears did not die
.The ice as not melted
.The sea has not gone up
.It has not got warmer
.The coral reefs have not died
I would like to think I have generated a new class called queries


You're wasted in messaging here... anyone becoming an expert in any field in 3 years of self study is destined to succeed and with make a name for themselves and/ or become incredibly wealthy.

Fair play to you.


I thenth you muth be tho muth thmarter than uth.

Exactly how much time does it take to become a "field exthpert"?


Studies show that if you force several tubs of peanut butter down the throats of newborns, in some cases it could potentially be toxic. In cities where infant-PB-stuffing is more common, infant deaths increased by over 47% with corresponding increases in dead-infant obesity.. -IBdaMann
Edited on 11-08-2022 22:37
11-08-2022 22:36
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2548)
Roj475 wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Roj475 wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Better questions....


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

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.

Why should anyone deviate away from unfalsified science?


I'm not raising anything in connection with falsified science in my thoughts for g. Thun.


You have yet to give us your thoughts for Gberg. Do share.


Studies show that if you force several tubs of peanut butter down the throats of newborns, in some cases it could potentially be toxic. In cities where infant-PB-stuffing is more common, infant deaths increased by over 47% with corresponding increases in dead-infant obesity.. -IBdaMann
11-08-2022 22:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
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.

Science isn't a paper, forum, or debate. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. There is no voting bloc in science. It has no politics. It has no religion. A new theory can be created by a single person (and often is!). A theory can be falsified by a single person (and often is!).

Falsifiability simply means that it is possible to test the theory itself to see if it's wrong. That test must be available, practical to conduct, specific, and produce a specific result. As long as a theory can withstand such tests, it is automatically part of the body of science. No one has to vote on it. No one has to debate it.
Roj475 wrote:
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...

There are actually quite a few believers here. There are also people here that understand physics and mathematics.
Roj475 wrote:
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.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. CO2 is no exception. You cannot create energy out of nothing. See the 1st law of thermodynamics.

How long before any believer from the Church of Global Warming realizes there is insufficient support? Probably never. This religion is fundamentalist in nature. It doesn't matter how much or how little support it has.


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
11-08-2022 22:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
Roj475 wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Better questions....


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

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.

That's true for just about anyone on a climate debate forum.


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
11-08-2022 22:55
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
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.

.
12-08-2022 10:09
Roj475
★☆☆☆☆
(60)
GasGuzzler wrote:
I thenth you muth be tho muth thmarter than uth.

Exactly how much time does it take to become a "field exthpert"?


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...

I merely said if the poster was such an expert, they should apply it to the real world and become rich and/ or famous for the discovery.

On a positive note your comment is more understandable now than most of the other times, you are becoming an expert in the English language or American English if you prefer, or perhaps that is what you used here... I work for an American company so that explains things I guess.
12-08-2022 10:23
Roj475
★☆☆☆☆
(60)
IBdaMann wrote:
Can you point out an instance of science denial?
.


I do not recall saying anything about science denial.

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.

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?

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... 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.

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?

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.



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... In your world that is termed religion?
12-08-2022 10:23
Roj475
★☆☆☆☆
(60)
Double post... again! sorry.
Edited on 12-08-2022 10:24
12-08-2022 10:25
Roj475
★☆☆☆☆
(60)
GasGuzzler wrote:
You have yet to give us your thoughts for Gberg. Do share.


How does this have any bearing on my wondering how she is reacting to the populations wanting cheaper fuel to travel more, completely against her wishes and futile attempts to make government change.
12-08-2022 18:24
duncan61
★★★★★
(2003)
Some gasses radiate IR light some do not.The amounts are in question.It would seem that some organisations are trying to calculate a global average from all the thermometers around the world and satellite measurements.If you look in to the techniques applied it is all a lot of guesswork and should not be used to set government policy.If something does ever happen humans will mitigate.I like to look backwards and is the claim that if CO2 drops to 300ppm will bushfires stop happening.All the research I have at hand is plagiarising scientists.I do not wish to be famous or rich from other peoples work.
12-08-2022 18:30
duncan61
★★★★★
(2003)
I have had a CO2 meter since 4/9/2020 and yesterday was 419ppm in my backyard.Big whoop thats not a lot of anything
12-08-2022 20:16
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4323)
Roj475 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Can you point out an instance of science denial?
.


I do not recall saying anything about science denial.

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.

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?

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... 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.

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?

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.



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... In your world that is termed religion?


First... When has this planet not been in a constant state of change? Some how though, it manages to keep the delicate balance of what keeps life going. There has never been just one, global climate. Over long periods of time, these climates shift around some, but life migrates, or adapts. Some don't always make it, but new species arise.

CO2 is absolutely essential to all life on this planet. Got to be the dumbest thing liberals have ever wanted to mess with. All life is based around carbon molecules. There is only one source in the entire food chain. Plants are the only living thing that can metabolize carbon from the environment, CO2. Every this gets the carbon they are built from, by consuming plants, or some other critter that eats plants. We need more CO2, not less. Least, if we want food, as the population grows. WE aren't going to burn up. We are heading to starvation.

Over 80% of the planet surface is covered with water. Water is great stuff, it takes thermal energy to change states, from solid (polar ice), to liquid, to water vapor. Heat rises, clouds form, reflecting the sun's thermal energy. The rising water vapor carries thermal energy away from the surface, cooling. As the water vapor release energy high up in the sky, it condense, and falls back to the surface, to do it all over again. Funny thing, plants like a warm humid, wet climate, almost as much as they like CO2 to grow fast and health. Climate nutjobs don't seem to want the plentiful food, that our planet is about to provide.

I trust nature, over politicians. Nature has been taking good care of all life on the planet, long before the first liberal start lying to you.
12-08-2022 23:18
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2139)
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.


This site never had anything to do with the climate debate, if it did there would be at least 10 million members here instead of 10


This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
13-08-2022 03:33
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4323)
Swan 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.


This site never had anything to do with the climate debate, if it did there would be at least 10 million members here instead of 10


What is there to debate? Climate Change is a hoax, a scam. The only thing to discuss, would be why. What do 'they' hope to achieve.
13-08-2022 05:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
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.


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
13-08-2022 05:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
duncan61 wrote:
Some gasses radiate IR light some do not.

ALL gases radiate IR light according the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
duncan61 wrote:
The amounts are in question.

The amounts are NOT in question. See the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
duncan61 wrote:
It would seem that some organisations are trying to calculate a global average from all the thermometers around the world

Not a global temperature.
duncan61 wrote:
and satellite measurements.

Satellites are incapable of measuring the temperature of any part of the Earth.
duncan61 wrote:
If you look in to the techniques applied it is all a lot of guesswork and should not be used to set government policy.

Not guesswork. Fabrication.
duncan61 wrote:
If something does ever happen humans will mitigate.I like to look backwards and is the claim that if CO2 drops to 300ppm will bushfires stop happening.All the research I have at hand is plagiarising scientists.I do not wish to be famous or rich from other peoples work.

Why would something happen?


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
13-08-2022 06:08
James_
★★★★☆
(1099)
Into the Night wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
Some gasses radiate IR light some do not.

ALL gases radiate IR light according the Stefan-Boltzmann law.



No they don't. Have you been smoking Canadus again? Talk about stupid humor, Canadians are alright. What happened to you? Don't tell me you put mushrooms
and parsley on your pizza again.


For you Duncan, Psilocybin mushroom and cannabis.
He forgot that KE = 3/2kT in a J-T field will not always agree with S-B. This is because different gasses will have different J-T quotients. Some gasses will warm and become more excited in a field with less pressure and heat.
That is the inverse function of the laws of thermodynamics. Shadow Warrior should know this by now unless he's playing games like he always does.
Edited on 13-08-2022 06:14
13-08-2022 12:06
duncan61
★★★★★
(2003)
Into the Night wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
Some gasses radiate IR light some do not.

ALL gases radiate IR light according the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
duncan61 wrote:
The amounts are in question.

The amounts are NOT in question. See the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
duncan61 wrote:
It would seem that some organisations are trying to calculate a global average from all the thermometers around the world

Not a global temperature.
duncan61 wrote:
and satellite measurements.

Satellites are incapable of measuring the temperature of any part of the Earth.
duncan61 wrote:
If you look in to the techniques applied it is all a lot of guesswork and should not be used to set government policy.

Not guesswork. Fabrication.
duncan61 wrote:
If something does ever happen humans will mitigate.I like to look backwards and is the claim that if CO2 drops to 300ppm will bushfires stop happening.All the research I have at hand is plagiarising scientists.I do not wish to be famous or rich from other peoples work.

Why would something happen?


Alarmists are desperate to reduce CO2.I know not why and care less


duncan61
13-08-2022 19:08
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
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.

13-08-2022 21:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
Some gasses radiate IR light some do not.

ALL gases radiate IR light according the Stefan-Boltzmann law.



No they don't. Have you been smoking Canadus again? Talk about stupid humor, Canadians are alright. What happened to you? Don't tell me you put mushrooms
and parsley on your pizza again.

Yes they do. You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law again.
James_ wrote:
For you Duncan, Psilocybin mushroom and cannabis.
He forgot that KE = 3/2kT in a J-T field will not always agree with S-B. This is because different gasses will have different J-T quotients. Some gasses will warm and become more excited in a field with less pressure and heat.

JamesBabble. You cannot set aside the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


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
RE: science denial and plenty of insults14-08-2022 09:09
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(197)
Roj475, you are correct in your preliminary assessment of this website.

I'm pulling up a thread from a few months back for your attention.

One is about potential mitigation of the depletion of alkalinity in the ocean.

The other is about maximizing carbon sequestration in agroecosystems.

Science can be discussed without being "debated".

The "debate" becomes one of vocabulary word games in most cases.

If you are well versed in chemistry, you might want to interact with someone who isn't looking for a fight.



Roj475 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Can you point out an instance of science denial?
.


I do not recall saying anything about science denial.

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.

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?

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... 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.

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?

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.



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... In your world that is termed religion?
14-08-2022 11:41
duncan61
★★★★★
(2003)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
Some gasses radiate IR light some do not.

ALL gases radiate IR light according the Stefan-Boltzmann law.



No they don't. Have you been smoking Canadus again? Talk about stupid humor, Canadians are alright. What happened to you? Don't tell me you put mushrooms
and parsley on your pizza again.

Yes they do. You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law again.
James_ wrote:
For you Duncan, Psilocybin mushroom and cannabis.
He forgot that KE = 3/2kT in a J-T field will not always agree with S-B. This is because different gasses will have different J-T quotients. Some gasses will warm and become more excited in a field with less pressure and heat.

JamesBabble. You cannot set aside the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


I am just starting to learn the Stefan-Boltzmann law.Can you give me the correct definition as there seems to be a lot of variables.Is there more than one law


duncan61
14-08-2022 14:18
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
duncan61 wrote:I am just starting to learn the Stefan-Boltzmann law.Can you give me the correct definition as there seems to be a lot of variables.Is there more than one law

duncan, there is only one Stefan-Boltzmann law and it is the killer of the greenhouse effect. You are wise for learning it.

You are mistaken about there being many variables. There are only two. There are also two constants. Variables can "vary" while constants do not change, i.e. they remain constant

First, Stefan-Boltzmann always deals with absolute temperature so it always has to be in Kelvin

All matter radiates thermally. All matter. Always. Everywhere. It radiates to the fourth power of its absolute temperature. That's the Stefan-Boltzmann law expressed in English. As you know, all science is properly expressed unambiguously in math (or other formal notation) so the correct expression is:

RADIANCE = TEMPERATURE ^4 * Emissivity_Constant * Stefan-Boltzmann_Constant

You don't feel a chunk of metal at room temperature, but if you increase its temperature by 80 degrees C you can warm your hands by it from a distance without touching it. Increase its temperature another 300 C and you'll feel it from across the room. All matter radiates at the fourth power of its absolute temperature.

Stefan-Boltzmann kills greenhouse effect. You've heard the shtick that CO2 reduces the earth's radiance while increasing its temperature. The words wamizombies use are "CO2 traps the energy and prevents it from radiating into space, thus increasing the earth's temperature.". Stefan-Boltzmann tells us that Temperature and Radiance necessarily move in the same direction, never in opposite directions. If you tell me that the earth's radiance has decreased, you have told me that the earth's temperature has decreased, not increased.

.
Edited on 14-08-2022 14:20
15-08-2022 00:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
duncan61 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
Some gasses radiate IR light some do not.

ALL gases radiate IR light according the Stefan-Boltzmann law.



No they don't. Have you been smoking Canadus again? Talk about stupid humor, Canadians are alright. What happened to you? Don't tell me you put mushrooms
and parsley on your pizza again.

Yes they do. You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law again.
James_ wrote:
For you Duncan, Psilocybin mushroom and cannabis.
He forgot that KE = 3/2kT in a J-T field will not always agree with S-B. This is because different gasses will have different J-T quotients. Some gasses will warm and become more excited in a field with less pressure and heat.

JamesBabble. You cannot set aside the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


I am just starting to learn the Stefan-Boltzmann law.Can you give me the correct definition as there seems to be a lot of variables.Is there more than one law

The Stefan-Boltzmann law describes the conversion of thermal energy to electromagnetic energy (light).

r = C * e * t^4: Where 'r' is radiance in watts (electromagnetic energy), 'C' is a natural constant, 'e' is a measured constant, and 't' is temperature in deg K.

'C' is a natural constant. It's purpose is to convert the relation to our units of measurement.

'e' is emissivity, or how well a surface emits or absorbs lights, as opposed to reflecting, refracting, or is translucent. This is a measured constant. To measure it, you must first accurately know the temperature of the surface being measured, and comparing against an ideally black body at the same temperature.

The Earth and all real bodies are 'gray' bodies, which reflect some light. An ideal black body reflects no light and absorbs and emits all light.

This makes 't' an independent variable, and 'r' a dependent variable. You cannot apply the usual rules of algebra to this equation due to this difference.

In other words, you cannot use 'r' to deduce 't', since 'e' is unknowable without first knowing accurately 't'.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
Therefore, it is not possible to measure the emissivity of Earth.

ALL materials emit the same, regardless of what they are. Emissivity is a function of the roughness of a surface, not what the surface is made of. Shiny metals, for example, have less emissivity (and absorptivity) then a tarnished or painted metal has.

For gases, the 'surface' is all of the gas. It doesn't matter what the gas is made of.

The Stefan-Boltzmann has no frequency term. ALL frequencies of light are used. One of the ways of generating this law is to integrate Planck's law over all frequencies (or at least over all practically obtainable and measurable frequencies!
).


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
15-08-2022 10:18
Roj475
★☆☆☆☆
(60)
HarveyH55 wrote:
What is there to debate? Climate Change is a hoax, a scam. The only thing to discuss, would be why. What do 'they' hope to achieve.


Let me guess... Make companies rich, back handers to politicians...

Coronovirus is fake, the vaccines have agendas... It's all combined to control you..
15-08-2022 13:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
Roj475 wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
What is there to debate? Climate Change is a hoax, a scam. The only thing to discuss, would be why. What do 'they' hope to achieve.


Let me guess... Make companies rich, back handers to politicians...

Coronovirus is fake, the vaccines have agendas... It's all combined to control you..

Let me guess, it's all true because it's what you were told to believe, right?

Let me guess, being rich is evil, right? ... Just like capitalism, right?
15-08-2022 14:44
duncan61
★★★★★
(2003)
IBDm wrote
Stefan-Boltzmann kills greenhouse effect. You've heard the shtick that CO2 reduces the earth's radiance while increasing its temperature. The words wamizombies use are "CO2 traps the energy and prevents it from radiating into space, thus increasing the earth's temperature.". Stefan-Boltzmann tells us that Temperature and Radiance necessarily move in the same direction, never in opposite directions. If you tell me that the earth's radiance has decreased, you have told me that the earth's temperature has decreased, not increased.

.I am going to think about this for a while
15-08-2022 16:06
duncan61
★★★★★
(2003)
I understand this so far
The Stefan–Boltzmann law describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature.
RE: 30 new members just since spring, they all leave15-08-2022 19:44
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(197)
Roj475 wrote:
This wasn't the question I came here to ask, but would I be right in saying that this site, climate-debate.com, is more denial site than a debate site?

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

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

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

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


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

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.
15-08-2022 21:16
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
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?
15-08-2022 21:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
duncan61 wrote:
I understand this so far
The Stefan–Boltzmann law describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature.

All bodies, actually. It is called 'black body' radiance though. It is not the only way to generate light.


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
15-08-2022 22:23
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
duncan61 wrote:I understand this so far
The Stefan–Boltzmann law describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature.

It's the RADIANCE of the body that is described. What is the difference?

Radiance is the total power of the body divided by the total surface area. Essentially, it is an average, i.e. average power per area.

If you multiply the body's Radiance by its total surface area, you get its total thermal emission power.

The word "black" in "black body" refers to the (mostly) infra-red nature of thermal emission. It's "black" because it (mostly) falls outside the visible light spectrum.

If only we could travel back in time and get them to choose a better name, like "thermal bodies" (referring to the thermal radiation) as opposed to "black bodies" (referring to emissions not being visible) by pointing to the sun and saying "Hey, you morons, it's totally visible! There's nothing black about it!"

All matter that radiates is a black body, and all matter radiates. You will see the term "grey body" periodically in lay discussions in relation to all matter having an emissivity greater than zero and less than 1.0 (or in explanations to lay-people) ... but in science there is no such thing as a "grey body." All matter is a "black body" by virtue of radiating thermally. The theoretical limit is an "ideal black body" which has an emissivity of 1.0 ... and that just does not exist in nature. When you hear/read someone mention "grey bodies" ... just be aware that there are only "black bodies" ... and that all matter is a form of "black body" ... just not an ideal black body, because those don't exist.
16-08-2022 03:03
duncan61
★★★★★
(2003)
I am trying to connect this to IR passing through Oxygen and Nitrogen but being absorbed and radiated by CO2.The word bonding keeps getting a mention.The owner of the bathroom is an engineer and is helping me work through it
Page 1 of 4123>>>





Join the debate General Question in General Forum.:

Remember me

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

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


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