New Posters beware!

Im a BM wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
Just ignore them its not hard to do.My concern was always is there any truth to the global warming claims and 3 years later it would take a lot of compelling evidence to get me to believe the planet is in climate trouble of any sort due to manmade emmisions,The planet is too big

If Jeppe Branner were interested in my advice, one member alluded to something called an "ignore feature".

Nobody would be banned or censored in any way.

I tried to figure out if there were already such a feature on this website, and I can't find it.

Maybe I just don't know where to look.

Would it be technically difficult to install such a feature, if it isn't here already?

I don't know.

I DID express to the site owner my belief that no intervention was required regarding banning anyone or taking time to step in as moderator.

I'd love to know more about what an "ignore feature" is, and whether or not this is something that Branner Jeppe could easily install, if it isn't already here.

Personally, I'd love to have the option to easily avoid having to hear the noise.

duncan61 wrote:
I am on enough gun and you can block other posters. You can see they have posted and you have the option to open their posts or just go straight past.I blocked one poster who called himself Daddy bang and he often posted pictures of his very young daughter in nappies and nothing else.He was a full on Far North Queensland sort of guy and argued with me that I could not of had a BREN Gun in the Australian Army.I served May 83-May86 and Transport and Engineers had Australian converted to 308/7.62 NATO L4A1 BREN Guns.I ended up posting my service certificate to prove it but he still would not get it.He did not last much longer as he was getting in to everyone on the site.ITN and IBDM would argue its freedom of speach but I think forums should be moderated.They both would have been gone a long time ago

duncan61 wrote:
Sealover.If you want to head over to Earth Science Stack Exchange.I have just found it and finding it interesting

duncan61 wrote:
I am on enough gun and you can block other posters. You can see they have posted and you have the option to open their posts or just go straight past.I blocked one poster who called himself Daddy bang and he often posted pictures of his very young daughter in nappies and nothing else.He was a full on Far North Queensland sort of guy and argued with me that I could not of had a BREN Gun in the Australian Army.I served May 83-May86 and Transport and Engineers had Australian converted to 308/7.62 NATO L4A1 BREN Guns.I ended up posting my service certificate to prove it but he still would not get it.He did not last much longer as he was getting in to everyone on the site.ITN and IBDM would argue its freedom of speach but I think forums should be moderated.They both would have been gone a long time ago

Im a BM wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
I am on enough gun and you can block other posters. You can see they have posted and you have the option to open their posts or just go straight past.I blocked one poster who called himself Daddy bang and he often posted pictures of his very young daughter in nappies and nothing else.He was a full on Far North Queensland sort of guy and argued with me that I could not of had a BREN Gun in the Australian Army.I served May 83-May86 and Transport and Engineers had Australian converted to 308/7.62 NATO L4A1 BREN Guns.I ended up posting my service certificate to prove it but he still would not get it.He did not last much longer as he was getting in to everyone on the site.ITN and IBDM would argue its freedom of speach but I think forums should be moderated.They both would have been gone a long time ago

I agree with you duncan61, that one should have the will power to ignore the bullies.

Im a BM wrote:
I started to invite a bunch of students and instructors when I first got here, and had to renege.

Im a BM wrote:
The insults are just too ugly.

Im a BM wrote:
The two big ****s who have done 95% of the damage have an excellent track record of driving people away.

1600 signed up. 1590 were driven away.

Im a BM wrote:
In my case, my first day here I was called a "liar" immediately, accused of being a Communist infiltrator, and ridiculed for not understanding any science.

Im a BM wrote:
It shouldn't require extra thick skin to discuss scientific reality on a website.

Im a BM wrote:
A moderator would have been good to have in the last seven years.

Im a BM wrote:
But, it looks like OTHER websites actually HAVE an "ignore feature".

Im a BM wrote:
That may be my suggestion in my next email to Jeppe Branner.

Im a BM wrote:
I think he was a bit too unwilling to see the truth of the sociopathic sadist thing.

That was not name calling.

That was just identifying an observable characteristic of the dominant troll.

duncan61 wrote:
I am on enough gun and you can block other posters. You can see they have posted and you have the option to open their posts or just go straight past.I blocked one poster who called himself Daddy bang and he often posted pictures of his very young daughter in nappies and nothing else.He was a full on Far North Queensland sort of guy and argued with me that I could not of had a BREN Gun in the Australian Army.I served May 83-May86 and Transport and Engineers had Australian converted to 308/7.62 NATO L4A1 BREN Guns.I ended up posting my service certificate to prove it but he still would not get it.He did not last much longer as he was getting in to everyone on the site.ITN and IBDM would argue its freedom of speach but I think forums should be moderated.They both would have been gone a long time ago

squeal over furniture's sock wrote:Even advanced degrees from the world's most prestigious universities and publications in the world's most prestigious scientific journals are dismissed as meaningless.

squeal over furniture's sock wrote:Even the vocabulary that real world scientists all understand is dismissed as meaningless. "Buzzwords."

squeal over furniture's sock wrote:But I think that installing an ignore feature could make a world of difference.

Im a BM wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
I am on enough gun and you can block other posters. You can see they have posted and you have the option to open their posts or just go straight past.I blocked one poster who called himself Daddy bang and he often posted pictures of his very young daughter in nappies and nothing else.He was a full on Far North Queensland sort of guy and argued with me that I could not of had a BREN Gun in the Australian Army.I served May 83-May86 and Transport and Engineers had Australian converted to 308/7.62 NATO L4A1 BREN Guns.I ended up posting my service certificate to prove it but he still would not get it.He did not last much longer as he was getting in to everyone on the site.ITN and IBDM would argue its freedom of speach but I think forums should be moderated.They both would have been gone a long time ago

I agree with you duncan61, that one should have the will power to ignore the bullies.

I started to invite a bunch of students and instructors when I first got here, and had to renege.

The insults are just too ugly.

The two big ****s who have done 95% of the damage have an excellent track record of driving people away.

1600 signed up. 1590 were driven away.

In my case, my first day here I was called a "liar" immediately, accused of being a Communist infiltrator, and ridiculed for not understanding any science.

It shouldn't require extra thick skin to discuss scientific reality on a website.

A moderator would have been good to have in the last seven years.

But, it looks like OTHER websites actually HAVE an "ignore feature".

That may be my suggestion in my next email to Jeppe Branner.

I think he was a bit too unwilling to see the truth of the sociopathic sadist thing.

That was not name calling.

That was just identifying an observable characteristic of the dominant troll.

squealing while bent over the furniture wrote:
It is enraging to be called a liar by a liar.

branner wrote:
@sealover
Your science related posts are very welcome on the site. You have started a lot of interesting threads related to climate science, which I appreciate.

@All posters
Just keep writing about climate change, and stick to that, instead of personal attacks and spam.

And no, I have NO PLANS of closing down or selling the site.

GasGuzzler wrote:

squealing while bent over the furniture wrote:
It is enraging to be called a liar by a liar.

It is enraging when my hard earned tax dollars are being wasted to save a planet from warming by people who don't have a fugging clue what heat is or how it flows.

Go ahead and tell me more about heat residence time and radiational energy. Then tell me your PhD isn't worthless.

sealover wrote:

branner wrote:
@sealover
Your science related posts are very welcome on the site. You have started a lot of interesting threads related to climate science, which I appreciate.

@All posters
Just keep writing about climate change, and stick to that, instead of personal attacks and spam.

And no, I have NO PLANS of closing down or selling the site.

Hello, Jeppe Branner.

You have known my true identity for months now.

But I never once published my name here.

I have now been doxed by the dominant troll.

He has used your website to publish defamatory lies of about person for whom he has provided identifying information - name, former place of employment, etc.

He has been shitting all over your website for years in many other ways.

Now he is also using your platform to commit libel. A criminal act.

sealover wrote:

branner wrote:
@sealover
Your science related posts are very welcome on the site. You have started a lot of interesting threads related to climate science, which I appreciate.

@All posters
Just keep writing about climate change, and stick to that, instead of personal attacks and spam.

And no, I have NO PLANS of closing down or selling the site.

Hello, Jeppe Branner.

You have known my true identity for months now.

But I never once published my name here.

I have now been doxed by the dominant troll.

He has used your website to publish defamatory lies of about person for whom he has provided identifying information - name, former place of employment, etc.

He has been shitting all over your website for years in many other ways.

Now he is also using your platform to commit libel. A criminal act.

James_ wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

squealing while bent over the furniture wrote:
It is enraging to be called a liar by a liar.

It is enraging when my hard earned tax dollars are being wasted to save a planet from warming by people who don't have a fugging clue what heat is or how it flows.

Go ahead and tell me more about heat residence time and radiational energy. Then tell me your PhD isn't worthless.

Heat is a flow of energy. A flow of energy is created proportional to
KE = 1/2mv^2 = 3/2kT. This is pretty basic.
Can we please move beyond the basics a 6th grader would understand?

Ceist wrote:
New posters beware!

This forum is almost completely neglected by it's owner and is virtually unmoderated, so it has become the last refuge of a small handful of hardcore science deniers and conspiracy theorists who exhibit strong signs of mental illness - including personality disorders, autism spectrum disorders, narcissistic irrational and delusional thinking, emotional dis-regulation, paranoia, pathological lying, and abusive sociopathic manipulative behavior.

They have probably been banned from other forums for their poor behavior just as much as for their trolling of utterly irrational scientifically illiterate crackpot ideas.

Post at your own risk.


2 new members just joined.

Odds are, neither of them will post anything before they realize that they joined the wrong site.

They will look at the many threads and see what kind of discussion is going on.

They will decide it is a waste of time to get involved, like all but ten of the 1618 members ultimately concluded.

Or, they will be among the less than half of new members who go ahead and try to post something.

In that case, they will give up after fewer than three attempts.

One only needs to post three times to become one of the most "active" members at the website.

That is because those who have posted between 5000 and 20000 times have successfully driven them all away.

duncan61 wrote:Let me guess.This is not true What is heat energy easy definition?

duncan61 wrote:
Let me guess.This is not true
What is heat energy easy definition?
Heat is the form of energy that is transferred between systems or objects with different temperatures (flowing from the high-temperature system to the low-temperature system). Also referred to as heat energy or thermal energy. Heat is typically measured in Btu, calories or joules.

Ceist wrote:
New posters beware!

This forum is almost completely neglected by it's owner and is virtually unmoderated, so it has become the last refuge of a small handful of hardcore science deniers and conspiracy theorists who exhibit strong signs of mental illness - including personality disorders, autism spectrum disorders, narcissistic irrational and delusional thinking, emotional dis-regulation, paranoia, pathological lying, and abusive sociopathic manipulative behavior.

They have probably been banned from other forums for their poor behavior just as much as for their trolling of utterly irrational scientifically illiterate crackpot ideas.

Post at your own risk.

Im a BM wrote:
climate-debate.com is unfortunate result for Internet searches

climate-debate.com is listed among top results for Internet searches using terms such as "climate change discussion website"

Yet there are only a handful of members actually posting anything.

According to the number of "views" listed for the threads, it is the same handful of members who are actually looking at the content of this website.

Yet, there are supposedly 181 Guests online at the time of this sentence.

Perhaps search engines are being deceived by an illusion of thousands of guests per day visiting this site.

When I joined I saw an advertisement here for a website of a local County government department, located in Solano County next to where I live.

The website had general information about climate change and specific information about water conservation policies and coping with local drought, heat waves, and increased risk of wildfire.

Somebody paid for a targeted ad to the only poster anywhere near northern California visiting this website.

Did they believe that all the "Guests online" (now it's down to 160) were real human beings actually viewing anything?

Why would Internet search engines put this website at or near the top of the list of results for ANYTHING, given the reality that only a handful of people view it?

It is unfortunate that they do, because what people find here is... unfortunate.

Mental illness is on full display, and denigrating personal attacks are the socially acceptable norm among a tiny anti science religious cult.

The website owner is fully aware of what the site really is.

I imagine there must be some benefit imparted by directing search engines and advertisers to believe that thousands of guests visit every day.

But the website does more harm than good by being the first stop for newbies who clicked on the top result provided by the search engines.

The number 1619 for members is not an illusion. 1619 real human beings signed up to participate in the discussion. Well below 1% of them liked it enough to stay. The handful who do post have been doing it for years.

So, "New posters beware!"

Advertisers and search engines should beware as well.

I hope that my neighbor Solano County didn't pay too much for that ad.

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

Ceist wrote:
New posters beware!

This forum is almost completely neglected by it's owner and is virtually unmoderated, so it has become the last refuge of a small handful of hardcore science deniers and conspiracy theorists who exhibit strong signs of mental illness - including personality disorders, autism spectrum disorders, narcissistic irrational and delusional thinking, emotional dis-regulation, paranoia, pathological lying, and abusive sociopathic manipulative behavior.

They have probably been banned from other forums for their poor behavior just as much as for their trolling of utterly irrational scientifically illiterate crackpot ideas.

Post at your own risk.

Im a BM wrote:
climate-debate.com is unfortunate result for Internet searches

climate-debate.com is listed among top results for Internet searches using terms such as "climate change discussion website"

Yet there are only a handful of members actually posting anything.

According to the number of "views" listed for the threads, it is the same handful of members who are actually looking at the content of this website.

Yet, there are supposedly 181 Guests online at the time of this sentence.

Perhaps search engines are being deceived by an illusion of thousands of guests per day visiting this site.

When I joined I saw an advertisement here for a website of a local County government department, located in Solano County next to where I live.

The website had general information about climate change and specific information about water conservation policies and coping with local drought, heat waves, and increased risk of wildfire.

Somebody paid for a targeted ad to the only poster anywhere near northern California visiting this website.

Did they believe that all the "Guests online" (now it's down to 160) were real human beings actually viewing anything?

Why would Internet search engines put this website at or near the top of the list of results for ANYTHING, given the reality that only a handful of people view it?

It is unfortunate that they do, because what people find here is... unfortunate.

Mental illness is on full display, and denigrating personal attacks are the socially acceptable norm among a tiny anti science religious cult.

The website owner is fully aware of what the site really is.

I imagine there must be some benefit imparted by directing search engines and advertisers to believe that thousands of guests visit every day.

But the website does more harm than good by being the first stop for newbies who clicked on the top result provided by the search engines.

The number 1619 for members is not an illusion. 1619 real human beings signed up to participate in the discussion. Well below 1% of them liked it enough to stay. The handful who do post have been doing it for years.

So, "New posters beware!"

Advertisers and search engines should beware as well.

I hope that my neighbor Solano County didn't pay too much for that ad.

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

Ceist wrote:
New posters beware!

This forum is almost completely neglected by it's owner and is virtually unmoderated, so it has become the last refuge of a small handful of hardcore science deniers and conspiracy theorists who exhibit strong signs of mental illness - including personality disorders, autism spectrum disorders, narcissistic irrational and delusional thinking, emotional dis-regulation, paranoia, pathological lying, and abusive sociopathic manipulative behavior.

They have probably been banned from other forums for their poor behavior just as much as for their trolling of utterly irrational scientifically illiterate crackpot ideas.

Post at your own risk.

Im a BM wrote:Why would Internet search engines put this website at or near the top of the list of results for ANYTHING, given the reality that only a handful of people view it?

keepit wrote:More of the silent majority ibd.

keepit wrote:Come on now, don't be imaginary.

keepit wrote:
More of the silent majority ibd.
Come on now, don't be imaginary.

keepit wrote:
More of the silent majority ibd.
Come on now, don't be imaginary.

Im a BM wrote:

keepit wrote:
More of the silent majority ibd.
Come on now, don't be imaginary.

Advertisers beware! Van Gogh art exhibit in Sacramento.

What is "imaginary" is the number of "Guests online".

Im a BM wrote:
When I opened up the website today, I saw an ad for the Van Gogh art exhibit in Sacramento.

Im a BM wrote:
They got tricked into paying for ad space on a fraudulent website.

Im a BM wrote:
I doubt that anyone besides myself who actually views the site lives within 300 miles of Sacramento.

Im a BM wrote:
The number of "views" on the threads is a more accurate indicator of how few people actually view the site.

squeal over squealed:Advertisers beware! Van Gogh art exhibit in Sacramento.

IBdaMann wrote:

squeal over squealed:Advertisers beware! Van Gogh art exhibit in Sacramento.

I hope you're sitting down. I have some bad news for you. You know I hate to be the one to splash cold water on you so I'll put it delicately.

You're a total idiot. It hurts me to be the one to break it to you.

You got the advertising for the exhibit specifically because your IP address indicates you are in that area. It's known as "targeted advertising." gfm7175 probably did not receive advertising for the art exhibit in Sacramento. I did not receive the advertising either. Ask Xadoman and duncan if they got any advertising for Sacramento's Van Gogh art exhibit.

Google did not get to where it is today by having stupid people like you running its advertising.

Im a BM wrote:

keepit wrote:
More of the silent majority ibd.
Come on now, don't be imaginary.

Advertisers beware! Van Gogh art exhibit in Sacramento.

What is "imaginary" is the number of "Guests online".

When I opened up the website today, I saw an ad for the Van Gogh art exhibit in Sacramento.

They got tricked into paying for ad space on a fraudulent website.

I doubt that anyone besides myself who actually views the site lives within 300 miles of Sacramento.

The number of "views" on the threads is a more accurate indicator of how few people actually view the site.

Im a ButtMuncher wrote:
What makes climate-debate.com a "fraudulent" website?

Im a ButtMuncher wrote:
At the writing of this sentence, there is 1 "Users online", and I guess it's me.

Im a ButtMuncher wrote:
There are 3 "Guests online", and this is plausible.

Im a ButtMuncher wrote:
This looks like an accurate measure of actual viewing and activity.

Im a ButtMuncher wrote:
Probably within an hour or two, it will claim that there are 50-200 "Guests online".

Im a ButtMuncher wrote:
This will be implausible,

Im a ButtMuncher wrote:
as there will be no additional "views" shown on any threads.

Im a ButtMuncher wrote:
It is implausible that 50-200 people simply stare at a list of threads for 15 minutes.

Im a ButtMuncher wrote:
When it then goes back to showing 3 "Guests online", it will be plausible again.

Im a ButtMuncher wrote:
It may not be "fraudulent" in any legal sense to create the illusion of heavy traffic, but it is certainly a deception.

Im a ButtMuncher wrote:
The website owner is a scumbag.

Im a Bowel Movement wrote:
The website owner is a scumbag.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Im a Bowel Movement wrote:
The website owner is a scumbag.

Wait....was this an applause line?

Im a BM wrote:
What makes climate-debate.com a "fraudulent" website?

At the writing of this sentence, there is 1 "Users online", and I guess it's me.

There are 3 "Guests online", and this is plausible.

This looks like an accurate measure of actual viewing and activity.

Probably within an hour or two, it will claim that there are 50-200 "Guests online".

This will be implausible, as there will be no additional "views" shown on any threads.

It is implausible that 50-200 people simply stare at a list of threads for 15 minutes.

When it then goes back to showing 3 "Guests online", it will be plausible again.

It may not be "fraudulent" in any legal sense to create the illusion of heavy traffic, but it is certainly a deception.

The website owner is a scumbag.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Im a BM wrote:

keepit wrote:
More of the silent majority ibd.
Come on now, don't be imaginary.

Advertisers beware! Van Gogh art exhibit in Sacramento.

What is "imaginary" is the number of "Guests online".

When I opened up the website today, I saw an ad for the Van Gogh art exhibit in Sacramento.

They got tricked into paying for ad space on a fraudulent website.

I doubt that anyone besides myself who actually views the site lives within 300 miles of Sacramento.

The number of "views" on the threads is a more accurate indicator of how few people actually view the site.

James_ wrote:What you observed might show that people don't have an interest in ad hominem attacks and pseudo science to explain irrational views.

Ceist wrote:
New posters beware!

This forum is almost completely neglected by it's owner and is virtually unmoderated, so it has become the last refuge of a small handful of hardcore science deniers and conspiracy theorists who exhibit strong signs of mental illness - including personality disorders, autism spectrum disorders, narcissistic irrational and delusional thinking, emotional dis-regulation, paranoia, pathological lying, and abusive sociopathic manipulative behavior.

They have probably been banned from other forums for their poor behavior just as much as for their trolling of utterly irrational scientifically illiterate crackpot ideas.

Post at your own risk.

Robert Wagner wrote:

Ceist wrote:
New posters beware!

This forum is almost completely neglected by it's owner and is virtually unmoderated, so it has become the last refuge of a small handful of hardcore science deniers and conspiracy theorists who exhibit strong signs of mental illness - including personality disorders, autism spectrum disorders, narcissistic irrational and delusional thinking, emotional dis-regulation, paranoia, pathological lying, and abusive sociopathic manipulative behavior.

They have probably been banned from other forums for their poor behavior just as much as for their trolling of utterly irrational scientifically illiterate crackpot ideas.

Post at your own risk.

He wasn' far off.

IBdaMann wrote:

Robert Wagner wrote:

Ceist wrote:
New posters beware!

This forum is almost completely neglected by it's owner and is virtually unmoderated, so it has become the last refuge of a small handful of hardcore science deniers and conspiracy theorists who exhibit strong signs of mental illness - including personality disorders, autism spectrum disorders, narcissistic irrational and delusional thinking, emotional dis-regulation, paranoia, pathological lying, and abusive sociopathic manipulative behavior.

They have probably been banned from other forums for their poor behavior just as much as for their trolling of utterly irrational scientifically illiterate crackpot ideas.

Post at your own risk.

He wasn' far off.

We have already established that you are the primary troll on the Danish site (KlimaDebat.dk). Are you trying to be the commensurate troll and cover all your bases?