New Posters beware!

Leafsdude wrote:

Please note that personal attacks are not welcome on Climate-Debate.com. I know that the forum has not been moderated so much lately, but users have been banned before, and that could easily happen again.

I probably shouldn't do this, but I have PMed you about it and received no response, so I feel a need to bring this up publicly:

IMO, any and all attempts to question the authenticity of one's posting, being it baselessly claiming trolling, asserting lying or intentional misleading of facts or otherwise arguing that a claim is false because the person posting it isn't being honest only leads to discussion about individuals and not legitimate debate.

Threads like this one and many others like it do a great disservice to anyone, on either side, looking to have an honest debate. No one should have their thoughtfully expressed ideas tossed aside unceremoniously, let alone without a reasonably similar thoughtful response, even if the content from either (or both) sides is flawed.

In short, I think this place would see a great improvement with even minimal moderation where any post that suggests, explicitly or otherwise, that a post is intentionally deceitful is deleted, as such posts, from my viewpoint as a relatively new poster, is way too common around here.

Ceist wrote:

branner wrote:
Please note that personal attacks are not welcome on Climate-Debate.com. I know that the forum has not been moderated so much lately, but users have been banned before, and that could easily happen again.

Therefore: Stop talking about mental illnesses or calling each other names. Surface Detail had a good advice, which I would like to copy: "Stay calm, ignore the abuse, and stick to the science."

Please send me a Private Message if something needs my immediate attention.

And to the new users: Welcome to Climate-Debate.com. I'm fully aware that this can be a tough place, but I hope you will help pushing it in a good direction. I still hope to get more time to moderate soon.

Internet trolls are often narcissistic, psychopathic and sadistic:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-online-secrets/201409/internet-trolls-are-narcissists-psychopaths-and-sadists

The reason this forum won't be 'pushed in a good direction' and has become a complete joke, is that you've neglected it and allowed a narcissistic psychopathic sadistic troll to overrun it and make it his personal playground. Most visitors don't stay around for long -because of one particular poster.

Look at the most active user in the last year:

http://www.climate-debate.com/topusers.php

IBdaMann.

2nd most active user is his little internet side-kick - Into the Night.

sealover wrote:
I respect that you are respectful. Sincerely.

I have not known how to respond to your inquiries, but I have never once imagined that you were acting in bad faith, motivated by sadistic desire to hurl insults as a reflexive naysayer.

So, thank you for being respectful.

Yes, biogeochemistry is real. Thank you for acknowledging that.

I was not sure if your inquiries were completely genuine, and your questions seemed to include underlying assumptions that were complicating to answer.

Now, I see how you are indeed offering a whole different class of discourse.

I see your good faith and sincerity.

I will make no attempt in this post to connect my more intimate knowledge of biogeochemistry to broader questions of what scientific knowledge makes me a FULL BLOWN ALARMIST about anthropogenic global weirding.

I will just say that I intend to return the respect that you have displayed and I would LOVE to tell you why I believe what I believe, as an alarmed scientist.

I respect that you are respectful. Sincerely.

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

duncan61 wrote:
sealover, an actual PhD biogeochemist with relevant knowledge to share.

Biogeochemistry is a relatively new scientific discipline that explores the physical, chemical, biological, and geological processes and reactions that govern the composition of and changes to the natural environment.

What you do is real and I am curious as to why you believe the Earth is warming and why warming is bad.Could you be more specific.You are aware the entire Northern coast of Australia is mangrove swamps and wetlands.

You seem to spend all your time engaging ITN and IBDM.Fascinating as I am interested in what you do and they are not.I have been fighting with this pair for 3 years and they have different styles.IBDM will find one word or phrase and attack that and insult the crap out of you.ITN just puts up the shutters and denies everything.ITN claims no one knows where coal comes from yet I have met many people who do.To admit it is ancient plant growth means that the term fossil fuel is acceptable does in their faith.This pair feel the election was a fraud yet here we are.The list goes on.Answer my question please

sealover wrote:
Yes, we have a deal

I was told that I was a "liar" when I told a story about the coral reef where I saw the damage with my own eyes.

I was even shown photographic "proof" of my "lie".

I have worked closely with many other scientists. We can't ALL be stupid.

We can't be finding ourselves more ignorant as we gather more information.

I don't want to call anyone else a liar, but I have seen where large swaths of rainforest have been cleared. It's not imaginary.

There are a few success stories, but mostly it's just getting worse.

The president of Brazil basically INVITED squatters to go into indigenous land and clear the rainforest. NOBODY HAS PAID A FINE THERE IN YEARS.

I refuse to argue with someone who refuses to see any problem of any kind.

It is a waste of my time AND yours.

And, yes, we had a deal.

There is no need for me to interact directly with the trolls here any more.

I apologize if I come off as disrespectful, but there are plenty of people who don't need to be convinced that the problem is real.

Some of them even want to discuss SOLUTIONS.

I can tell you where I get most of my information - scientific journals.

I don't have time to provide a bunch of basic background references.

Especially since I know in advance anything I present will be rejected instantly.

I'd rather answer a question about biogeochemical mechanisms.

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

duncan61 wrote:
I have to ask where you get your information.Have you flown over the Amazon recently.My local dive site is Mettams pool which is in the Marmion marine park and it is pristine.I did my PADI open dive course out of Townsville in 1984 and where we dove was amazing.Jennifer Marohasy and Tim ball are all up into the Barrier reef.Check their work.The people claiming the reef is in trouble are not even there.Coral can go through rapid water temp changes.They expel the zooxanthellae because they do it has no relationship to water temperature if the water temperature is actually changing.These are the realities I live with.I am not trying to gloss over and I receive no commision check from petrol/gas companies.At Busselton jetty there are corals that live 1000s of kms further North and the water temps are vastly different.Do we have a deal on not responding to the clowns on this thread?Can you tell me what has got you alarmed?

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.

sealover wrote:
Thank you!

You are decent in your behavior, regardless of whether or not we agree.

Not to get too technical, but nobody is worried about the pH of the ocean suddenly dropping below 7, or even below 8.

The problem is that the ocean's acid neutralizing capacity, also known as alkalinity, is being severely depleted. Most alkalinity in sea water arises from bicarbonate ions, and far smaller concentrations of carbonate ions.

This "carbonate system" buffers the sea against pH change, even as alkalinity is depleted.

In any case, I'm prepared to completely ignore the hecklers and have rational discussions with decent and respectful people, such as yourself.

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

duncan61 wrote:
Debate away sealover.What in the soil of the entire planet has given you reason to be alarmed,We are discussing climate change.I am going fishing at Trigg beach this afternoon and will take another sample and check the Potential for Hydrogen again and let you know if the limestone is starting to sizzle

sealover wrote:
My son was impressed!

He saw me scrolling past ugly clown pictures and asked me to stop so he could see what the heck THAT was.

He had fun going through them and showed me a bunch that I had not bothered to look at.

He wanted me to see that I was the center of attention.

Look how much work went into that PICTURE!

But that wasn't about ME was it?

Yes, look at all the details in the picture.

That must have taken a LOT of time and effort.

I'm glad my son pointed it out, because I had just quickly looked past it, as I quickly look past all the stupid words attached to the posts.

But somebody did ALL THAT just to honor ME.

And he showed me that there were more than a few of them. WOW!

Maybe I should pay closer attention to the desperate pleas for attention.

I'll try not to break any hearts, but I'm not really available for that kind of relationship.

I'm more into biogeochemistry than manly love from trolls.

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

GretaGroupie wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Post the troll that you want Greta-ized or post a link to the image.

Yippie!!!!

What if you put Rainbow Greta on his chest like this one. Actualy I thought this was Greta at first but then saw it was not. I know this will not be Greta Macho Troll cause she will not be on his face but we could call him Macho Troll Protector Of Rainbow Greta:

that is such a cool candle

sealover wrote:
It sounds like sealover posts are desired here.

As the unambiguous definition Gestapo have made clear, words are supposed to have some kind of meaning.

There is certainly more than one way to interpret Branner's words, but I imagine most folks would agree that generally endorses sealover's efforts.

I don't know if squatter's rights laws apply to the Internet.

If so, I don't know when they kick in.

If it is like common law marriage, it would require seven years of occupation.

Maybe the website doesn't legally belong to Branner any more.

It has been seven years.


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

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.

sealover wrote:
From Branner, April 25 email.

I'm taking the liberty of quoting a private email message from Branner without getting prior consent.

"My best hope for now is that more and more science based posts will appear, taking up more and more of the space, and slowly making the insults less dominant on the site.."

Good news, Jeppe. There are already fewer ugly clown pictures, and some of those guys are actually having a legitimate scientific debate about natural selection in evolutionary biology.

I can't believe it either!

An actual legitimate scientific debate now on THIS website.

Miracles never cease.

About natural selection.

Maybe someday a valid debate about climate.. if we're allowed to use the word.

I don't think that myself or the poop man are getting banned yet.

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

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.

sealover wrote:
And in my reply to Branner...

I trust that Jeppe Branner will not be offended if I share some of what I wrote to him in reply to his most recent (April 25) message.

"I don't think you need to intervene to ban anybody" - sealover

"I see no need for you to come in and act as moderator" - sealover

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

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.

sealover wrote:
Puzzled when it says more than 100 guests

Hello James

I hope that you know I am being sincere when I say that I like and respect you.

A serious question about meta data collection.

I have been baffled when I see to the left that suddenly more than 100 guests are on the site. They don't seem to post much, whoever they are.

I speculated that they were bots checking up on the spam bot posts, and it was all mindless based on the false promise at one time that this website would be fruitful to their interests.

I have no freaking idea what it might really be.

Do you?

It would help me understand the website better, and be appreciated.

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

James_ wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
I'm gonna go out on a limb here...

I suspect that the vision behind this website was not just to qualify as a god on the IBM smart person scale.

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

GretaGroupie wrote:
[quote]branner wrote:
And no, I have NO PLANS of closing down or selling the site.

Holey Bazoley your real

Did you know sealover thought I was you but I did think Spongy was sealover once too so I guess we all make mistakes.

You are like the wizard of oz who made this place but nobody sees. IBM is a know it all but you must be a god on his smart person scale.

So please, please, please tell us if climate change is real because as the wizard you must know. I used to think it was real when I was with the prof but now I'm not sure.
..

The real purpose might be to collect metadata. People sell that to
advertisers. Why you need to allow for cookies, the cookie monster loves collecting data and we're not talking Sesame Street cookie monster.

Im a BM wrote:
Clearly, you have had multiple excellent communications with Branner.

And, clearly, you have many friends.

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

IBdaMann wrote:

branner wrote:@All posters
Just keep writing about climate change, and stick to that

branner, you spend time on the Danish mirror site. Has anyone on that site ever defined the following:

1) The Global Climate
2) Climate Change
3) Global Warming
4) Greenhouse Effect
5) Climate Science

I have never seen any unambiguous definitions for these.

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

Would you consider listing it on airbnb for perhaps a weekly vacation rental?

.

Im a BM wrote:

Ceist wrote:

branner wrote:
Please note that personal attacks are not welcome on Climate-Debate.com. I know that the forum has not been moderated so much lately, but users have been banned before, and that could easily happen again.

Therefore: Stop talking about mental illnesses or calling each other names. Surface Detail had a good advice, which I would like to copy: "Stay calm, ignore the abuse, and stick to the science."

Please send me a Private Message if something needs my immediate attention.

And to the new users: Welcome to Climate-Debate.com. I'm fully aware that this can be a tough place, but I hope you will help pushing it in a good direction. I still hope to get more time to moderate soon.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 14, 2022 insertion into years old post:

My own communications with Jeppe Branner have been mainly about how I can help keep pushing it in a good direction.

So far, so good. And the site owner DOES care and DOES pay attention.

I fully understand how Ceist came to the underlying conclusion, years ago.

It is absolutely correct that "most visitors don't stay around for long - because of one particular poster... IBdaMann."

1600 people are "users". About 1590 of them don't want to be part of it now.

Ceist was absolutely correct about "2nd most active user is his little Internet sidekick - Into the Night."

However, if number of posts are the indicator of activity, sidekick has now taken the lead with something like 18000 posts, versus the cult leader's 12000.

Ceist was absolutely correct about how lack of adult supervision "allowed a narcissistic psychopathic sadistic troll to overrun it and make it his personal playground."

I will continue, as per Jeppe Branner's encouragement, to help keep pushing it in a good direction.

My only suggestion to Jeppe Branner would be to reconsider the policy of never banning a user without a thorough investigation to get both side's point of view in any conflict fair evaluation.

Without judgement, a simple new policy of term limits for posts.

Anyone who posts more than 10000 times had exceeded their term limit. Bye.

But if Jeppe Branner really need to give a fair hearing to both sides in a conflict,
there are 1590 on one side, and 2 on the other.

The following is what Ceist posted here, years ago.

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

Internet trolls are often narcissistic, psychopathic and sadistic:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-online-secrets/201409/internet-trolls-are-narcissists-psychopaths-and-sadists

The reason this forum won't be 'pushed in a good direction' and has become a complete joke, is that you've neglected it and allowed a narcissistic psychopathic sadistic troll to overrun it and make it his personal playground. Most visitors don't stay around for long -because of one particular poster.

Look at the most active user in the last year:

http://www.climate-debate.com/topusers.php

IBdaMann.

2nd most active user is his little internet side-kick - Into the Night.

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

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.

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 understand why you posted your service certificate.

It is enraging to be called a liar by a liar. A lying pedophile, no less.

Of course, even a service certificate was dismissed as meaningless, like some kind of "buzzword".

Even advanced degrees from the world's most prestigious universities and publications in the world's most prestigious scientific journals are dismissed as meaningless.

Even the vocabulary that real world scientists all understand is dismissed as meaningless. "Buzzwords."

But I think that installing an ignore feature could make a world of difference.

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:
On the thread

"Tell your old college professors about climate-debate.com for biogeochemistry"

Posted and published on 16-05-2022 at 02:35.

IBdaMann doxed a member about whom he has been publishing defamatory lies.

He published the member's full name, age, date of birth, city of residence, high school, names of sons, nephews, mother, place where he worked ten year ago...

If this isn't enough to get him banned, what is?

I'll email this to Jeppe Branner personally to be sure he doesn't miss it.

We're cool like that.

He LIKES what I've been doing here.

Said so himself, didn't he?

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

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.

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:
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.

branner wrote:
Please note that personal attacks are not welcome on Climate-Debate.com. I know that the forum has not been moderated so much lately, but users have been banned before, and that could easily happen again.

Therefore: Stop talking about mental illnesses or calling each other names. Surface Detail had a good advice, which I would like to copy: "Stay calm, ignore the abuse, and stick to the science."

Please send me a Private Message if something needs my immediate attention.

And to the new users: Welcome to Climate-Debate.com. I'm fully aware that this can be a tough place, but I hope you will help pushing it in a good direction. I still hope to get more time to moderate soon.

Im a BM wrote:

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.

Im a BM wrote:
"The words of the Klingon are unimportant, and we do not hear them." - Dr. McCoy.

Then "Bones" turns to whisper to Kirk, with a smile, "I just called him a liar."

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

HarveyH55 wrote:

sealover wrote:
From Branner, April 25 email.

I'm taking the liberty of quoting a private email message from Branner without getting prior consent.

"My best hope for now is that more and more science based posts will appear, taking up more and more of the space, and slowly making the insults less dominant on the site.."

Good news, Jeppe. There are already fewer ugly clown pictures, and some of those guys are actually having a legitimate scientific debate about natural selection in evolutionary biology.

I can't believe it either!

An actual legitimate scientific debate now on THIS website.

Miracles never cease.

About natural selection.

Maybe someday a valid debate about climate.. if we're allowed to use the word.

I don't think that myself or the poop man are getting banned yet.

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

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.

I think you are a fake, a phony, a fraud. Nothing you post, has any credibility. The use of a sock-henchman, the threat of May 1st mayhem, threats of banning long time members, who refuse to join your cult. From you track record here, you are probably faking these Emails as well. You have an obsession for attention, validation, respect, that you can only get, virtually. Offline, you are a total loser, with no hope of changing. You post articles, that consist of science-fantasy, or obscure nonsense, that really has little to do with nothing. Stuff that most, of any education level would care too much about, other than a passing interest, without questioning. Probably got you by, on other sites for a while, until you ran out of material, or posted total bullshit. Won't last here any better, since its bullshit, from your fantasy, virtual reality. From your first posts, your only way to build yourself up, to significance, has been to attempt to tear others down. You wouldn't need to bother, if you actually had anything else to start with. You lack the confidence, of someone, who actaully, knows, and has acheived anything in life. There are plenty of climate sites, for overly educated (indoctrinated) people, where you should fit right in, and discuss all the things you seem to want here. No need to add this site to that list. Not everyone has to agree, or follow.

sealover wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"The words of the Klingon are unimportant, and we do not hear them." - Dr. McCoy.

Then "Bones" turns to whisper to Kirk, with a smile, "I just called him a liar."

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

HarveyH55 wrote:

sealover wrote:
From Branner, April 25 email.

I'm taking the liberty of quoting a private email message from Branner without getting prior consent.

"My best hope for now is that more and more science based posts will appear, taking up more and more of the space, and slowly making the insults less dominant on the site.."

Good news, Jeppe. There are already fewer ugly clown pictures, and some of those guys are actually having a legitimate scientific debate about natural selection in evolutionary biology.

I can't believe it either!

An actual legitimate scientific debate now on THIS website.

Miracles never cease.

About natural selection.

Maybe someday a valid debate about climate.. if we're allowed to use the word.

I don't think that myself or the poop man are getting banned yet.

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

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.

I think you are a fake, a phony, a fraud. Nothing you post, has any credibility. The use of a sock-henchman, the threat of May 1st mayhem, threats of banning long time members, who refuse to join your cult. From you track record here, you are probably faking these Emails as well. You have an obsession for attention, validation, respect, that you can only get, virtually. Offline, you are a total loser, with no hope of changing. You post articles, that consist of science-fantasy, or obscure nonsense, that really has little to do with nothing. Stuff that most, of any education level would care too much about, other than a passing interest, without questioning. Probably got you by, on other sites for a while, until you ran out of material, or posted total bullshit. Won't last here any better, since its bullshit, from your fantasy, virtual reality. From your first posts, your only way to build yourself up, to significance, has been to attempt to tear others down. You wouldn't need to bother, if you actually had anything else to start with. You lack the confidence, of someone, who actaully, knows, and has acheived anything in life. There are plenty of climate sites, for overly educated (indoctrinated) people, where you should fit right in, and discuss all the things you seem to want here. No need to add this site to that list. Not everyone has to agree, or follow.

No point trying to discuss science on THIS website.

sealover wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"The words of the Klingon are unimportant, and we do not hear them." - Dr. McCoy.

Then "Bones" turns to whisper to Kirk, with a smile, "I just called him a liar."

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

HarveyH55 wrote:

sealover wrote:
From Branner, April 25 email.

I'm taking the liberty of quoting a private email message from Branner without getting prior consent.

"My best hope for now is that more and more science based posts will appear, taking up more and more of the space, and slowly making the insults less dominant on the site.."

Good news, Jeppe. There are already fewer ugly clown pictures, and some of those guys are actually having a legitimate scientific debate about natural selection in evolutionary biology.

I can't believe it either!

An actual legitimate scientific debate now on THIS website.

Miracles never cease.

About natural selection.

Maybe someday a valid debate about climate.. if we're allowed to use the word.

I don't think that myself or the poop man are getting banned yet.

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

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.

I think you are a fake, a phony, a fraud. Nothing you post, has any credibility. The use of a sock-henchman, the threat of May 1st mayhem, threats of banning long time members, who refuse to join your cult. From you track record here, you are probably faking these Emails as well. You have an obsession for attention, validation, respect, that you can only get, virtually. Offline, you are a total loser, with no hope of changing. You post articles, that consist of science-fantasy, or obscure nonsense, that really has little to do with nothing. Stuff that most, of any education level would care too much about, other than a passing interest, without questioning. Probably got you by, on other sites for a while, until you ran out of material, or posted total bullshit. Won't last here any better, since its bullshit, from your fantasy, virtual reality. From your first posts, your only way to build yourself up, to significance, has been to attempt to tear others down. You wouldn't need to bother, if you actually had anything else to start with. You lack the confidence, of someone, who actaully, knows, and has acheived anything in life. There are plenty of climate sites, for overly educated (indoctrinated) people, where you should fit right in, and discuss all the things you seem to want here. No need to add this site to that list. Not everyone has to agree, or follow.

No point trying to discuss science on THIS website.

James_ wrote:

sealover wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"The words of the Klingon are unimportant, and we do not hear them." - Dr. McCoy.

Then "Bones" turns to whisper to Kirk, with a smile, "I just called him a liar."

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

HarveyH55 wrote:

sealover wrote:
From Branner, April 25 email.

I'm taking the liberty of quoting a private email message from Branner without getting prior consent.

"My best hope for now is that more and more science based posts will appear, taking up more and more of the space, and slowly making the insults less dominant on the site.."

Good news, Jeppe. There are already fewer ugly clown pictures, and some of those guys are actually having a legitimate scientific debate about natural selection in evolutionary biology.

I can't believe it either!

An actual legitimate scientific debate now on THIS website.

Miracles never cease.

About natural selection.

Maybe someday a valid debate about climate.. if we're allowed to use the word.

I don't think that myself or the poop man are getting banned yet.

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

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.

I think you are a fake, a phony, a fraud. Nothing you post, has any credibility. The use of a sock-henchman, the threat of May 1st mayhem, threats of banning long time members, who refuse to join your cult. From you track record here, you are probably faking these Emails as well. You have an obsession for attention, validation, respect, that you can only get, virtually. Offline, you are a total loser, with no hope of changing. You post articles, that consist of science-fantasy, or obscure nonsense, that really has little to do with nothing. Stuff that most, of any education level would care too much about, other than a passing interest, without questioning. Probably got you by, on other sites for a while, until you ran out of material, or posted total bullshit. Won't last here any better, since its bullshit, from your fantasy, virtual reality. From your first posts, your only way to build yourself up, to significance, has been to attempt to tear others down. You wouldn't need to bother, if you actually had anything else to start with. You lack the confidence, of someone, who actaully, knows, and has acheived anything in life. There are plenty of climate sites, for overly educated (indoctrinated) people, where you should fit right in, and discuss all the things you seem to want here. No need to add this site to that list. Not everyone has to agree, or follow.

No point trying to discuss science on THIS website.

Do you think the tropopause is a barrier? It prevents atmospheric gasses in both the troposphere and the stratosphere from freely mixing. Atmospheric forcing's usually require a jet stream.

sealover wrote:

James_ wrote:

sealover wrote: No point trying to discuss science on THIS website.

Do you think the tropopause is a barrier? It prevents atmospheric gasses in both the troposphere and the stratosphere from freely mixing. Atmospheric forcing's usually require a jet stream.

What I think is that there is no point trying to discuss science on THIS website.

sealover wrote:

James_ wrote:

sealover wrote:

No point trying to discuss science on THIS website.

Do you think the tropopause is a barrier? It prevents atmospheric gasses in both the troposphere and the stratosphere from freely mixing. Atmospheric forcing's usually require a jet stream.

What I think is that there is no point trying to discuss science on THIS website.

My published research has been cited in well over a thousand different peer-reviewed scientific articles or textbooks.

But this website is dominated by scientifically illiterate trolls who seek only to insult and bury any useful discussion under a pile of troll manure.

Don't hold your breath waiting to get a Nobel prize for the discoveries you have published here.

There is a reason you were unable to pass any college level science classes.

sealover wrote:
Don't hold your breath waiting to get a Nobel prize for the discoveries you have published here.

[quote]sealover wrote: Don't hold your breath waiting to get a Nobel prize for the discoveries you have published here.

So, what is a familiar in modern witchcraft? It depends. Many people associate cats with witchcraft because of modern media that has portrayed witches as being associated with cats for years. Some witches do have cat familiars, and others have other physical animals that help them with their magic. Some witches also have spirit familiars, or guides that they have called on to help them in their practice. These are usually animal spirits, and can be lost familiars or animal guides that have been with them throughout life.
https://k-oconnell.medium.com/familiars-what-they-are-and-how-to-get-one-a5869189912f

IBdaMann wrote:


1. You came here to preach your Climate Change religion.
2. You have refused to define your terms from the moment you arrived at this site, because all of your terms pertain to your silly Climate theism which you desperately hope to someday get accepted as thettled thienth.

James_ wrote:

sealover wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"The words of the Klingon are unimportant, and we do not hear them." - Dr. McCoy.

Then "Bones" turns to whisper to Kirk, with a smile, "I just called him a liar."

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

HarveyH55 wrote:

sealover wrote:
From Branner, April 25 email.

I'm taking the liberty of quoting a private email message from Branner without getting prior consent.

"My best hope for now is that more and more science based posts will appear, taking up more and more of the space, and slowly making the insults less dominant on the site.."

Good news, Jeppe. There are already fewer ugly clown pictures, and some of those guys are actually having a legitimate scientific debate about natural selection in evolutionary biology.

I can't believe it either!

An actual legitimate scientific debate now on THIS website.

Miracles never cease.

About natural selection.

Maybe someday a valid debate about climate.. if we're allowed to use the word.

I don't think that myself or the poop man are getting banned yet.

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

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.

I think you are a fake, a phony, a fraud. Nothing you post, has any credibility. The use of a sock-henchman, the threat of May 1st mayhem, threats of banning long time members, who refuse to join your cult. From you track record here, you are probably faking these Emails as well. You have an obsession for attention, validation, respect, that you can only get, virtually. Offline, you are a total loser, with no hope of changing. You post articles, that consist of science-fantasy, or obscure nonsense, that really has little to do with nothing. Stuff that most, of any education level would care too much about, other than a passing interest, without questioning. Probably got you by, on other sites for a while, until you ran out of material, or posted total bullshit. Won't last here any better, since its bullshit, from your fantasy, virtual reality. From your first posts, your only way to build yourself up, to significance, has been to attempt to tear others down. You wouldn't need to bother, if you actually had anything else to start with. You lack the confidence, of someone, who actaully, knows, and has acheived anything in life. There are plenty of climate sites, for overly educated (indoctrinated) people, where you should fit right in, and discuss all the things you seem to want here. No need to add this site to that list. Not everyone has to agree, or follow.

No point trying to discuss science on THIS website.

Do you think the tropopause is a barrier? It prevents atmospheric gasses in both the troposphere and the stratosphere from freely mixing. Atmospheric forcing's usually require a jet stream.

sealover wrote:
What I think is that there is no point trying to discuss science on THIS website.

sealover wrote:
118 new members joined after I first posted nearly two years ago.

There is a reason that NONE of them are posting anything now.

sealover wrote:
Going through older posts and threads, there were a lot of people who actually STUDIED SCIENCE who used to post at one time or another.

sealover wrote:
People who had enough aptitude for science that they actually completed some kind of degree in some field of natural science.

sealover wrote:
Some of us even had advanced degrees. I'm not the only PhD scientist who posted for a time before realizing that there is no point trying to discuss science on THIS website.

sealover wrote:
My published research has been cited in well over a thousand different peer-reviewed scientific articles or textbooks.

sealover wrote:
But this website is dominated by scientifically illiterate trolls who seek only to insult and bury any useful discussion under a pile of troll manure.

sealover wrote:
Don't hold your breath waiting to get a Nobel prize for the discoveries you have published here.

sealover wrote:
There is a reason you were unable to pass any college level science classes.

James_ wrote:

sealover wrote:

James_ wrote:

sealover wrote:

No point trying to discuss science on THIS website.

Do you think the tropopause is a barrier? It prevents atmospheric gasses in both the troposphere and the stratosphere from freely mixing. Atmospheric forcing's usually require a jet stream.

What I think is that there is no point trying to discuss science on THIS website.

My published research has been cited in well over a thousand different peer-reviewed scientific articles or textbooks.

But this website is dominated by scientifically illiterate trolls who seek only to insult and bury any useful discussion under a pile of troll manure.

Don't hold your breath waiting to get a Nobel prize for the discoveries you have published here.

There is a reason you were unable to pass any college level science classes.

And this because I asked you if you thought the tropopause is a barrier. I find this
comment of yours odd;

sealover wrote:
Don't hold your breath waiting to get a Nobel prize for the discoveries you have published here.

It is possible that a successful demonstration of CO2 + H2O > CH2O + O2
would warrant a Nobel prize. I would be the discoverer of a new process in physics.
And I think actual scientists will want to work with me on it as well.
I think what "people" would like, they are also called "humans" and I have heard that they have "souls" will be my describing how the universe works. And then
I'll need to break out the math. I think I can do that.
You sea≠lover, with actual scientists, it will be a matter of how I present my work and myself. I'll even be able to ask the question that if a scientist works with me on my theories so they can be published, would they receive credit for any award(s)?
From my perspective, that would encourage a scientist or scientists to work with me. It is better IMO to be successful sharing the credit than unsuccessful wanting all of the credit.
For what I am pursuing with climate change and Sustainable Farming, I'll be known so
that's not an issue. What would matter is how my work could be put to work. That's when it will have intrinsic value, when people know it is something that
both farmers, scientists and politicians would need to be aware of.
See how we think differently? I think about how my work can be useful while you're thinking about awards. And since I'm not an "actual" scientist, how would the Nobel committee treat an amateur scientist who can do original work in science?
With Shoemaker-Levy 9, Levy was an amateur astronomer and got equal billing with the husband-wife team that were professional astronomers. The rest of science excludes amateurs. What my situation will make known.

James_ wrote:
p.s., sea≠lover, What do you think Bessler's Wheel is for? Why when you say

[quote]sealover wrote: Don't hold your breath waiting to get a Nobel prize for the discoveries you have published here.

You highlight a serious problem. What is wrong with discussing STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) subjects? It seems that even woodworking has to be "mainstream" woodworking with historical projects being
the "right" projects.

Bessler's Wheel would be proof that gravity has energy. It is a condition that physicists have set. If a "perpetual wheel" can keep rotating by lifting weights that
perform meaningful work then gravity has energy. A working Bessler Wheel would
take things to Utrecht, Netherlands. Utrecht is not in this forum. (and now I sound like ITN, moving the goal posts fallacy, mantras 43, 69.....)
You see where I'm going with this, right? You won't and that's okay.
And my "familiar" Salem likes sleeping in my work area while I'm working. I have to add 3 more hole locations for each assembly. Then I can have that step completed, having the kennels assembled. Then they'll become a part of a larger assembly.
It seems everything I work on follows this theme. I'll work on different parts/aspects knowing how they'll need to work/fit in with other parts.

James_ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:


1. You came here to preach your Climate Change religion.
2. You have refused to define your terms from the moment you arrived at this site, because all of your terms pertain to your silly Climate theism which you desperately hope to someday get accepted as thettled thienth.

Um, I believe the tropopause is a barrier because when you consider
KE = 3/2kT and what Avogadro's number represents, then how does
PV = nRT = NkT influence that? Maybe sealover can explain? That might actually
help to "prove" that the tropopause is a barrier.

James_ wrote:
@IBDaMann, even scientists have missed what this suggests. Why there's a climate debate. And between my experiment and this post, I think I'll be able to say that what Fourier alluded to has never been properly understood. People tried explaining why he was right while giving the wrong answer.

James_ wrote:
And this is why astrophysics will become a part of the solution.

James_ wrote:
If so, then what happens to atmospheric gasses when pressure and temperature decrease?

James_ wrote:
I think that scientists will find they made a wrong assumption because they didn't think the problem through.

James_ wrote:
With "sealover", how can "sealover" have a leadership role offline as the teacher?

Into the Night wrote:


1. You came here to preach your Climate Change religion.
2. You have refused to define your terms from the moment you arrived at this site, because all of your terms pertain to your silly Climate theism which you desperately hope to someday get accepted as thettled thienth.

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:


1. You came here to preach your Climate Change religion.
2. You have refused to define your terms from the moment you arrived at this site, because all of your terms pertain to your silly Climate theism which you desperately hope to someday get accepted as thettled thienth.

UMmm, can you define ITN? I'm asking for a friend.

p.s., Why does nR = Nk? k is Boltzmann's constant. Understanding such maths might agree with what meteorologists observe for the most part. My experiment
could make this more interesting.
n is Avogadro's number while N is the number of molecules. This shows a relationship between the heat rating (R) of a gas/material and Boltzmann's constant.
And if these things agree with more gasses at the altitude of the tropopause then that would help to support a physical barrier composed of nitrogen. Then we're discussing science.