New Posters beware!

Into the Night wrote:

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.

You are not discussing science. Math error: Unit error.
Neither the tropopause nor nitrogen is a barrier.

ITNs always begin with the letter X and include the year, month, and day that the EEI was accepted, followed by a 6-digit random number.
https://www.minisoft.com/blog/2021/07/08/industry-terms-itn-internal-transaction-number/

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.

James_ wrote:
Okay, okay, okay. ITN, do you think that when nR = Nk that it's expressing 2 different attributes at the same time? Now would they be random numbers and more random numbers or would they be 6.0221408 x 10^23 is the number of
particles in 1 mol. Do we agree?
And N is the number of molecules. k is Boltzmann's constant which is
1.380649 × 10^-23 j/kelvin. If you divide a gas' heat value by Avogadro's number then you have Boltzmann's constant. Sounds like IBDNotDaMann but who knows.
And with KE = 3/2kT would make known how fast the average gas molecule is moving. And if the Earth's surface is exciting the air that comes into contact with it, then that's a source of outside energy. Can it be like this?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/SZ9d2lai_EU

Yep, Just wanna shoot some feces which Alan defecated but nooooo!
Someone wants "smart talk" instead.

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!

I would love to give you a list of all the members who were driven away from this site by inexcusable behavior of just one or two individuals.

Perhaps you could send personal invitations to come back with the hope of a less hostile environment in the future.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
[quote]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.

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.

Surface Detail wrote:
I think it's best not to get too wound up about it. I'm fully aware that posters like IBdaMann and Into the Night have no intention at all of engaging in rational discussion, but one can still use their posts as a trigger for discussion. Just patiently point out the inconsistencies in their thinking for the benefit of any lurkers - sometimes answering even the stupidest of questions can help clarify one's own thoughts.

Also, try to resist the temptation to return abuse. Abuse always reflects badly on the abuser, so let them throw away their credibility and look after yours! Stay calm, ignore the abuse, and stick to the science. You can always walk away if you get too annoyed/bored.

Im a BM wrote: Teachable moments are a lost cause on the unteachable.

Im a BM wrote: This post (below) was the first response to Ceist's post (above in previous post), back in April 2016.

Im a BM wrote: What Surface Detail recommends has merit.

Im a BM wrote: The approach would be effective if people were getting hot headed simply because they disagreed so strongly about some point of contention being argued.

Im a BM wrote: The approach proved to be ineffective because trolls were operating with disingenuous arguments and malicious intentions.

Im a BM wrote: What Surface Detail seems to have missed in Ceist's post was that mental illness was being manifest quite openly,

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:
markjfernandez also joined in April, but gave up after 20 posts.

project 90 3 joined in April and posted twice.

RicardoGrand and JohnBis joined in June, one post each to discuss how faxing has been modernized.

Umair and Umair7644 both joined in June, for a total of three posts.

A couple of others joined and never posted anything.

And most recently, in September, LocksmithMons1 joined and posted once.

So, the concern for new posters is no longer timely.

Only the trolls remain, and nobody else will be joining them.

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?

.

sealover wrote:
Branner, this was the last time we heard anything directly from you.

I see you logged in as recently as February 28.


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

When was the last time you actually read any of the posts?

Have you seen what happens to those who attempt to discuss climate change?

sealover wrote:
Their "discussions never get out of the starting gate", because they fail to provide an unambiguous definition for "climate change" that "does not violate the (truly bizarre troll interpretation of) laws of thermodynamics".

sealover wrote:
What about YOU, Branner. Are you so "gullible" that you believe what virtually ALL the world's scientists agree is happening?

sealover wrote:
They won't let you discuss it until you pass the test.

And NO NEW MEMBER has ever passed the test in the last nine years.

sealover wrote:
It's hard to tell if Branner makes quarterly or just semi annual visits to his website.

And I don't believe for ONE SECOND that there are really 168 "Guests online" while I am the only user logged on.

It will be disappointing, but not at all surprising, if the absentee moderator continues to ignore what became of his creation.

Regarding the post below this:

It is noteworthy that Branner encourages discussion of climate science and climate change.

It is noteworthy that these terms are used without unambiguous definition.

sealover wrote:

It is noteworthy that Branner does not ever say "climate DEBATE".

Never once says "debate".

DOES say to stop personal attacks and spam.

sealover wrote:

Who does this website belong to?

One of the new members who joined, participated, and then quit about a year offered to BUY this website. But, Branner had already made it clear in the post below (a year earlier) that this won't happen either.

sealover wrote:

Thank you!

I would love to give you a list of all the members who were driven away from this site by inexcusable behavior of just one or two individuals.

sealover wrote:

Perhaps you could send personal invitations to come back with the hope of a less hostile environment in the future.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: Teachable moments are a lost cause on the unteachable.

Welcome to my world. You can't teach science to a scientifically illiterate moron whose religion has him convinced he's a science genius. You can't even offer to help. Warmizombies arrive at this site with a singularly mindless focus on preaching their stupid, science-denying dogma.

IBdaMann wrote:
Meanwhile, every single one of them is a dishonest shit who hurls personal insults as a first resort. When a rational adult, such as myself, responds harshly in like kind, they all cry like fugging babies.

IBdaMann wrote:
First, there is no science to be discussed; they don't know any. Warmizombies are worshipers of a science-denial cult whose congregation HATES science with a passion, and HATES all rational adults who reference it. Second, they will only waste bandwidth and clutter/derail other discussions that make them feel threatened, e.g. threads involving science and math, or worse (gasp) critical reasoning.

The only approach that works when discussing science is to set religion aside for the duration of the discussion. Warmizombies won't do that. Warmizombies aren't ALLOWED to do that. In the time that I have been posting on Climate-Debate, no warmizombie has ever accepted thermodynamics or Stefan-Boltzmann. Now you are in that category as well, keeping the tally at 0%. Your religion precludes any sort of rational discussion of science.

IBdaMann wrote:
Additionally, you are just the latest in the endless stream of members of your congregation who refuse to unambiguously define your terms, when such is an absolute requirement of science. Your religion precludes any sort of rational discussion of science.

Indeed it does. Yet they still try to call their religion 'science'...the Magick Word.

IBdaMann wrote:
Additionally, you refuse to answer difficult clarification questions that probe contradictions in your preachings. In science, this gets an argument summarily discarded. Warmizombies, however, incessantly chant their physics violations and will only stop for a brief moment when shown to be wrong, only to resume chanting later, showing that their religion precludes any sort of learning, and precludes any sort of rational discussion.

Quite right. They won't want rational discussion. They don't want discussion at all. They just want to preach. Preaching to their own is pointless and boring, so they try to convert actual scientists and chemists like you and me.

IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Im a BM wrote: The approach proved to be ineffective because trolls were operating with disingenuous arguments and malicious intentions.

Warmizombies come to this board with the singularly mindless intent of labeling all non-believers who wield science and math as "trolls with malicious intentions", revealing that their religion precludes any sort of rational discussion.

IBdaMann wrote:
Warmizombies assume that non-belief in their religion is de facto mental illness. They are all poised to hurl the terms "narcissist," "sociopath," "passive aggressive," "Dunning-Kruger" and other terms of the psychiatric role induced by their religion whereby they immerse themselves in the fantasy that they are thmart perthonth who are, among other things, expert practicing psychiatric professionals. Observe ...

Im a BM wrote: What Surface Detail seems to have missed in Ceist's post was that mental illness was being manifest quite openly,

In your case, I'm sure that you see yourself as a biogeopsychiatrist who is going to be Climate-Debate's authority on everyone's mental state.

Im a BM wrote:

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

No one has ever defined any of these terms anywhere without ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and statistical and probability mathematics.

Im a BM wrote:
I have never seen any unambiguous definitions for these.

You can't define them either. I already tried asking you. The usual same evasion and you went right back to preaching.

Im a BM wrote:

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?

.

You think that's bad?

Try having a discussion about the most basic principles of chemistry.

Im a BM wrote:
Trolls simply REFUSE to define their terms.

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night pretends to be a "chemist", but his use of some of the most common terms in chemistry makes it clear he has no idea what they mean.

Im a BM wrote:
And this doesn't even include more than 100 terms that Into the Night refuses to acknowledge as even HAVING a definition. "Buzzwords". "Alkalinity is a buzzword." and "There's no such thing as 'alkalinity'.", for example.

Im a BM wrote:
And it's not like he hasn't been politely asked, OVER and OVER to please offer, Just ONCE, a definition so it might be more clear what he's attempting to say. He just LIES with "RQAA", because he knows he never ONCE defined the terms.

Im a BM wrote:
Please, Into the Night, just ONCE, define some of the terms you constantly use.

1. pH
2. Buffering
3. Carbohydrate

Im a BM wrote:
There are many OTHER terms I wish that Into the Night would define, but these three have been so badly mauled by him in context, I'd love to know what he THINKS they mean. "pH is a ratio", "Water itself is a buffer for acid", "Vegetable oil is a carbohydrate.", "Lignin is a carbohydrate".

DEFINE YOUR TERMS!

Im a BM wrote:
Or at least stop insisting on trolling EVERY post, whether he has a clue what ANY of the big words mean or not.

Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann, surely you remember that Into the Night keeps repeating the EXPLICIT assertion that pH is NOT = -log(H+). Surely you notice how evasive he is about his SECRET "ratio" for pH. Tell him to DEFINE HIS TERMS.

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:

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.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM 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.

This is spam. You didn't add any commentary or insight. You are continuing to be a troll.

Im a BM wrote: And everyone knows that being a troll is a BAD thing.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: And everyone knows that being a troll is a BAD thing.

I'm not a troll, so I don't pretend to declare what everyone knows, or to pretend to speak for everyone.

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.

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: And everyone knows that being a troll is a BAD thing.

I'm not a troll, so I don't pretend to declare what everyone knows, or to pretend to speak for everyone.

"I'm not a troll, so I don't pretend to declare.." - IBdaMann

You pretend to declare a LOT of things at climate-debate.com, IBdaMann!

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.

Branner, I hate to tell you, but your dream of natural evolution leading to more rational science-based posts coming to outnumber personal attack posts failed.

Perhaps you naively believed that nobody would join this website if they didn't take climate change seriously enough to acknowledge that climate CAN change.

More than 40% of all posts ever on this website are by just TWO members who insist that climate CANNOT change. Ever. By ANY mechanism, be it a glaciation cycle or anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases.

They systematically drove away all who wished to have a rational discussion.

Into the Night wrote:

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.

Branner, I hate to tell you, but your dream of natural evolution leading to more rational science-based posts coming to outnumber personal attack posts failed.

Perhaps you naively believed that nobody would join this website if they didn't take climate change seriously enough to acknowledge that climate CAN change.

More than 40% of all posts ever on this website are by just TWO members who insist that climate CANNOT change. Ever. By ANY mechanism, be it a glaciation cycle or anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases.

They systematically drove away all who wished to have a rational discussion.

You can't blame your problems on Branner.

sealover wrote: Perhaps you naively believed that nobody would join this website if they didn't take climate change seriously enough to acknowledge that climate CAN change.

sealover wrote:More than 40% of all posts ever on this website are by just TWO members who insist that climate CANNOT change.

sealover wrote:They systematically drove away all who wished to have a rational discussion.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

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.

Branner, I hate to tell you, but your dream of natural evolution leading to more rational science-based posts coming to outnumber personal attack posts failed.

Perhaps you naively believed that nobody would join this website if they didn't take climate change seriously enough to acknowledge that climate CAN change.

More than 40% of all posts ever on this website are by just TWO members who insist that climate CANNOT change. Ever. By ANY mechanism, be it a glaciation cycle or anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases.

They systematically drove away all who wished to have a rational discussion.

You can't blame your problems on Branner.

I can blame Branner's problems on YOU!

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

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.

Branner, I hate to tell you, but your dream of natural evolution leading to more rational science-based posts coming to outnumber personal attack posts failed.

Perhaps you naively believed that nobody would join this website if they didn't take climate change seriously enough to acknowledge that climate CAN change.

More than 40% of all posts ever on this website are by just TWO members who insist that climate CANNOT change. Ever. By ANY mechanism, be it a glaciation cycle or anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases.

They systematically drove away all who wished to have a rational discussion.

You can't blame your problems on Branner.

I can blame Branner's problems on YOU!

You can't blame anyone's problems on me or anybody else. You don't get to speak for Branner. Omniscience fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:

DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

You ALWAYS blame Branner's problems on ME!

You pHucking LIAR!

Robert Wagner wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Robert Wagner wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Robert Wagner wrote:
Into the Night, the broken record.

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself.
No argument presented. Trolling.

And talking about yourself, again, troll.

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself.
No argument presented. Trolling.

No argument needed for trolling trolls, troll.