New Posters beware!

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > New Posters beware! > Page 11

Page 11 of 11

03-02-2024 12:04
James_ ★★★★★ (2273)	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. I think before we define nRT and NkT we should be able to define ITN. Is that like iodine (I), Technetium (Ti) and Niobium (Nb). Is ITiNb really what ITN isn't? ITNs always begin with the letter X What does an ITN look like? 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/ Now how to delete malware ITNs from the CMOS and DOS? I'll have to see if they have a spam filter for those "ITN" things. Yep, when they have a website telling you how to identify an ITN, those have got to be taken seriously.
RE: since 2016 - no point trying to discuss science on THIS website03-02-2024 17:39
sealover ★★★★☆ (1769)	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. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ceist began this thread with this post on 04-09-2016 The two most prolific of the scientifically illiterate trolls had already infested the site back then. IBdaMann = nine years now of trolling, racking up 14274 posts Into the night = eight years now of trolling, racking up 21468 posts No point trying to discuss science on THIS website. It just gets buried under troll feces.
03-02-2024 18:17
James_ ★★★★★ (2273)	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.
04-02-2024 02:56
Into the Night★★★★★ (22643)	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. Random incoherent statements gets you nowhere, James. Math errors: Unit errors. Logic errors: Incoherency. Buzzword fallacies. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
07-06-2024 02:04
sealover ★★★★☆ (1769)	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, 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? 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". What about YOU, Branner. Are you so "gullible" that you believe what virtually ALL the world's scientists agree is happening? 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.
11-07-2024 17:59
sealover ★★★★☆ (1769)	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. It is noteworthy that Branner does not ever say "climate DEBATE". Never once says "debate". DOES say to stop personal attacks and spam. 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. 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.
14-07-2024 23:11
Im a BM ★★★★☆ (1310)	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. Ceist posted this in April, 2016 It provides a very accurate description of the kind of problems one will encounter if they join the website and post on it. I would tell Ceist today that very few new posters fall into the ambush in 2024. This cautionary thread is not needed today to reveal the self evident nature of what Ceist so eloquently characterized.
14-07-2024 23:29
Im a BM ★★★★☆ (1310)	This post (below) was the first response to Ceist's post (above in previous post), back in April 2016. 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. What Surface Detail recommends has merit. But given what became of the website in the eight years since the recommendation was made, it appears that this was not enough. The approach would be effective if people were getting hot headed simply because they disagreed so strongly about some point of contention being argued. The approach proved to be ineffective because trolls were operating with disingenuous arguments and malicious intentions. What Surface Detail seems to have missed in Ceist's post was that mental illness was being manifest quite openly, and new posters were going to be facing a lot more than a hot headed debate where the disagreement is over anything rational. Teachable moments are a lost cause on the unteachable.
15-07-2024 03:17
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14886)	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. What is a rational adult to do? Pointed insults are all they understand. Nary a one of them will ever discuss science ... only religious dogma that they insist is thettled thienth. 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. Once again, welcome to my world. Im a BM wrote: This post (below) was the first response to Ceist's post (above in previous post), back in April 2016. You look like an idiot here. You are talking about Ceist, who was/is as dishonest and as irrational as they come. I appreciate you making my case for me. Im a BM wrote: What Surface Detail recommends has merit. It does, but not when it comes to trying to hold a rational discussion with warmizombies and climate lemmings. 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. Surface Detail tried to get Ceist to be rational and found that to be impossible. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
18-11-2024 01:42
Im a BM ★★★★☆ (1310)	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 from September, 2016. IBdaMann and Into the Night were one full year into their trolling partnership. But there were still a lot of new members joining the site. This post was to warn them about what kind of ambush they would stumble into if they posted anything. Times have changed. In seven months now, only ten new members show up on the "ten newest members" list. Only a few of them posted much of anything. Seven months ago (April 17), John Marsriver was the tenth most recent member to join. But this was just a temporary ID for Spongy Iris. Not really a new member. 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.
18-11-2024 04:40
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14886)	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. Robert, you are astute to point out that all the problems began when you joined the site and began spamming. Everything was fine up until that point.

Page 11 of 11

Join the debate New Posters beware!:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Eisenhower was right - beware us	13	16-10-2015 20:07