Remember me
▼ Content

Sabine


Sabine02-07-2024 19:09
keepit
★★★★★
(3330)
Sabine Hossenfelder has done 800 videos that can be accessed on youtube, many of which are on the subject of climate change.
It would behoove many people to study them.
03-07-2024 09:15
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14728)
keepit wrote: Sabine Hossenfelder has done 800 videos that can be accessed on youtube, many of which are on the subject of climate change.
It would behoove many people to study them.

Nope. She's a warmizombie who worships that religion. Only fellow worshipers, such as you, who share her faith should pray along with her videos.

Similarly, Pastor Steven Furtick preaches Christian sermons on YouTube, and I highly recommend his videos for all like-minded Christians.
03-07-2024 10:18
keepit
★★★★★
(3330)
ibd,
She's a scientist and not a preacher. False characterizations are significant lie.
03-07-2024 10:29
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14728)
keepit wrote: ibd, She's a scientist and not a preacher.

The Christian clergyman who performed my wedding had a PhD in physics. He was nonetheless a religious man. Religious people can nonetheless learn other things as well.

Look, one dollar plus one dollar does not equal one dollar. A religious preacher is a religious preacher.

Sabine is hooked on her Climate religion, just as you are. I recommend you pray along with her videos. One way you can tell that she is shying away from science in deference to indulging herself in full-on religion is that she won't provide an unambiguous definition of the global climate. In that respect, she's just as much of a troll as Robert, which is why you should continue fawning over her.
Edited on 03-07-2024 10:38
03-07-2024 17:57
keepit
★★★★★
(3330)
Some of the discoveries i'm talking about are really just hypothesis. They're part of the scientific process. Try not to discourage it.
Edited on 03-07-2024 18:56
04-07-2024 01:13
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5750)
keepit wrote:
ibd,
She's a scientist and not a preacher. False characterizations are significant lie.


Actually scientist do not do their science on youtoob


IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

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

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

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
04-07-2024 02:51
keepit
★★★★★
(3330)
They do a lot of lectures and discussions on you tube.
04-07-2024 14:18
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5750)
keepit wrote:
They do a lot of lectures and discussions on you tube.


Nope other people host and post those lectures, Sabine has her own channel because she is unemployed as a scientist. LOL CERN laughed at her youtoob resume


IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

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

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

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
05-07-2024 17:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14728)
keepit wrote: They do a lot of lectures and discussions on you tube.

Sabine's religious sermons don't impress scientists, but they do impress the scientifically illiterate.

Ask Robert what he thinks of her religious preaching, especially of the Climate Change sermon. Dollars to donuts says that he gives it high marks.

I still don't see why you are so ardent in your belief that Sabine is somehow prohibited from expressing her religious beliefs on YouTube. Just watch one of her Climate videos.
05-07-2024 17:31
keepit
★★★★★
(3330)
ibd,
i don't understand that last post at all.
05-07-2024 17:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14728)
keepit wrote: ibd, i don't understand that last post at all.

That is because you are uneducated and only understand baloney.

You're full of baloney, keepit.
05-07-2024 20:29
keepit
★★★★★
(3330)
ibd,
Do you ever listen to yourself?
05-07-2024 20:40
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14728)
keepit wrote: ibd, Do you ever listen to yourself?

keepit, do you ever read what you post?
06-07-2024 02:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22251)
keepit wrote:
ibd,
She's a scientist and not a preacher. False characterizations are significant lie.

Religion isn't science, Keepit.


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
06-07-2024 02:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22251)
keepit wrote:
Some of the discoveries i'm talking about are really just hypothesis. They're part of the scientific process. Try not to discourage it.

Science is not a 'process'.
Learn what 'hypothesis' means.


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
06-07-2024 20:35
keepit
★★★★★
(3330)
Many words have more than one meaning. The writer decides which meaning is to be used.
06-07-2024 21:18
keepit
★★★★★
(3330)
You trash sabine because you say cern doesn't regard her well. What do you think cern thinks of you??
Take it from me - cern doesn't think of you two at all.
07-07-2024 00:36
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14728)
keepit wrote: You trash sabine because ...

You're the only one trashing Sabine. Her sermons are lovely and heartfelt.

keepit wrote: Take it from me

No, I won't be doing that ... but if you have any questions, let me know.

keepit wrote: Many words have more than one meaning.

Did you just recently learn this?

keepit wrote: The writer decides which meaning is to be used.

Are you now advocating for writers defining their terms?
07-07-2024 00:51
keepit
★★★★★
(3330)
ibd (often wrong, never in doubt),
Your posts just don't connect with my reality. You're a teacher in your own mind.

Let's see now... you trash sabine, you trash sealover Ph.D and you trash just about everyone else, and you trash cern. Hmm...it sounds like a personal problem.
Not that i know what that problem is.
Edited on 07-07-2024 01:29
07-07-2024 21:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14728)
keepit wrote:Your posts just don't connect with my reality.

Try growing up one of these days, unless you plan on coloring at the kids' table forever.

keepit wrote: Let's see now... you trash sabine,

You're still the only one trashing Sabine. Her religious sermons are lovely and heartfelt.

keepit wrote: you trash [Robert R. Northup]

Yep. He is only here to preach his stupid religion, he won't answer clarification questions, he won't unambiguously define his terms, he has a fifth-grader's understanding of physics, he gets butt hurt when he's corrected and he spams the board.

Yes, I will trash him every day of the week, and it will be fun.
07-07-2024 21:59
keepit
★★★★★
(3330)
When you trash sealover Ph.D. you look very inept.
Edited on 07-07-2024 22:49
08-07-2024 08:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14728)
keepit wrote: When you trash sealover Ph.D. you look very inept.

Explain.
08-07-2024 17:07
keepit
★★★★★
(3330)
It's like a child trashing a parent.
Look at your post at 21:47. Even though you're complaining about sabine in what world is that appropriate or accurate?
Edited on 08-07-2024 17:11
08-07-2024 18:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22251)
keepit wrote:
Many words have more than one meaning. The writer decides which meaning is to be used.

Learn English, keepit.


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
08-07-2024 18:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22251)
keepit wrote:
You trash sabine because you say cern doesn't regard her well. What do you think cern thinks of you??
Take it from me - cern doesn't think of you two at all.

You don't get to speak for everyone at Cern.


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
08-07-2024 20:55
keepit
★★★★★
(3330)
itn,
it's your filaments that make you think such things. "Speaking for cern" isn't something i want do.
Edited on 08-07-2024 21:16
08-07-2024 21:19
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(960)
Into the Night wrote:
keepit wrote:
You trash sabine because you say cern doesn't regard her well. What do you think cern thinks of you??
Take it from me - cern doesn't think of you two at all.

You don't get to speak for everyone at Cern.



"You do not speak for all scientists." - Into the Night

"You do not speak for ANY scientists", would be the obvious reply.
08-07-2024 21:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22251)
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
keepit wrote:
You trash sabine because you say cern doesn't regard her well. What do you think cern thinks of you??
Take it from me - cern doesn't think of you two at all.

You don't get to speak for everyone at Cern.



"You do not speak for all scientists." - Into the Night

"You do not speak for ANY scientists", would be the obvious reply.

I'm not speaking for any scientists other than myself, Robert.


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
Edited on 08-07-2024 21:41
08-07-2024 21:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22251)
keepit wrote:
itn,
it's your filaments that make you think such things. "Speaking for cern" isn't something i want do.

Denying your own posts won't work, keepit.


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
08-07-2024 22:14
keepit
★★★★★
(3330)
You're just imagining things itn.
08-07-2024 22:15
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(960)
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
keepit wrote:
You trash sabine because you say cern doesn't regard her well. What do you think cern thinks of you??
Take it from me - cern doesn't think of you two at all.

You don't get to speak for everyone at Cern.



"You do not speak for all scientists." - Into the Night

"You do not speak for ANY scientists", would be the obvious reply.

I'm not speaking for any scientists other than myself, Robert.



That's kind of the point.

You don't speak for ANY scientists.
10-07-2024 01:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22251)
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
keepit wrote:
You trash sabine because you say cern doesn't regard her well. What do you think cern thinks of you??
Take it from me - cern doesn't think of you two at all.

You don't get to speak for everyone at Cern.



"You do not speak for all scientists." - Into the Night

"You do not speak for ANY scientists", would be the obvious reply.

I'm not speaking for any scientists other than myself, Robert.



That's kind of the point.

You don't speak for ANY scientists.

Yes I do. I speak for myself.


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
12-07-2024 19:18
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(960)
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
keepit wrote:
You trash sabine because you say cern doesn't regard her well. What do you think cern thinks of you??
Take it from me - cern doesn't think of you two at all.

You don't get to speak for everyone at Cern.



"You do not speak for all scientists." - Into the Night

"You do not speak for ANY scientists", would be the obvious reply.

I'm not speaking for any scientists other than myself, Robert.



That's kind of the point.

You don't speak for ANY scientists.

Yes I do. I speak for myself.


That is exactly the point!

You speak only for yourself.

You do not speak for ANY scientists.

You are NOT a scientist.

Not even close.
13-07-2024 14:08
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14728)
Im a BM wrote: You are NOT a scientist.

Is that because he's not a biogeoscientist? Is he a biogeoengineer?

Could he be a biochemogeoaeroinfrahelioarchaeopaleoscientist? ... or does it need to be written "biochemogeoaeroinfrahelioarchaeopaleoscientist+"?
15-07-2024 19:42
sealover
★★★★☆
(1713)
keepit wrote:
When you trash sealover Ph.D. you look very inept.



Keepit makes a good point.

Sciency-sounding words, backed up by insults and uncitable omniscience about all things scientific comes off as very inept.

However, in his own mind, which appears to be a dark and twisted place, IBdaMann WINS every round of every debate.

A master of semantics word games.

He even won the "alligators are AMPHIBIANS" debate!

Word science PROVED that scientists have been incorrectly classifying alligators for centuries.

And ask him about magic petroleum! He can explain how there is no place on Earth that you won't find oil if you just drill deep enough, because fossil fuel was NOT formed from ancient dead organisms closer to the surface.

Some rational adults might fail to recognize his genius, and agree with keepit that IBdaMann looks "very inept" when trashing people who have actually studied science enough to be called scientists by rational adults.
16-07-2024 00:46
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14728)
sealover wrote:
keepit wrote: When you trash sealover Ph.D. you look very inept.
Keepit makes a good point.

While the obvious self-serving nature of this response is noted, ...

... no, keepit never makes a good point.

sealover wrote: IBdaMann WINS every round of every debate.

Were you expecting some other result? Please tell me that you didn't bet money against me. Never bet against me, or you're just flusing money down the toilet.

sealover wrote: A master of semantics word games.

If you are recognizing my masterful communication and wordcraft, I totally understand your awe, but remember that semantics are all we have in a forum of ideas, and you can do your part by unambiguously defining all your terms.

sealover wrote: He even won the "alligators are AMPHIBIANS" debate!

You should be embarrassed for having chosen the wrong side of the debate on which to reside. You know that otters, ducks, polar bears, alligators and many more are very much amphibious. You know that being amphibious makes something amphibian. Nonetheless, you decided to forego common sense and instead be a complete contrarian.

Well, can all have a good laugh about it. No harm, no foul, as I always say.

sealover wrote: And ask him about magic petroleum! He can explain how there is no place on Earth that you won't find oil if you just drill deep enough, because fossil fuel was NOT formed from ancient dead organisms closer to the surface.

You are misrepresenting what Into the Night expressed. Let's unpack, shall we? Yes, we shall.

1. Petroleum is not magick, as you claim CO2 to be. Into the Night does not specify any magickal superpowers held by petroleum, whereas you claim that CO2 does.

2. I don't want to speak for Into the Night, but I believe that he specified that the earth is creating petroleum (hydrocarbons) in all regions of the planet, with some places of creation being deeper than others, not that petroleum is being created at every point on the planet at every moment, i.e. there is no petrosphere (hydrocarbosphere).

3. You use the term "fossil fuels" because you are a Marxist, not because you are any sort of chemist. Chemists understand that fossils do not use any fuel, and that no fossils are burned for fuel. Chemists understand that petroleum and natural gas are hydrocarbons. If only you were a chemist ...

4. Into the Night is entirely correct in noting that your claim of dead organisms gaining magickal superpowers is beyond absurd, but downright stupid (note: this is my characterization, not Into the Night's). Your religious dogma holds that dead organisms somehow drill deep into the earth because they have died, that they know to stop drilling by having drilled through a half-kilometer or more of impermeable rock, and that they then rot/decay into a higher form of energy in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics that you don't understand. Neither you nor anyone you know has ever witnessed any dead organism decay into hydrocarbons, so you have no rational basis for believing what you believe. You only have religious reasons, which have no business in any science discussion.

@ Into the Night, please feel free to correct any misunderstanding I might have on the matter.

sealover wrote: Some rational adults might fail to recognize his genius, and agree with keepit that IBdaMann looks "very inept" when trashing people who have actually studied science

... noting that keepit believes that having "actually studied science" means being "full of baloney."

I would remind you that you have never demonstrated having studied science, and have only demonstrated being full of baloney. You still refuse to answer direct clarification questions, you still refuse to unambiguously define your terms (i.e. you still insist on playing stupid word games), you believe that strange physics violations are settled science, you apparently don't even know what science is, and now keepit is recognizing you in his own way for being full of baloney. You look identical to a scientifically illiterate moron who is demanding to be accepted as a science genius. Whenever an opportunity arises for you to make a valid contribution, you reject the idea outright and simply begin whining and griping and complaining ... and spamming.

I'm just making some simple observations for your edification. I know that you want desperately to be accepted with all the authority of a religious minister, but for that to ever happen, you are going to have to demonstrate some competence beyond your insistence that you are some sort of science genius.

Where's your "library" anyway? I offered you a home for your library and you were immediately horrified at the thought of everyone realizing that you have no library ... or that you don't even have any content whatsoever.

You seem to be placing all your eggs in the one basket of ocean alkalinity. You seem to know that the ocean gets most of its alkalinity from carbonates and bicarbonates. Unfortunately, that knowledge is insufficient to WOW! anyone. Even more unfortunate is the manner in which you pull the rug out from under yourself by not even knowing how the ocean gets its alkalinity. Any rational biogeoadult knows that the ocean's alkalinity stems from geological activity and erosion of rocks and minerals, i.e. the 2nd LoT that you don't understand.

Your religion requires you to kick away your one foothold on science. Otherwise your posts, when you aren't spamming or whining or trolling, hardly ever qualify as "contributions."

There's no time like the present to turn this around and to start being a productive contributor to Climate-Debate. Hint: don't worry about what other's write, but only about what you write.

.


I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit

A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-07-2024 06:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22251)
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:
keepit wrote: When you trash sealover Ph.D. you look very inept.
Keepit makes a good point.

While the obvious self-serving nature of this response is noted, ...

... no, keepit never makes a good point.

sealover wrote: IBdaMann WINS every round of every debate.

Were you expecting some other result? Please tell me that you didn't bet money against me. Never bet against me, or you're just flusing money down the toilet.

sealover wrote: A master of semantics word games.

If you are recognizing my masterful communication and wordcraft, I totally understand your awe, but remember that semantics are all we have in a forum of ideas, and you can do your part by unambiguously defining all your terms.

sealover wrote: He even won the "alligators are AMPHIBIANS" debate!

You should be embarrassed for having chosen the wrong side of the debate on which to reside. You know that otters, ducks, polar bears, alligators and many more are very much amphibious. You know that being amphibious makes something amphibian. Nonetheless, you decided to forego common sense and instead be a complete contrarian.

Well, can all have a good laugh about it. No harm, no foul, as I always say.

sealover wrote: And ask him about magic petroleum! He can explain how there is no place on Earth that you won't find oil if you just drill deep enough, because fossil fuel was NOT formed from ancient dead organisms closer to the surface.

You are misrepresenting what Into the Night expressed. Let's unpack, shall we? Yes, we shall.

1. Petroleum is not magick, as you claim CO2 to be. Into the Night does not specify any magickal superpowers held by petroleum, whereas you claim that CO2 does.

2. I don't want to speak for Into the Night, but I believe that he specified that the earth is creating petroleum (hydrocarbons) in all regions of the planet, with some places of creation being deeper than others, not that petroleum is being created at every point on the planet at every moment, i.e. there is no petrosphere (hydrocarbosphere).

3. You use the term "fossil fuels" because you are a Marxist, not because you are any sort of chemist. Chemists understand that fossils do not use any fuel, and that no fossils are burned for fuel. Chemists understand that petroleum and natural gas are hydrocarbons. If only you were a chemist ...

4. Into the Night is entirely correct in noting that your claim of dead organisms gaining magickal superpowers is beyond absurd, but downright stupid (note: this is my characterization, not Into the Night's). Your religious dogma holds that dead organisms somehow drill deep into the earth because they have died, that they know to stop drilling by having drilled through a half-kilometer or more of impermeable rock, and that they then rot/decay into a higher form of energy in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics that you don't understand. Neither you nor anyone you know has ever witnessed any dead organism decay into hydrocarbons, so you have no rational basis for believing what you believe. You only have religious reasons, which have no business in any science discussion.

@ Into the Night, please feel free to correct any misunderstanding I might have on the matter.

sealover wrote: Some rational adults might fail to recognize his genius, and agree with keepit that IBdaMann looks "very inept" when trashing people who have actually studied science

... noting that keepit believes that having "actually studied science" means being "full of baloney."

I would remind you that you have never demonstrated having studied science, and have only demonstrated being full of baloney. You still refuse to answer direct clarification questions, you still refuse to unambiguously define your terms (i.e. you still insist on playing stupid word games), you believe that strange physics violations are settled science, you apparently don't even know what science is, and now keepit is recognizing you in his own way for being full of baloney. You look identical to a scientifically illiterate moron who is demanding to be accepted as a science genius. Whenever an opportunity arises for you to make a valid contribution, you reject the idea outright and simply begin whining and griping and complaining ... and spamming.

I'm just making some simple observations for your edification. I know that you want desperately to be accepted with all the authority of a religious minister, but for that to ever happen, you are going to have to demonstrate some competence beyond your insistence that you are some sort of science genius.

Where's your "library" anyway? I offered you a home for your library and you were immediately horrified at the thought of everyone realizing that you have no library ... or that you don't even have any content whatsoever.

You seem to be placing all your eggs in the one basket of ocean alkalinity. You seem to know that the ocean gets most of its alkalinity from carbonates and bicarbonates. Unfortunately, that knowledge is insufficient to WOW! anyone. Even more unfortunate is the manner in which you pull the rug out from under yourself by not even knowing how the ocean gets its alkalinity. Any rational biogeoadult knows that the ocean's alkalinity stems from geological activity and erosion of rocks and minerals, i.e. the 2nd LoT that you don't understand.

Your religion requires you to kick away your one foothold on science. Otherwise your posts, when you aren't spamming or whining or trolling, hardly ever qualify as "contributions."

There's no time like the present to turn this around and to start being a productive contributor to Climate-Debate. Hint: don't worry about what other's write, but only about what you write.

.

Your statement of my opinions are accurate.


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




Join the debate Sabine:

Remember me

▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


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