Remember me
▼ Content

The Acid Test of Climate Change Mitigation



Page 3 of 4<1234>
17-03-2022 06:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
You are naive to characterize them as "warmizombies"

IBD invented the term, and he defined what it means.
sealover wrote:
This suggests that they know not what they do.

That is correct. They know not what they do.
sealover wrote:
Zombies stumble about mindlessly, capable of being herded into pens by masters.

If they have no mind, how do they know when to stop when they are in the pen?
sealover wrote:
Zombies couldn't direct a massive global conspiracy to destroy capitalism.

No, but socialists try to. You know...the masters 'herding the zombies into pens'.
sealover wrote:
You better open your eyes.

They're not warmizombies.

Yes they are.
sealover wrote:
They are WARMINISTS!

Buzzword fallacy. Semantics fallacy.


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
17-03-2022 06:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
I forgot to consider that coke has phosphoric acid, a triprotic buffer.

An acid is not a buffer.
sealover wrote:
This makes it a little more similar to the sea, with acid-base chemistry playing a role, in addition to the purely physical phenomenon of charging up the soda with high pressure CO2.

False authority fallacy. Google is not God nor a source.


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

More proof of a truly massive conspiracy.

Google must be a major part of it.

Void reference fallacy. Google is not a source.
sealover wrote:
Google "phosphate buffer" and see how many propagandists contributed to the BIG LIE that triprotic phosphoric acid could be called a "buffer".

YOU call it a 'buffer', dude. You are locked in another paradox.
sealover wrote:
...deleted extraneous gibber-babble...
Phosphate buffers. Gotta love 'em!

Phosphates are not buffers either.


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
17-03-2022 06:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:

So you are claiming this is an established meaningless word???[/quote]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How can even know what your question means when you NEVER ONCE have defined your terms.

This isn't just to taunt you with your own words because they are your words.

It is also a statement of fact about your presentation.

Seriously, you have never once defined your terms in a way I could understand.[/quote]
Mockery. Trolling.
sealover wrote:
But I'm mentally handicapped by that PhD you're so lucky you don't have.

You don't have one.


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
RE: are you the masochist for your sadistic partner?17-03-2022 06:25
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
You are naive to characterize them as "warmizombies"

IBD invented the term, and he defined what it means.
sealover wrote:
This suggests that they know not what they do.

That is correct. They know not what they do.
sealover wrote:
Zombies stumble about mindlessly, capable of being herded into pens by masters.

If they have no mind, how do they know when to stop when they are in the pen?
sealover wrote:
Zombies couldn't direct a massive global conspiracy to destroy capitalism.

No, but socialists try to. You know...the masters 'herding the zombies into pens'.
sealover wrote:
You better open your eyes.

They're not warmizombies.

Yes they are.
sealover wrote:
They are WARMINISTS!

Buzzword fallacy. Semantics fallacy.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
NO SCIENCE

Projection fallacy. Inversion fallacy.

I guess since your buddy is afraid to show up, and you seem to be a masochist anyway..

Do you have any idea what the 99% percent of the population I'm not allowed to speak for would see when they read your shit?

Does it display any hint of intelligence?

Just the ability to be a troll who plays word games, like your buddy calls 'em.

Is he sick?

You would think he'd want to jump in for the chance to join you in another gang rape.

Did he ditch you?

Is he in a corner crying somewhere?

I want so badly to humiliate him again.

But maybe it's not possible to shame the shameless.

You might even believe you are winning the "climate debate".
17-03-2022 06:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
NO SCIENCE

Projection fallacy. Inversion fallacy.

I guess since your buddy is afraid to show up, and you seem to be a masochist anyway..

Do you have any idea what the 99% percent of the population I'm not allowed to speak for would see when they read your shit?

Does it display any hint of intelligence?

Just the ability to be a troll who plays word games, like your buddy calls 'em.

Is he sick?

You would think he'd want to jump in for the chance to join you in another gang rape.

Did he ditch you?

Is he in a corner crying somewhere?

I want so badly to humiliate him again.

But maybe it's not possible to shame the shameless.

You might even believe you are winning the "climate debate".

Insult fallacies. No argument presented.


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
17-03-2022 07:21
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11758)
sealover wrote:Do you have any idea what the 99% percent of the population I'm not allowed to speak for would see when they read your shit?

Too funny! Please pretend to speak for them and tell us what they "would see".

sealover wrote:You might even believe you are winning the "climate debate".

I already won, got the trophy, did the lecture circuit did the product endorsements, etc...

Now I'm shaking off the cobwebs by bitch-slapping you around Climate-Debate. You can blame me for your being flustered and being unable to define your terms and unable to provide the equations you say are so absolutely critical to understanding your arguments.

Go ahead ... just blame me. Go on ... you can do it.


I knew you could.


RE: Treasure Trove of Absurd Assertions for Science Lessons17-03-2022 07:49
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
I don't actually need you like I did before.

You have already handed me a treasure trove of material to use as introductions for science lessons.

On the other hand, if you are willing to present a falsifiable hypothesis of some kind, ANY kind, cause I'm not sure you know how to do it.

If you can present a falsifiable hypothesis in a coherent argument that someone besides yourself would understand, you could vanquish me.

You can prove your scientific prowess and reestablish yourself as the local authority with the final word on what is science.

Got hypothesis?

Preferably, one of your own.

It's ON, dude!

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

IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:Do you have any idea what the 99% percent of the population I'm not allowed to speak for would see when they read your shit?

Too funny! Please pretend to speak for them and tell us what they "would see".

sealover wrote:You might even believe you are winning the "climate debate".

I already won, got the trophy, did the lecture circuit did the product endorsements, etc...

Now I'm shaking off the cobwebs by bitch-slapping you around Climate-Debate. You can blame me for your being flustered and being unable to define your terms and unable to provide the equations you say are so absolutely critical to understanding your arguments.

Go ahead ... just blame me. Go on ... you can do it.


I knew you could.


RE: "unambiguous definition for falsifiable hypothesis17-03-2022 08:35
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
[quote]sealover wrote:
I don't actually need you like I did before.

You have already handed me a treasure trove of material to use as introductions for science lessons.

On the other hand, if you are willing to present a falsifiable hypothesis of some kind, ANY kind, cause I'm not sure you know how to do it.

If you can present a falsifiable hypothesis in a coherent argument that someone besides yourself would understand, you could vanquish me.

You can prove your scientific prowess and reestablish yourself as the local authority with the final word on what is science.

Got hypothesis?

Preferably, one of your own.

It's ON, dude!

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

[quote]IBdaMann wrote:Please pretend to speak for them and tell us what they "would see".


Go ahead ... just blame me. Go on ... you can do it.

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

As far as I'm concerned, "falsifiable hypothesis" is just a "buzzword"

What they would see first is an unambiguous definition of "falsifiable hypothesis"

Otherwise we can't even talk about yet.

Isn't that one of the rules of honest debate?
RE: What about the other gang rapists? Wanna debate?17-03-2022 11:27
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
There were only two of you who were actually useful to me.

Only two of you pretended to be chemists.

Only two of you even had the vocabulary to give me any good quotes to use for chemistry lessons.

But when the gang rapes happened....

Let me define my terms.

Anyone who want to see how disgusting this place became can look at all the old threads.

I would tell them not to bother reading a single one of them. Too disgusting.

But just look at the sequence of individuals who quickly piled on whenever an unsuspecting first time poster dared to express concern about climate change.

It was a damn ambush. People were just waiting to be among the first to pounce.

If you want to read sick stuff, go ahead and open up a few of the posts.


Well, neither of your two senior scientists seem capable of providing an unambiguous definition for "falsifiable hypothesis"

Do you think you can help them out?

They're having a pretty tough time
RE: Internet gang rape17-03-2022 11:44
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
gfm7175 wrote:
WTF is "global dimming"?? Sounds like another entry for my list

It's up to 194 entries now BTW, with your latest addition, so it's approaching 200 entries rather quickly...

EDIT: Now 195 entries... I scrolled over 'white privilege' and noticed that I had forgotten all about 'male privilege', so that one has now been added to the list as well.


----------------------------------------------------------
to this poster's credit, he didn't try to get too personally offensive.

But check out the history of jumping in to pounce in large numbers.
17-03-2022 17:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
I don't actually need you like I did before.

There's that unnatural psychological 'need' again. Did your daddy abandon you or something?
sealover wrote:
You have already handed me a treasure trove of material to use as introductions for science lessons.

What science lessons? You deny science. You deny mathematics and logic too.
sealover wrote:
On the other hand, if you are willing to present a falsifiable hypothesis of some kind, ANY kind, cause I'm not sure you know how to do it.

There is no such thing. A hypothesis is not an explanatory argument and they are not falsifiable. Perhaps you mean a theory...?
sealover wrote:
If you can present a falsifiable hypothesis in a coherent argument that someone besides yourself would understand, you could vanquish me.

Try English. Your question would work better if asked in English.
sealover wrote:
You can prove your scientific prowess and reestablish yourself as the local authority with the final word on what is science.

Science is not authority. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
sealover wrote:
Got hypothesis?

Preferably, one of your own.

It's ON, dude!

A hypothesis is not a theory. Try again.


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
RE: unambiguous definition of "falsifiable hypothesis"17-03-2022 18:00
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
I don't actually need you like I did before.

There's that unnatural psychological 'need' again. Did your daddy abandon you or something?
sealover wrote:
You have already handed me a treasure trove of material to use as introductions for science lessons.

What science lessons? You deny science. You deny mathematics and logic too.
sealover wrote:
On the other hand, if you are willing to present a falsifiable hypothesis of some kind, ANY kind, cause I'm not sure you know how to do it.

There is no such thing. A hypothesis is not an explanatory argument and they are not falsifiable. Perhaps you mean a theory...?
sealover wrote:
If you can present a falsifiable hypothesis in a coherent argument that someone besides yourself would understand, you could vanquish me.

Try English. Your question would work better if asked in English.
sealover wrote:
You can prove your scientific prowess and reestablish yourself as the local authority with the final word on what is science.

Science is not authority. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
sealover wrote:
Got hypothesis?

Preferably, one of your own.

It's ON, dude!

A hypothesis is not a theory. Try again.


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

You are the only one mentioning the word "theory" here.

But that is fine.

I've never heard anyone besides you say "falsifiable theory".

Since you don't understand science enough to give unambiguous definition of "falsifiable hypothesis"...

What about this "falsifiable theory" buzzword you just invented?

Can you give an unambiguous definition for "falsifiable theory"?

Didn't think so.
17-03-2022 18:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
There were only two of you who were actually useful to me.

You just locked yourself in another paradox.
sealover wrote:
Only two of you pretended to be chemists.

I am a chemist, among other things.
sealover wrote:
Only two of you even had the vocabulary to give me any good quotes to use for chemistry lessons.

You deny chemistry.
sealover wrote:
But when the gang rapes happened....

Let me define my terms.

Still waiting. When are you going to define 'climate change', 'global warming', or 'climate crisis'?
sealover wrote:
Anyone who want to see how disgusting this place became can look at all the old threads.

I would tell them not to bother reading a single one of them. Too disgusting.

Hey...they are YOUR threads, dude.
sealover wrote:
But just look at the sequence of individuals who quickly piled on whenever an unsuspecting first time poster dared to express concern about climate change.

Define 'climate change'. Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
It was a damn ambush. People were just waiting to be among the first to pounce.

Paranoia.
sealover wrote:
If you want to read sick stuff, go ahead and open up a few of the posts.


Well, neither of your two senior scientists seem capable of providing an unambiguous definition for "falsifiable hypothesis"

No such thing. Try again. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
sealover wrote:
Do you think you can help them out?

They're having a pretty tough time

You are describing yourself again. Inversion fallacy.

A theory is an explanatory argument.
A falsifiable theory is one that can be tested to see if it's False.
That test must be available, practical to conduct, specific, and produce a specific result.
Any such theory is automatically part of the body of science.

No theory is ever proven True. That is not possible.

Examples of a theory of science that you ignore:

1st law of thermodynamics: E(t+1) = E(t) - U where 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work.
In other words, you cannot create energy out of nothing. No gas or vapor can create energy out of nothing. That includes CO2.

2nd law of thermodynamics: e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy, and 't' is time. In other words, this defines 'heat' and the direction it must flow. You can never heat something warmer using a colder material. That means CO2 in the atmosphere is not capable of heating an already warmer surface.

Both of these theories have been tested to see of they are False many times. So far, they still hold as theories of science.

And you ignore them.

If you can find a way to create energy out of nothing, or to destroy energy into nothing, or to make 'heat' flow 'uphill', as it were, and demonstrate it in no uncertain terms, you can falsify either of these theories. Any method of reducing entropy in a system will falsify the 2nd law. Remember that system must be consistent. You cannot compare two different systems as if they were the same system.

None of your gibber-babble about acids, bases, pH, or paranoia about CO2 is going to falsify either of these two laws that you are ignoring.

Using buzzwords isn't to cut it. If you are going to claim CO2 somehow warms the Earth, you are going to have to show it. You can't use random numbers as data. See the demands of the Data Mine. I will accept nothing other than data presented according to the rules I laid out in the Data Mine, and that has no problems with it's collection method.

Unfortunately, you do not understand statistical math nor logic. You never learned them. You are illiterate in both of these.

You are also illiterate in science and chemistry, a branch of science. Using meaningless buzzwords is just a waste of your effort. Wandering into unrelated phrases is just a waste of your effort. Insulting people is not an argument.

There is no other way, dude. You're going to have to deal with these theories of science and define 'climate change' to get anywhere at all, or abandon the buzzwords entirely.

Credentials mean nothing here. I don't give a damn if you are homeless, work at Microsoft, work as a truck driver, are an explosives expert, or work as a scientist. All are equal here. It is your argument that makes a difference here. Your argument and nobody else's. Holy Links to websites is not your argument. It is somebody else's argument. Present your OWN arguments.

You cannot use Wikipedia. You cannot use a dictionary to define words. You cannot use the Encyclopedia Brittanica. You must present your own arguments and your own reasoning for it.

That means YOU must define any buzzword you use. A far better path is to avoid them completely.

So let's lay off the bullshit you call 'chemistry' and see you try to describe how CO2 warms the Earth. Remember you cannot ignore science to do it. You cannot ignore mathematics to do it. You cannot point to Google or any website to do it.

Let's see you make your own arguments.


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 17-03-2022 18:20
RE: I only published falsifiable HYPOTHESIS17-03-2022 18:13
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Looks like I'm out of my league here.

The only papers they let ME ever publish were based on this fake buzzword "falsifiable hypothesis".

I'm not competent to publish a "falsifiable theory" because I've never heard that term until today.

I guess I have to bow out then. I'm out of my league.

So how many "falsifiable theory" papers did you publish?

Hell, you don't even have to give me an unambiguous definition.

Just reference your pubs so I can read them and finally learn some "science".

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

Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
I don't actually need you like I did before.

There's that unnatural psychological 'need' again. Did your daddy abandon you or something?
sealover wrote:
You have already handed me a treasure trove of material to use as introductions for science lessons.

What science lessons? You deny science. You deny mathematics and logic too.
sealover wrote:
On the other hand, if you are willing to present a falsifiable hypothesis of some kind, ANY kind, cause I'm not sure you know how to do it.

There is no such thing. A hypothesis is not an explanatory argument and they are not falsifiable. Perhaps you mean a theory...?
sealover wrote:
If you can present a falsifiable hypothesis in a coherent argument that someone besides yourself would understand, you could vanquish me.

Try English. Your question would work better if asked in English.
sealover wrote:
You can prove your scientific prowess and reestablish yourself as the local authority with the final word on what is science.

Science is not authority. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
sealover wrote:
Got hypothesis?

Preferably, one of your own.

It's ON, dude!

A hypothesis is not a theory. Try again.
17-03-2022 18:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
Looks like I'm out of my league here.

It would seem so, so far.
sealover wrote:
The only papers they let ME ever publish were based on this fake buzzword "falsifiable hypothesis".

Who are 'they'? Do they rule your life?
sealover wrote:
I'm not competent to publish a "falsifiable theory" because I've never heard that term until today.

Sucks to be you then. You can always begin learning any day you choose to do so.
sealover wrote:
I guess I have to bow out then. I'm out of my league.

So how many "falsifiable theory" papers did you publish?

Science isn't papers. Science isn't even publishing. It is just the falsifiable theories themselves. I have already described several theories of science you are ignoring. You are going to have to deal with that.
sealover wrote:
Hell, you don't even have to give me an unambiguous definition.

Just reference your pubs so I can read them and finally learn some "science".

I just did. Go read it.


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
RE: just say out of the Kiddie pool then17-03-2022 18:29
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
I promise to NEVER EVER troll any of your threads.

Why don't you start a good thread of your own instead of jumping on mine so often?

I'll leave you alone in your happy little world of "falsifiable theory", whatever the heck that is.

Just stay out of the Kiddie pool and I won't have any more tantrums.

You don't even have to pretend to understand science to attack me if you aren't trolling one of my threads.

Don't you have any good thread ideas so much better than mine that the trolls would want to come to you there?

We can co exist.

I'm only asking for some basic courtesy on about a dozen threads.

My only "informal rule" is don't be a major dickwad.

You can behave any way you like on your thread where you make the "informal" rules.

Why do you even want to be on my threads?

Didn't you start like a hundred or two of your own?

Isn't the grown-up pool where you would rather be anyway?

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

Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
There were only two of you who were actually useful to me.

You just locked yourself in another paradox.
sealover wrote:
Only two of you pretended to be chemists.

I am a chemist, among other things.
sealover wrote:
Only two of you even had the vocabulary to give me any good quotes to use for chemistry lessons.

You deny chemistry.
sealover wrote:
But when the gang rapes happened....

Let me define my terms.

Still waiting. When are you going to define 'climate change', 'global warming', or 'climate crisis'?
sealover wrote:
Anyone who want to see how disgusting this place became can look at all the old threads.

I would tell them not to bother reading a single one of them. Too disgusting.

Hey...they are YOUR threads, dude.
sealover wrote:
But just look at the sequence of individuals who quickly piled on whenever an unsuspecting first time poster dared to express concern about climate change.

Define 'climate change'. Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
It was a damn ambush. People were just waiting to be among the first to pounce.

Paranoia.
sealover wrote:
If you want to read sick stuff, go ahead and open up a few of the posts.


Well, neither of your two senior scientists seem capable of providing an unambiguous definition for "falsifiable hypothesis"

No such thing. Try again. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
sealover wrote:
Do you think you can help them out?

They're having a pretty tough time

You are describing yourself again. Inversion fallacy.

A theory is an explanatory argument.
A falsifiable theory is one that can be tested to see if it's False.
That test must be available, practical to conduct, specific, and produce a specific result.
Any such theory is automatically part of the body of science.

No theory is ever proven True. That is not possible.

Examples of a theory of science that you ignore:

1st law of thermodynamics: E(t+1) = E(t) - U where 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work.
In other words, you cannot create energy out of nothing. No gas or vapor can create energy out of nothing. That includes CO2.

2nd law of thermodynamics: e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy, and 't' is time. In other words, this defines 'heat' and the direction it must flow. You can never heat something warmer using a colder material. That means CO2 in the atmosphere is not capable of heating an already warmer surface.

Both of these theories have been tested to see of they are False many times. So far, they still hold as theories of science.

And you ignore them.

If you can find a way to create energy out of nothing, or to destroy energy into nothing, or to make 'heat' flow 'uphill', as it were, and demonstrate it in no uncertain terms, you can falsify either of these theories. Any method of reducing entropy in a system will falsify the 2nd law. Remember that system must be consistent. You cannot compare two different systems as if they were the same system.

None of your gibber-babble about acids, bases, pH, or paranoia about CO2 is going to falsify either of these two laws that you are ignoring.

Using buzzwords isn't to cut it. If you are going to claim CO2 somehow warms the Earth, you are going to have to show it. You can't use random numbers as data. See the demands of the Data Mine. I will accept nothing other than data presented according to the rules I laid out in the Data Mine, and that no problems with it's collection method.
17-03-2022 18:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
I promise to NEVER EVER troll any of your threads.

You would rather troll your own, eh?
sealover wrote:
Why don't you start a good thread of your own instead of jumping on mine so often?

Already have. I have no problem with jumping on your threads. You can't keep me out of the kiddie pool either.
sealover wrote:
I'll leave you alone in your happy little world of "falsifiable theory", whatever the heck that is.

I already explained to you. Argument of the Stone fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Just stay out of the Kiddie pool and I won't have any more tantrums.

Nah. You'll continue to have tantrums. You can't help yourself.
sealover wrote:
You don't even have to pretend to understand science to attack me if you aren't trolling one of my threads.

I already know you don't understand science, even though I've explained to you.
sealover wrote:
Don't you have any good thread ideas so much better than mine that the trolls would want to come to you there?

I'll post where I wish. You can't stop me.
sealover wrote:
We can co exist.

I'm only asking for some basic courtesy on about a dozen threads.

No. I will extend you no such courtesy. There is no safe haven here.
sealover wrote:
My only "informal rule" is don't be a major dickwad.

Then you broke your own rule. You are locked in another paradox.
sealover wrote:
You can behave any way you like on your thread where you make the "informal" rules.

No. I conform to my rules. Apparently you don't.
sealover wrote:
Why do you even want to be on my threads?

It is where you are posting your bullshit. I will post wherever I please.


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
RE: at least my students won't have to see it17-03-2022 19:04
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Yes, you have made it clear that you are entitled to troll any thread you want.

I would imagine it is even a moral obligation to intervene when you see someone fail to provide an unambiguous definition for climate change.

So, I will remind my students that they can just click "sealover" by my avatar, and we can communicate science without having to read your..

----------------------------------------------------------------------------[


quote]Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
I promise to NEVER EVER troll any of your threads.

You would rather troll your own, eh?
sealover wrote:
Why don't you start a good thread of your own instead of jumping on mine so often?

Already have. I have no problem with jumping on your threads. You can't keep me out of the kiddie pool either.
sealover wrote:
I'll leave you alone in your happy little world of "falsifiable theory", whatever the heck that is.

I already explained to you. Argument of the Stone fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Just stay out of the Kiddie pool and I won't have any more tantrums.

Nah. You'll continue to have tantrums. You can't help yourself.
sealover wrote:
You don't even have to pretend to understand science to attack me if you aren't trolling one of my threads.

I already know you don't understand science, even though I've explained to you.
sealover wrote:
Don't you have any good thread ideas so much better than mine that the trolls would want to come to you there?

I'll post where I wish. You can't stop me.
sealover wrote:
We can co exist.

I'm only asking for some basic courtesy on about a dozen threads.

No. I will extend you no such courtesy. There is no safe haven here.
sealover wrote:
My only "informal rule" is don't be a major dickwad.

Then you broke your own rule. You are locked in another paradox.
sealover wrote:
You can behave any way you like on your thread where you make the "informal" rules.

No. I conform to my rules. Apparently you don't.
sealover wrote:
Why do you even want to be on my threads?

It is where you are posting your bullshit. I will post wherever I please.[/quote]
17-03-2022 20:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
Yes, you have made it clear that you are entitled to troll any thread you want.

Inversion fallacy. It is you that is trolling. You are trolling right now.
sealover wrote:
I would imagine it is even a moral obligation to intervene when you see someone fail to provide an unambiguous definition for climate change.

I realize that you don't want to define 'climate change' and continue to talk in a vacuum, and that's your choice. It's certainly a waste of your effort though. Talking about nothing doesn't get you anywhere.
sealover wrote:
So, I will remind my students that they can just click "sealover" by my avatar, and we can communicate science without having to read your..

Communicating nothing is not communicating.


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
RE: Correction: They WILL see some of your shit18-03-2022 00:02
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
[quote]sealover wrote:
Yes, you have made it clear that you are entitled to troll any thread you want.

I would imagine it is even a moral obligation to intervene when you see someone fail to provide an unambiguous definition for climate change.

So, I will remind my students that they can just click "sealover" by my avatar, and we can communicate science without having to read your..

----------------------------------------------------------------------------[
As an intellectually honest scientist, my ethical training has been to make sure that if I become aware that I published an error, I must publish a correction.

I published an error here.

I said that my students wouldn't have to read any of your shit.

That was incorrect.

Some of your shit will appear in at least half the science lessons.

Your most absurd anti-scientific claims will appear as selected, complete sentence quotes.

I apologize for publishing an error.
18-03-2022 00:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
As an intellectually honest scientist,

You deny science.
sealover wrote:
my ethical training has been to make sure that if I become aware that I published an error, I must publish a correction.

I published an error here.

I said that my students wouldn't have to read any of your shit.

That was incorrect.

Some of your shit will appear in at least half the science lessons.

Your most absurd anti-scientific claims will appear as selected, complete sentence quotes.

I apologize for publishing an error.

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself.


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
RE: Is there such a thing as a "falsifiable hypothesis"?18-03-2022 22:01
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
sealover wrote:
Looks like I'm out of my league here.

The only papers they let ME ever publish were based on this fake buzzword "falsifiable hypothesis".

I'm not competent to publish a "falsifiable theory" because I've never heard that term until today.

I guess I have to bow out then. I'm out of my league.

So how many "falsifiable theory" papers did you publish?

Hell, you don't even have to give me an unambiguous definition.

Just reference your pubs so I can read them and finally learn some "science".

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

Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
I don't actually need you like I did before.

There's that unnatural psychological 'need' again. Did your daddy abandon you or something?
sealover wrote:
You have already handed me a treasure trove of material to use as introductions for science lessons.

What science lessons? You deny science. You deny mathematics and logic too.
sealover wrote:
On the other hand, if you are willing to present a falsifiable hypothesis of some kind, ANY kind, cause I'm not sure you know how to do it.

There is no such thing. A hypothesis is not an explanatory argument and they are not falsifiable. Perhaps you mean a theory...?
sealover wrote:
If you can present a falsifiable hypothesis in a coherent argument that someone besides yourself would understand, you could vanquish me.

Try English. Your question would work better if asked in English.
sealover wrote:
You can prove your scientific prowess and reestablish yourself as the local authority with the final word on what is science.

Science is not authority. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
sealover wrote:
Got hypothesis?

Preferably, one of your own.

It's ON, dude!

A hypothesis is not a theory. Try again.


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

You are correct. A hypothesis is NOT a theory.

Can you provide an "unambiguous definition" for either terms?

Perhaps you could convince someone you understand at least ONE of them.

I couldn't find any of your publications. Could you help me out?
RE: next new thread: Global Dimming18-03-2022 22:53
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
GasGuzzler wrote:
sealover wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:.

.....when European nations stopped emitting so much sun blocking soot into the air.
There wasn't as much shade to keep the Atlantic cool any more. Africa got some severe droughts because of it.



Wait...did you just make a case for manmade COOLING?

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

"manmade COOLING?" YES Anthropogenic global cooling is in competition with anthropogenic global warming.

Warming is winning so far.

But cooling is a tremendously important variable to counterbalance it.

So the next new thread will be about the science of "global dimming".

That's right.

The SCIENCE of a 30+ year old "new buzzword" the trolls finally learned.
19-03-2022 00:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
You are correct. A hypothesis is NOT a theory.

Can you provide an "unambiguous definition" for either terms?

Already have. RQAA.

A theory is an explanatory argument.
An argument is a set of predicates and a conclusion.
A hypothesis stems from a theory. It is a question related to the theory. Example: the null hypothesis of a theory, which is the question: how can I possibly show this theory to be False?

A theory, since it is valid argument, must pass the internal consistency check. It must be free from any fallacy.

It is not possible to prove any theory True.
It is not possible to prove a nonscientific theory False.
It IS possible to show a scientific theory to be False. When that happens, the theory is destroyed.


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 19-03-2022 00:45
19-03-2022 00:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:

"manmade COOLING?" YES Anthropogenic global cooling is in competition with anthropogenic global warming.

Warming is winning so far.

But cooling is a tremendously important variable to counterbalance it.

What cooling? What warming? It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. No gas or vapor has the capability to create energy out of nothing nor destroy energy into nothing.
sealover wrote:
So the next new thread will be about the science of "global dimming".

Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
That's right.

The SCIENCE of a 30+ year old "new buzzword" the trolls finally learned.

Science is not buzzwords.


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
RE: Is this what is known as "trolling my own thread"?19-03-2022 06:04
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Is this what is known as "trolling" my own thread?

Oh, wait.

This isn't my post.

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


Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:

"manmade COOLING?" YES Anthropogenic global cooling is in competition with anthropogenic global warming.

Warming is winning so far.

But cooling is a tremendously important variable to counterbalance it.

What cooling? What warming? It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. No gas or vapor has the capability to create energy out of nothing nor destroy energy into nothing.
sealover wrote:
So the next new thread will be about the science of "global dimming".

Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
That's right.

The SCIENCE of a 30+ year old "new buzzword" the trolls finally learned.

Science is not buzzwords.
19-03-2022 08:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
Is this what is known as "trolling" my own thread?

Oh, wait.

This isn't my post.

Yes. And it is your post.

Unless you are claiming someone hacked your account?

Nah. It's you. It's your same old behavior.


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 19-03-2022 08:23
I will defend my friends and colleagues19-03-2022 08:49
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
If any of my friends or colleagues falls victim to your predatory sadism when they get here in May.

Believe me, somebody will CHECK YOUR ASS.

It won't even have to be me, but I'll be sure to get in on it. It could be an educational demonstration of how to handle disgusting pieces of shit like you.

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


Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
Is this what is known as "trolling" my own thread?

Oh, wait.

This isn't my post.

Yes. And it is your post.

Unless you are claiming someone hacked your account?

Nah. It's you. It's your same old behavior.


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

Gosh!

I was unaware that this was my own post on my own thread.

Just more proof of how INCREDIBLY STUPID I must be.

Irony missed the mark.
Edited on 19-03-2022 08:55
19-03-2022 19:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
If any of my friends or colleagues falls victim to your predatory sadism when they get here in May.

Believe me, somebody will CHECK YOUR ASS.

It won't even have to be me, but I'll be sure to get in on it. It could be an educational demonstration of how to handle disgusting pieces of shit like you.

Argument of the Stick fallacy. Inversion fallacy. Trolling. No argument presented.


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
19-03-2022 19:49
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11758)
sealover wrote:If any of my friends or colleagues falls victim to your predatory sadism when they get here in May.

Believe me, somebody will CHECK YOUR ASS.

It won't even have to be me, but I'll be sure to get in on it. It could be an educational demonstration of how to handle disgusting pieces of shit like you.

Too funny. I'm certain that you have no idea just how lame this was. You have some profound need to appear intimidating because you have no confidence that you can persuade anyone with your ideas.

Is this why you refuse to make any sort of point, i.e. because you know that it will be immediately recognized as being absurd? Is this why you don't define any of your empty buzzwords? Is this why all you can do is drift into pointless anecdotes?

Cheers.

p.s. - did you hear the joke about the spetic tank at the coral reef?
RE: Warning about sharing anything personal19-03-2022 22:57
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
IBdaMann wrote:
Too funny. I'm certain that you have no idea just how lame this was. You have some profound need to appear intimidating because you have no confidence that you can persuade anyone with your ideas.

Is this why you refuse to make any sort of point, i.e. because you know that it will be immediately recognized as being absurd? Is this why you don't define any of your empty buzzwords? Is this why all you can do is drift into pointless anecdotes?

Cheers.

p.s. - did you hear the joke about the spetic tank at the coral reef?


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

Did you hear the joke about the spetic tank at the coral reef?

No such joke would have been made if you hadn't revealed a personal story about hexavalent chromium and the biogeochemistry of its transformation, that involved sample collection at a "spetic" tank. No such joke if you hadn't revealed a personal story of multiple extensive visits to the same small pocket of coral reef, and seeing the damage over time with your own eyes.

The troll hopes to provoke on a personal level.

He said it himself: "You have some profound need to appear intimidating because you have no confidence in your ability to persuade anyone with your ideas."

That would explain why I post ugly clown pictures on other people's threads.

So, if you post anything on this website, avoid revealing ANYTHING personal because these ****s just want to HURT somebody.
20-03-2022 05:16
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11758)
sealover wrote:So, if you post anything on this website, avoid revealing ANYTHING personal because these ****s just want to HURT somebody.

One day, seal over walks into a bar called "The Coral Reef." He tells the bartender that he had actually visited this place many years before when it was a happening joint. Looking around, though, it looked like the place had seen better days. "What happened?" asked seal over of the bartender. "Well, it seems that everybody that has to go to the bathroom gets hexavalent chromium poisoning from the septic tank, and we don't know why." Seal over asks "Have you had a biogeochemist take a look at it?" The bartender tells him that that is exactly what the staff tried to do many times, but the only references to biogeochemists were in Wikipedia ... and without any names or contact information." Seal over tells the bartender "Well, I need to take a leak so I can take a look at it for you. I'll even gather a few samples. I always carry my pocket titration unit with me so I can give you a quick analysis and maybe unlock the secret to your 'coral bleaching'. "

After about thirty minutes, seal over returns and says "I have some good news and some bad news. Which do you want first?" The bartender says "Give me the bad news first." "Fine," says seal over, "you have microbial decomposition creating a HUGE methane reservoir beneath your tundra." "Well, what's the good news then?" asks the bartender. "The government is to blame!" exclaims seal over. "This joke isn't very funny" says the bartender. "That's because it has no point" retorts seal over.

"OK, OK... let me try again" says seal over. "A doctor tells his patient that he has some bad news and some worse news. 'The bad news', says the doctor, is that your cancer has gotten much worse and I figure you have roughly 24 hours to live.' The patient asks 'Well, what's the worse news?' The doctor replies 'I was supposed to tell you yesterday.'
RE: Why do you need my attention so badly?20-03-2022 05:29
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Why do you need my attention so badly?

Maybe you always wished that just once, a real scientist would respect you.

You kind of blew your chance.

No hard feelings, though.

Irony intended, in case you are too dense to miss it.

Our relationship has been very beneficial to my interests.

It is flattering that you want my attention so badly.

So many, many words you write in the hope that they will touch me somehow.

I hope it doesn't break your heart that it's way too late to win my respect.

I hope you are able to move on to find someone who can give you that respect.

I accept your apology.

IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:So, if you post anything on this website, avoid revealing ANYTHING personal because these ****s just want to HURT somebody.

One day, seal over walks into a bar called "The Coral Reef." He tells the bartender that he had actually visited this place many years before when it was a happening joint. Looking around, though, it looked like the place had seen better days. "What happened?" asked seal over of the bartender. "Well, it seems that everybody that has to go to the bathroom gets hexavalent chromium poisoning from the septic tank, and we don't know why." Seal over asks "Have you had a biogeochemist take a look at it?" The bartender tells him that that is exactly what the staff tried to do many times, but the only references to biogeochemists were in Wikipedia ... and without any names or contact information." Seal over tells the bartender "Well, I need to take a leak so I can take a look at it for you. I'll even gather a few samples. I always carry my pocket titration unit with me so I can give you a quick analysis and maybe unlock the secret to your 'coral bleaching'. "

After about thirty minutes, seal over returns and says "I have some good news and some bad news. Which do you want first?" The bartender says "Give me the bad news first." "Fine," says seal over, "you have microbial decomposition creating a HUGE methane reservoir beneath your tundra." "Well, what's the good news then?" asks the bartender. "The government is to blame!" exclaims seal over. "This joke isn't very funny" says the bartender. "That's because it has no point" retorts seal over.

"OK, OK... let me try again" says seal over. "A doctor tells his patient that he has some bad news and some worse news. 'The bad news', says the doctor, is that your cancer has gotten much worse and I figure you have roughly 24 hours to live.' The patient asks 'Well, what's the worse news?' The doctor replies 'I was supposed to tell you yesterday.'
20-03-2022 05:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11758)
sealover wrote:Why do you need my attention so badly?

I don't. Please ignore me.

sealover wrote:Maybe you always wished that just once, a real scientist would respect you.

Nope. I wish that just once my children would listen to me and maybe clean up after themselves.

sealover wrote:Our relationship has been very beneficial to my interests.

I knew I could finally get you to question your WACKY dogma and your false assumptions.

sealover wrote:So many, many words you write in the hope that they will touch me somehow.

What I write is for the benefit of others. Feel free to just ignore me. Thanks.

sealover wrote:I accept your apology.

Good. Now I won't feel so bad when I snipe the stupid schytt you write. I've got your blessing. Much appreciated.
.
RE: Parroting Alternative Facts23-03-2022 20:21
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
Parroting Alternative Facts

Some pretty wacky stuff about "science" gets posted on the Internet.

"sealover" is pretty sure that the alternative facts being parroted in this forum will not cause too much confusion.

Hopefully they will provide some insight into how disinformation spreads.

At some point, the more times these contrarians, they have made wildly inconsistent and contradictory points.

Since alkalinity and pH are so important to the global change puzzle, these self-contradictions will be highlighted... One day it is impossible for a solution to have alkalinity unless its pH is above 7. One day it just proves again that I don't know ANYTHING about "science".

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:Do you have any idea what the 99% percent of the population I'm not allowed to speak for would see when they read your shit?

Too funny! Please pretend to speak for them and tell us what they "would see".

sealover wrote:You might even believe you are winning the "climate debate".

I already won, got the trophy, did the lecture circuit did the product endorsements, etc...

Now I'm shaking off the cobwebs by bitch-slapping you around Climate-Debate. You can blame me for your being flustered and being unable to define your terms and unable to provide the equations you say are so absolutely critical to understanding your arguments.

Go ahead ... just blame me. Go on ... you can do it.


I knew you could.


23-03-2022 21:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
Why do you need my attention so badly?

He doesn't.
sealover wrote:
Maybe you always wished that just once, a real scientist would respect you.

True Scotsman fallacy.
sealover wrote:
You kind of blew your chance.

No hard feelings, though.

Irony intended, in case you are too dense to miss it.

Our relationship has been very beneficial to my interests.

It is flattering that you want my attention so badly.

So many, many words you write in the hope that they will touch me somehow.

I hope it doesn't break your heart that it's way too late to win my respect.

I hope you are able to move on to find someone who can give you that respect.

I accept your apology.

Assumption of victory fallacy. Hallucinations. Trolling. No argument presented.


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
23-03-2022 22:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
sealover wrote:
Parroting Alternative Facts

Define 'alternative facts'. Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Some pretty wacky stuff about "science" gets posted on the Internet.

"sealover" is pretty sure that the alternative facts being parroted in this forum will not cause too much confusion.

Define 'alternative facts'. Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Hopefully they will provide some insight into how disinformation spreads.

By people like you and other believers of fundamentalist style religions such as the Church of Global Warming, the Church of Green, the Church of the Ozone Hole, the Church of Covid, and the Church of Karl Marx.
sealover wrote:
At some point, the more times these contrarians, they have made wildly inconsistent and contradictory points.

You are describing yourself and believers of these religions.
sealover wrote:
Since alkalinity and pH are so important to the global change puzzle,

Define 'global change puzzle'. Buzzword fallacies.
sealover wrote:
these self-contradictions will be highlighted... One day it is impossible for a solution to have alkalinity unless its pH is above 7. One day it just proves again that I don't know ANYTHING about "science".

You don't.


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
RE: this is how they welcome new members on their second day.06-04-2022 22:31
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
this is how they welcome new members on their second day.

"Define your fugging terms you dishonest, brain dead schytt."

"and now your playbook tells you to cry like a baby and pretend your widdo feewings are vewy huut"

Yeah, this is how a credible scientist displays their intelligence in debate.

This was literally the second day I posted when my offensive refusal to define climate related terms inspired such vitriol.

The timing for pulling up some of your finer examples is no accident.

Right now, this is for an audience of just one.

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

IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:Before I got on here, there wasn't a single recent thread about climate change.

.. and there still isn't a single thread with an unambiguous definition of:

1. Global Warming
2. Climate Change
3. Greenhouse Effect
4. greenhouse gas

Not a single brain-dead, scientifically illiterate, Wikipedia-thumping wamizombie ever comes here to participate in an honest discussion. Not a single one. You are no exception.

When simply asked to define your terms, you doubled down on dishonesty. Just like all the other Marxist schytts, you came here to preach your F'ed religion, not to tolerate any sort of differing views. You tried to fool others into accepting you as an expert in science, as though it somehow wasn't obvious by your gaffes that you are simply regurgitating opinions that were handed to you by someone else. When your audience asked you to use correct terminology, you pretended to speak for "everyone" in a true demonstration of omniscient preacher syndrome.

... and now your playbook tells you to cry like a baby and pretend your widdo-feewings are vewy huut. Do you feel the outpouring of sympathy?

Define your fuqqing terms you dishonest, brain-dead schytt. Show your audience that you actually want to participate in an honest discussion. Don't expect a whole lot of sympathy otherwise.
RE: What's up with the ugly clowns, anyway?06-04-2022 23:26
sealover
★★★☆☆
(803)
What's up with the ugly clowns, anyway?

Seems like it's kind of a "thing" around here.

HarveyH55 even put an ugly clown picture for an avatar.

I guess it's a climate-debate thing, where the ugly clowns represent..

Again, this is timed now for an audience of just one.

What's up with the ugly clowns, anyway?

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


IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:Do you have any idea what the 99% percent of the population I'm not allowed to speak for would see when they read your shit?

Too funny! Please pretend to speak for them and tell us what they "would see".

sealover wrote:You might even believe you are winning the "climate debate".

I already won, got the trophy, did the lecture circuit did the product endorsements, etc...

Now I'm shaking off the cobwebs by bitch-slapping you around Climate-Debate. You can blame me for your being flustered and being unable to define your terms and unable to provide the equations you say are so absolutely critical to understanding your arguments.

Go ahead ... just blame me. Go on ... you can do it.


I knew you could.


07-04-2022 00:27
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★★
(2431)
sealover wrote:
What's up with the ugly clowns, anyway?


I totally get it. The ugly clowns are so offensive.

Why can't those trolls just use ordinary clowns like these?


I just make shit up- sealover
Attached image:


Edited on 07-04-2022 00:28
Page 3 of 4<1234>





Join the debate The Acid Test of Climate Change Mitigation:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
volcanic effects on acid rain806-02-2021 19:40
Attachment Test901-07-2020 00:06
The hotter the classroom, the lower the test scores, research finds106-03-2019 21:58
CO2 is an acid--so, what's the problem?2011-07-2018 20:16
Climate Change Mitigation Option112-01-2017 18:00
▲ 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