The Church of Thermodenial - DEFINE YOUR TERMS!
| 30-04-2026 23:07 | |
Into the Night ★★★★★(23896) |
Im a BM wrote: Inversion fallacy. Im a BM wrote: I haven't denied any of my posts, Robert. Im a BM wrote: YARP 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 |
| 19-05-2026 15:30 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (3283) |
"Define your terms." - Oh, the irony! Original post: September, 2024 At the time of this post, new prey were still being directed to the ambush by Google searches for climate discussion sites. There was still a whole team of trolls ready to pounce as each new member attempted to express concern about climate change. Most terms in science require more than one or two words to adequately define them. I can only get ONE word, "ratio", when I ask ITN to define what HE thinks "pH" is. And he is a "chemist"! Into the Night, can you offer more than one word to define pH, buffering, or any of the chemistry subjects you keep trying to bluff with "RQAA"? I hold the truth of climate change to be self evident at this point in history. -------------------------------------------------------------------- This website, climate-debate.com, is a special kind of rabbit hole. New members who use the term "climate change" in their first post are subjected to a special kind of hazing. DEFINE YOUR TERMS! New members discover, often within minutes, that they are being ordered to provide an "unambiguous definition" of climate change that "does not violate the laws of thermodynamics". Failure to obey the order is a violation of the sacred code of science. EVERYONE MUST DEFINE THEIR TERMS BEFORE BEING ALLOWED TO USE THEM Supposedly, that is what "scientists" are REQUIRED to do. You can't say "climate change" because nobody will have any idea what you mean until you provide that "unambiguous definition". And that "unambiguous definition" must then pass muster according to THERMODYNAMIC criteria. Thermodynamic criteria will determine if the new member's unambiguous definition of "climate change" can be allowed for use in discussion. NO NEW MEMBER HAS EVER PASSED THE TEST But EVERY new member who tries is informed of their identity as a "scientifically illiterate moron." EVERY new member who tries is exposed as a gullible Marxist puppet, sent here by evil masters to preach religious dogma disguised as science in behalf of the Church of Global Warming who want to destroy the world economy out of pure spite for humanity. Ironic that they criticize climate science as religious dogma, and followers of that dogma as preachers for the Church of Global Warming. Because what they have in this little rabbit echo chamber looks a whole lot like a religious cult. Perhaps the cult might be best described as the Church of Thermodenial. As we are required to define our terms, here goes: Thermodenial = Thermo + denial Thermo = related to heat, temperature, warming and cooling Denial = refusal to acknowledge something that is a fact Thermodenial = refusal to acknowledge something that is a fact about heat, temperature, warming and cooling. The cult here was established nine years ago. There used to be a whole team of trolls who would all pile on to new member who naively used the term "climate change". There used to be a whole gang in agreement that failure to obey the order to "define your terms" was legitimate provocation for personal grievance and personal attack. But the cult of the Church of Thermodenial at climate-debate.com isn't what it used to be. They drove away the other 1700 members who joined and once wanted to participate in the discussion. Very few new members join anymore. An entire week can pass with fewer than five members posting anything at all. Is it possible they truly don't understand what is being expressed by the term "climate change" without somebody telling them (for the first time?) what it means? Define your terms define your terms define your terms you stupid, gullible, scientifically illiterate moron Marxist infiltrator... Wonder why you now find yourselves pretty much alone in your echo chamber? |
| 19-05-2026 17:25 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1953) |
IBdaMann says there IS "such a thing" as a "truly scientific journal". I have begged him many times to please provide just ONE example. The journal Nature, where two of my discoveries were published, is just a "shit rag", according to the local Troll Council. "A truly scientific journal is a journal that documents actual/true science." - IBdaMann Okay, so do you know of even ONE example of such a journal? I have asked you repeatedly in the years since you posted your claim. I don't believe you know of any published source of information about science that you dare to cite as "truly scientific" Or is there even ONE credible SCIENTIST who you can name, whose published work qualifies as "truly scientific"? I didn't think so. IBdaMann wrote:Im a BM wrote: You always avoid answering the questions about the hard stuff. Are you trying to pretend that you didn't know I wasn't asking you to NAME ONE JOURNAL that meets your standards for "truly scientific"? You say the journal NATURE, one of the journals that published my widely-cited discoveries, is a "shit-rag". NOT "truly scientific". But you know so little about scientific journals you can't even come up with the name of a journal you won't belittle and dismiss. TRY SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN! Scientific American is a good journal. Many would say it qualifies as "truly scientific", although it isn't really a research science journal. But right now, Scientific American is my HERO among truly scientific journals. They took the VERY UNUSUAL STEP of making a presidential endorsement. Scientific American has endorsed Kamala Harris. They don't just see Trump as a threat to democracy. TRUMP IS A THREAT TO SCIENCE! "..the prestigious magazine Scientific American argued persuasively that reality and science are on the ballot, too." The problem is that what Trump would do as president, again, "endangers public health and safety and rejects evidence, preferring instead nonsensical conspiracy fantasies." In the 179 years that Scientific American has been published, this is only the SECOND time they have EVER made an endorsement in an election. The first time was in 2020, when they endorsed Joe Biden. Because in 2020 Trump was a threat to public health and safety due to his rejection of evidence and preference for nonsensical conspiracy fantasies. I wonder if Trumpamaniacs are gullible enough to believe that Scientific American has been taken over by the "Communist, Marxist fascists" who simply want to "destroy" America. |
| 19-05-2026 19:33 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (23896) |
Im a BM wrote: Whining is useless, Robert. It accomplishes nothing...not even for your wacky religion. 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 |
| 19-05-2026 20:01 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (3283) |
Into the Night wrote:Im a BM wrote: IBM's stench is almost gone now. Only a minimal presence, likely to fade completely as none of the trolls he prefers to play with want to come back. GuzGas and gfm#### make only the rarest appearances. Harvey ain't coming back. YARP (Yellow And Red Parrot) dutifully remains to righteously defend "science". Nothing that is NOT science will be allowed to go unchallenged or unheckled. Nothing that is NOT a chemical will be allowed to be discussed as if it might be relevant to chemistry in some way. SCIENCE IS NOT A CHEMICAL! "Your religion is stupid." - IBdaMann |
| 20-05-2026 02:59 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (23896) |
Im a BM wrote:Into the Night wrote:Im a BM wrote: Whining is useless, 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 |
Join the debate The Church of Thermodenial - DEFINE YOUR TERMS!:
Related content
| Threads | Replies | Last post |
| "Define Your Terms!": Battle Cry of climate-debate.com | 8 | 14-01-2026 00:38 |
| Climate change violates the laws of thermodenial | 50 | 13-09-2024 02:53 |
| Defining terms | 23 | 02-06-2024 22:27 |
| My Relationship with the Christian Church and Alan Bauldree (aka Swan) | 86 | 16-03-2024 16:49 |
| Define 'gravity' | 5 | 07-04-2022 23:40 |