The Church of Thermodenial - DEFINE YOUR TERMS!
| 30-04-2026 23:07 | |
Into the Night ★★★★★(24418) |
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★★★★★ (3891) |
"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★★★★★ (2156) |
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★★★★★ (24418) |
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★★★★★ (3891) |
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★★★★★ (24418) |
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 |
| 21-05-2026 03:33 | |
IBdaMann ★★★★★(15373) |
sealover wrote: 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. Assume that there aren't any science journals. Science normally appears in textbooks and white papers. sealover wrote: Or is there even ONE credible SCIENTIST who you can name, whose published work qualifies as "truly scientific"? Stupid question. Amazingly stupid question. There is no amount of credibility that any human can have that transforms his words into science. How do you not know this? If only you were to learn what science is, you'd have a much easier time with all of this, and you wouldn't be so gullible as to allow others to do your thinking for you. |
| 21-05-2026 17:19 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (3891) |
IBdaMann wrote:sealover wrote: 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. Well, as you and YARP (Yellow And Red Parrot) told me so many times: "Go and learn some science." "You don't even know what science is." "You deny science." "You do not have a degree in chemistry. That much is painfully obvious." "They are not really chemists. I am.." "resident experts in science" "You are not a chemist, scientist, or 'expert' of any kind." "The idiots who cite your work aren't really chemists." "Nature is a shit rag." "There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'." How about them "white papers"? THAT'S where you go to find "science"! "Science normally appears in textbooks and white papers." - IBdaMann So, can you provide a reference to just ONE "white paper" to support any assertions about the impossibility of anthropogenic climate change? I didn't think so. How about ONE "textbook" that you respect as "truly scientific"? If you could name such a "textbook" or "white paper", we could look at it to see how they ALWAYS "define" their "terms". We can see if ANYTHING you assert at this website is supported by anything other than your own self evident omniscience. You could grasp for straws in a convoluted obfuscation, or you could pull a parrot and just pretend that "RQAA" as YARP does, even though he never ONCE provided that secret definition in any previous post. Tell me that "RQAA", because you obviously identified the "white papers" and "textbooks" that support your assertions, SOMEWHERE in your 15,000 posts over the past eleven and a half years. "White papers" and "textbooks" that are authored by scientists.. or SOMEONE who you respect as competent to write what is "truly scientific". I mean, the NAME of the scientist is obviously of no importance, because science is not a person. On the other hand, YARP says you have to look up "the theories themselves" and find the very FIRST "scientist" that published it. He offers no actual examples, but says that is the only way to do it. Just the NAME of ONE "white paper" or "textbook" that you do not belittle and dismiss because it "denies science". I don't believe such "white papers" or "textbooks" exist. You wouldn't know how to make sense of the "incomprehensible gibber babble" to know which ones qualify as "truly scientific". YARP has made it clear by repeating this sentence DOZENS of times that "Science is not a textbook". I'm sure that YARP would know to tell us that "Science is not a 'white paper'." But "Science normally appears in textbooks and white papers"??? Are you certain of that? Is that your final answer? Okay, I'll bite. WHICH "textbooks and white papers"? Just ONE example! "You came here to preach non-science gibber babble." "Your religion is stupid."- IBdaMann At least I don't have to cite my own self evident omnicience to back it up. Edited on 21-05-2026 17:56 |
| 21-05-2026 18:41 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (24418) |
Im a BM wrote: You can, but science is not a paper. Im a BM wrote: It can, but science is not a book or paper. Im a BM wrote: Climate cannot change. Go learn English. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You cannot trap heat. You cannot trap light. You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat. You are still trying to ignore the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. These laws do appear in some books. They even appear on websites. However, science is not a book, website, paper, magazine, journal, degree, license, college, university, government agency, or any other sanctification. Im a BM wrote: Science is not a book. Science is not a paper. Fallacy fallacy. Im a BM wrote: Science is not a paper, book, magazine, or journal. Im a BM wrote: It is important. Science is not a person, but people create theories of science. Im a BM wrote: I have given multiple examples. Lie. Stone. Im a BM wrote: Science is not a paper. Science is not a textbook. Im a BM wrote: Science is not buzzwords. Science is not a paper. Science is not a textbook. Science is not a magazine. Science is not a journal. Science is not a website. A theory of science may appear in any media, but that media is not science. Im a BM wrote: Reversal fallacy. Im a BM wrote: Reversal fallacy. Im a BM wrote: Fallacy 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 |
| 21-05-2026 18:58 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (3891) |
The contrast between Facebook and climate-debate.com When Galileo wrote his influential book, he created the fictional character "Ignoramus" to present the argument in debate to defend the Earth-as-center-of-the-universe paradigm. Galileo pulled a classic "straw man" cheat for the debate. He could have Ignoramus make incredibly STUPID assertions to be shot down. However, Galileo was assigning to Ignoramus the actual arguments that other "scientists" were using to prove that the sun moves around a stationary Earth. So, at Facebook, at least there are competent characters to play "Ignoramus" and present (i.e. distort) what is actually being sold as "science". That gives me something to work with. I can clarify about crustacean phylogeny and physiology, and their ability to use bicarbonate ion rather than carbonate ion. The local Ignoramus at climate-debate.com can't think of anything more clever to say than "Carbonate is not a chemical" or "You cannot acidify an alkaline". Basically, the Ignoramus at Facebook knows how to debate something that actual resembles science. The Ignoramus at climate-debate.com simply redefines what "science" is, declares that there is "no such thing", or just makes a list of everything that science is NOT, and everything that is NOT a chemical. Into the Night wrote:Im a BM wrote: |
| 21-05-2026 20:03 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (24418) |
Im a BM wrote: Galileo was emphasizing his falsification of the terracentric system. Im a BM wrote: Fallacy fallacy. Galileo did not use a straw man fallacy at all. Science has no proofs. Science is an open functional system. Im a BM wrote: Mantra 1a. False equivalence fallacy. Carbonate is not a chemical. Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: Inversion fallacy. Mantra 1a. False equivalence fallacy. Im a BM wrote: Whining is completely pointless, 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 |
| 22-05-2026 17:06 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (3891) |
"Science normally appears in textbooks and white papers." - IBdaMann For example??? Getting published in Nature doesn't count as a "white paper", does it? Can't get IBdaMann to offer ONE example of a "textbook" or "white paper" that qualifies as "science" to the troll's satisfaction. YARP (Yellow And Red Parrot) just says "Science is not a textbook." Apparently, "science is a set of falsifiable theories" and it is NOT related in any meaningful way with the so-called "Scientific Method" There is no point trying to have rational discussion with trolls about "science". But they won't allow for rational discussion of ANYTHING. Quite ironic that they are utterly incapable of providing definitions for any term other than "science". Yet they bitch and moan and whine and tantrum "DEFINE YOUR TERMS!" Ugly trolls teamed up to dominate the discussion here more than 10 years ago. They are still here. Almost everyone else decided not to stick around anymore. IBdaMann wrote:sealover wrote: 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. |
| 22-05-2026 20:55 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (24418) |
Im a BM wrote: RQAA Im a BM wrote: No. RQAA Im a BM wrote: RQAA Im a BM wrote: Science is not a paper. Science is not a book. Science is not a journal. Science is not a magazine. Science is not a method. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. You deny quite a few of them, including the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Mathematics is not a paper, book, journal, magazine, or method either. Mathematics is a closed functional system defined by it's axioms (rules). You deny quite a bit of it, including statistical mathematics, random number mathematics, and algebra. You are no chemist. You are no scientist. You are just a pathetic loser that thinks buzzwords will make him thound thmart. Then when you called upon the rug for it, you whine for weeks. 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 22-05-2026 20:56 |
| 04-06-2026 14:48 | |
| sealover★★★★★ (2156) |
"Define your terms." - Oh, the irony! 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 themselves pretty much alone in your echo chamber? |
| 04-06-2026 16:41 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (24418) |
sealover wrote: Climate cannot change. sealover wrote: Every theory of science defines its variables (its terms). sealover wrote: RQAA. Stop asking the same question over and over and over and over like a moron. sealover wrote: Climate cannot change. sealover wrote: Inversion fallacy. You can't blame your numerous buzzword on me or anybody else, Robert. sealover wrote: Climate cannot change. sealover wrote: Science isn't a code. sealover wrote: RQAA sealover wrote: Climate cannot change. sealover wrote: It is YOU ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. sealover wrote: Climate cannot change. sealover wrote: No old member has ever passed the test. You never could describe what is 'changing' in climate. sealover wrote: You ARE a scientifically illiterate moron. You routinely deny and discard theories of science. sealover wrote: The Church of Global Warming stems from the Church of Green, which in turn stems from the Church of Karl Marx. You don't give a damn about anyone's economy. sealover wrote: Science isn't climate. sealover wrote: You are describing yourself again. sealover wrote: Older than that. You are describing yourself again. sealover wrote: Climate cannot change. sealover wrote: You continue to preach your religion, be prepared to get attacked for it. Whining is useless. sealover wrote: There were never 1700 active members. sealover wrote: What 'echo chamber'? Yours? The one you tried to start and got lonely in? You can't blame your popularity problems on me or anybody else, Robert. Science isn't about popularity. 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 |
| 04-06-2026 18:18 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (3891) |
Into the Night wrote:sealover wrote: Well, somebody needs to tell Branner that New Messiah came right back again, this time with a better name that I'd like to believe I helped inspire. The NEWEST New Messiah is "WORLDSAVIORSUPERGOD". Since I will be e-mailing Branner anyway, I am going to BEG him to take a look at the thread by the newest member. I will stress that this is the first time in YEARS that a new member has joined and attempted to discuss the website topic. If Branner is willing to read it, he will see that Patricio's "Beyond the Tribal Marker.." thread is EXACTLY the kind of thing he wanted on his website. If Branner is willing to actually read it, he will see that Into the Night and IBdaMann are exactly the kind of trolls who obnoxiously derail any attempt at rational discussion of the website topic. If I can just get Branner to actually LOOK at what you trolls post... |
| 04-06-2026 18:53 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (24418) |
Im a BM wrote: I'm gonna tell Daddy! Climate cannot change, 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 |
| 04-06-2026 20:55 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (3891) |
Into the Night wrote:Im a BM wrote: Well, have a bitchin' summer, Dude! |
| 02-07-2026 18:32 | |
| Im a BM★★★★★ (3891) |
"Define your terms" was the standard demand made of any new member who dared to say ANYTHING about "climate" or any "change" to it. On the other hand, Into the Night makes his central argument in almost any discussion of chemistry principles that some term used is "not a chemical". Okay... So what IS a "chemical". DEFINE YOUR TERMS, dumbass! You don't even know what a "chemical" IS. No wonder you are so confused, calling every ion named "not a chemical". And seeming to think you proved something in the process. But not just ion names. Ion formulas are "not a chemical" either, right? You don't just insist that "carbonate is not a chemical", you have even specified more than once that "CO3(2-) is not a chemical". You operate with a SECRET definition of "chemical" which directly contradicts the definition found in chemistry textbooks, dictionaries, chemistry research papers, and pretty much anywhere other than climate-debate.com What do YOU think a "chemical" IS, Into the Night? You have no idea, so you'll just do some bullshit evasion, along with a lame attempt at a clever insult. Into the Night wrote:Im a BM wrote: Well, have a bitchin' summer, Dude! |
Join the debate The Church of Thermodenial - DEFINE YOUR TERMS!:
Related content
| Threads | Replies | Last post |
| "Define your terms." WTF? CITE your SOURCES, punk! | 16 | 25-08-2026 01:43 |
| "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 |