The Church of Thermodenial - DEFINE YOUR TERMS!

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > The Church of Thermodenial - DEFINE YOUR TERMS!

Page 1 of 2

The Church of Thermodenial - DEFINE YOUR TERMS!12-09-2024 09:24
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3710)	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?
13-09-2024 02:45
Into the Night★★★★★ (24245)	Im a BM wrote: This website, climate-debate.com, is a special kind of rabbit hole. Not a hole at all. Im a BM wrote: New members who use the term "climate change" in their first post are subjected to a special kind of hazing. DEFINE YOUR TERMS! Climate cannot change. Im a BM wrote: 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". Climate cannot change. You deny the laws of thermodynamics. Im a BM wrote: Failure to obey the order is a violation of the sacred code of science. Science is not a code. Im a BM wrote: EVERYONE MUST DEFINE THEIR TERMS BEFORE BEING ALLOWED TO USE THEM Always a good idea. Im a BM wrote: Supposedly, that is what "scientists" are REQUIRED to do. Correct. Im a BM wrote: You can't say "climate change" because nobody will have any idea what you mean until you provide that "unambiguous definition". Climate cannot change. Im a BM wrote: And that "unambiguous definition" must then pass muster according to THERMODYNAMIC criteria. Climate has nothing to do with any theory of science. Im a BM wrote: Thermodynamic criteria will determine if the new member's unambiguous definition of "climate change" can be allowed for use in discussion. Climate cannot change. Im a BM wrote: NO NEW MEMBER HAS EVER PASSED THE TEST Correction. No believer of the Church of Global Warming has ever been able to define their terms. Im a BM wrote: But EVERY new member who tries is informed of their identity as a "scientifically illiterate moron." They are, since they consider their religion as 'science'. Im a BM wrote: EVERY new member who tries is exposed as a gullible Marxist puppet, Nope. Not all new members believe in the Church of Global Warming. Since the Church of Global Warming stems from the Church of Green, which in turn stems from the Church of Karl Marx, they are all Marxist puppets. Im a BM wrote: 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 That is correct. Im a BM wrote: out of pure spite for humanity. Some want to destroy the economy out of spite. That's how DEMOCRATS started the current economic depression. Im a BM wrote: Ironic that they criticize climate science as religious dogma, Climate is not a science. Im a BM wrote: and followers of that dogma as preachers for the Church of Global Warming. Your religion is not science. Im a BM wrote: Because what they have in this little rabbit echo chamber looks a whole lot like a religious cult. DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR PROBLEM ON ANYBODY ELSE! Im a BM wrote: Perhaps the cult might be best described as the Church of Thermodenial. This is a good alternative name for the Church of Global Warming, since they deny the laws of thermodynamics. Im a BM wrote: 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 Describes the Church of Global Warming perfectly. Im a BM wrote: Thermodenial = refusal to acknowledge something that is a fact about heat, temperature, warming and cooling. Again describes the Church of Global Warming perfectly. Im a BM wrote: The cult here was established nine years ago. No, it's MUCH older than that. Branner created climate-debate.com some 40 years ago (English version), and the Church of Global Warming joined soon after that. Im a BM wrote: There used to be a whole team of trolls who would all pile on to new member who naively used the term "climate change". Climate cannot change. Im a BM wrote: 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. Nah. The Church of Global Warming is still here. Im a BM wrote: Very few new members join anymore. The Church of Global Warming is just not as popular as it used to be. Im a BM wrote: An entire week can pass with fewer than five members posting anything at all. Stop making shit up. Im a BM wrote: 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? Climate cannot change. Im a BM wrote: Define your terms define your terms define your terms you stupid, gullible, scientifically illiterate moron Marxist infiltrator... The Church of Global Warming stems from the Church of Green, which stems from the Church of Karl Marx. They routinely deny theories of science and deny mathematics. It is a fundamentalist style religion. Im a BM wrote: Wonder why you now find themselves pretty much alone in your echo chamber? DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR PROBLEM ON ANYBODY ELSE! 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
13-09-2024 21:55
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3710)	ECHO CHAMBER ANNIVERSARY PARTY FOR SCIENTIST TROLLS MARK YOUR CALENDAR October 8th and 9th October 8, 2015 IBdaMann joined. Now at 14,825 posts. October 9, 2016 Into the Night joined. Now at 22,365 posts. They have made this site what it is today! Remind everyone to celebrate the anniversary. Maybe they will not be the ONLY members who post anything that week. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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?[/quote]
14-09-2024 00:44
Into the Night★★★★★ (24245)	Im a BM wrote: ECHO CHAMBER ANNIVERSARY PARTY FOR SCIENTIST TROLLS MARK YOUR CALENDAR October 8th and 9th October 8, 2015 IBdaMann joined. Now at 14,825 posts. October 9, 2016 Into the Night joined. Now at 22,365 posts. They have made this site what it is today! Remind everyone to celebrate the anniversary. Maybe they will not be the ONLY members who post anything that week. Stop whining. We are not the only ones posting. 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: Glorified Plumber Parrot "Chemist"14-09-2024 20:08
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3710)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: ECHO CHAMBER ANNIVERSARY PARTY FOR SCIENTIST TROLLS MARK YOUR CALENDAR October 8th and 9th October 8, 2015 IBdaMann joined. Now at 14,825 posts. October 9, 2016 Into the Night joined. Now at 22,365 posts. They have made this site what it is today! Remind everyone to celebrate the anniversary. Maybe they will not be the ONLY members who post anything that week. Stop whining. We are not the only ones posting. Well, I'm sure that Glorified Plumber Parrot "Chemist" will be there. Sometimes the statements I make are incorrect. Among other reasons, my dyslexia causes me to miss things even when I proofread. I GOT THE DATES WRONG I wrote the wrong YEARS for the join dates of the senior troll and his second rate sidekick. I admit the mistake. YOU LIE ABOUT BEING A CHEMIST, and that pisses me off. Edited on 14-09-2024 20:55
14-09-2024 21:58
Into the Night★★★★★ (24245)	Im a BM wrote: Well, I'm sure that Glorified Plumber Parrot "Chemist" will be there. Sometimes the statements I make are incorrect. Among other reasons, my dyslexia causes me to miss things even when I proofread. I GOT THE DATES WRONG I wrote the wrong YEARS for the join dates of the senior troll and his second rate sidekick. I admit the mistake. YOU LIE ABOUT BEING A CHEMIST, and that pisses me off. DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR PROBLEM ON ANYBODY ELSE! 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
14-09-2024 23:25
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3710)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: Well, I'm sure that Glorified Plumber Parrot "Chemist" will be there. Sometimes the statements I make are incorrect. Among other reasons, my dyslexia causes me to miss things even when I proofread. I GOT THE DATES WRONG I wrote the wrong YEARS for the join dates of the senior troll and his second rate sidekick. I admit the mistake. YOU LIE ABOUT BEING A CHEMIST, and that pisses me off. DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR PROBLEM ON ANYBODY ELSE! You have falsely accused me, no less than 100 times, of LYING ABOUT BEING A CHEMIST. You are describing yourself when you say, "you are no chemist" You also publish my true name, making your false accusations libel. I blame YOU for ALL of my problems, obviously.
14-09-2024 23:37
Into the Night★★★★★ (24245)	Im a BM wrote: Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: Well, I'm sure that Glorified Plumber Parrot "Chemist" will be there. Sometimes the statements I make are incorrect. Among other reasons, my dyslexia causes me to miss things even when I proofread. I GOT THE DATES WRONG I wrote the wrong YEARS for the join dates of the senior troll and his second rate sidekick. I admit the mistake. YOU LIE ABOUT BEING A CHEMIST, and that pisses me off. DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR PROBLEM ON ANYBODY ELSE! You have falsely accused me, no less than 100 times, of LYING ABOUT BEING A CHEMIST. Not false. You are no chemist. You deny science and chemistry. Im a BM wrote: You are describing yourself when you say, "you are no chemist" LIF. Grow up. Im a BM wrote: You also publish my true name, making your false accusations libel. YOU published your true name. YOU have only YOURSELF to blame. DON'T BLAME ME OR ANYBODY ELSE FOR YOUR PROBLEMS. 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
15-09-2024 21:52
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3710)	"You don't even know what science is" The new member is immediately informed of this fact. What if the new member has doctorate and master's degrees from UC Davis and UC Berkeley? What if that new members discoveries in the field of biogeochemistry are directly relevant to discussion of climate change? What if those greenhouse-gas-emission and carbon-sequestration relevant discoveries have been cited in more than a THOUSAND different peer-reviewed scientific research papers? "You are not a chemist, a scientist or 'expert' of any kind". This is a TOUGH club to qualify for. 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?[/quote]
16-09-2024 01:46
Into the Night★★★★★ (24245)	Im a BM wrote: "You don't even know what science is" The new member is immediately informed of this fact. Nah. Just the people that don't know what science is, like you. Im a BM wrote: What if the new member has doctorate and master's degrees from UC Davis and UC Berkeley? Science isn't a degree or a useless school like Berkeley. Im a BM wrote: What if that new members discoveries in the field of biogeochemistry are directly relevant to discussion of climate change? There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Climate cannot change. Im a BM wrote: What if those greenhouse-gas-emission and carbon-sequestration relevant discoveries have been cited in more than a THOUSAND different peer-reviewed scientific research papers? Science is not a paper. Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science. There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas' (except as a religious artifact). No gas or vapor has the capability to create energy out of nothing. Carbon does not need to be 'sequestered'. [quote]Im a BM wrote: "You are not a chemist, a scientist or 'expert' of any kind". You aren't. Im a BM wrote: This is a TOUGH club to qualify for. This website, climate-debate.com, is a special kind of rabbit hole. Nah. It's a forum dedicated to the discussion of the claims of the Church of Global Warming, and what's wrong with it. Im a BM wrote: New members who use the term "climate change" in their first post are subjected to a special kind of hazing. Climate cannot change. Im a BM wrote: ...deleted remaining spam... Stop spamming. 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
17-09-2024 09:19
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3710)	"Define your terms." This is one of the first things the new member will be told upon entering the temple of the Church of Thermodenial. What are some of the other things the new member will be told within an hour or so of their first post? "Go and learn some science" "You deny science" "You obviously don't know anything about science" "You came here to post non science gibber babble" "You don't even know what science is" And the new member will always be informed that "You are a scientifically illiterate moron". What if the new member has doctorate and master's degrees from UC Davis and UC Berkeley? What if that new members discoveries in the field of biogeochemistry are directly relevant to discussion of climate change? What if those greenhouse-gas-emission and carbon-sequestration relevant discoveries have been cited in more than a THOUSAND different peer-reviewed scientific research papers? "You are not a chemist, a scientist or 'expert' of any kind". This is a TOUGH club to qualify for. 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... Do you ever wonder why you now find themselves pretty much alone in your echo chamber?
17-09-2024 15:05
Swan★★★★★ (7875)	Im a BM wrote: 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? If you cannot make your point in one sentence, you have no point to be made IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD. According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND. ULTRA MAGA "Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic? Sonia makes me so proud to be a dumb white boy Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
18-09-2024 01:20
Into the Night★★★★★ (24245)	Im a BM wrote: "Define your terms." ... Stop spamming. 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
18-09-2024 20:00
Swan★★★★★ (7875)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: "Define your terms." ... Stop spamming. Says the village idiot spammer and chief IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD. According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND. ULTRA MAGA "Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic? Sonia makes me so proud to be a dumb white boy Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
18-09-2024 21:24
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3710)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: "Define your terms." ... Stop spamming. It might have been plausible if... About 15,000 Haitian immigrants all in one town. Perhaps one of them is seriously mentally ill. Perhaps one of them is among the handful of Haitians who cling to belief in old spells and rituals. That mentally ill religious fanatic might have actually been stealing cats and dogs and.. well, doing SOMETHING with them. There has been plenty of time for the grieving pet owners to have come forward. Somebody might have mentioned it to the police or something. Aren't there hundreds of thousands of Haitian immigrants in the US? Haven't they have large communities in Florida and New York for some time now? If even 0.001% of the Haitian immigrant population steals pets and eats them, why didn't we hear about it before Springfield? And do Trump and Vance have NO SHAME about what they are doing?
19-09-2024 00:12
Into the Night★★★★★ (24245)	Swan wrote: Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: "Define your terms." ... Stop spamming. Says the village idiot spammer and chief LIF. Grow up. 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
19-09-2024 00:13
Into the Night★★★★★ (24245)	Im a BM wrote: Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: "Define your terms." ... Stop spamming. It might have been plausible if... About 15,000 Haitian immigrants all in one town. Perhaps one of them is seriously mentally ill. Perhaps one of them is among the handful of Haitians who cling to belief in old spells and rituals. That mentally ill religious fanatic might have actually been stealing cats and dogs and.. well, doing SOMETHING with them. There has been plenty of time for the grieving pet owners to have come forward. Somebody might have mentioned it to the police or something. Aren't there hundreds of thousands of Haitian immigrants in the US? Haven't they have large communities in Florida and New York for some time now? If even 0.001% of the Haitian immigrant population steals pets and eats them, why didn't we hear about it before Springfield? And do Trump and Vance have NO SHAME about what they are doing? You did. Springfield has an especial problem with it due to the large number of illegal Haitian immigrants imported by Biden and Kamala. 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
19-09-2024 02:28
Swan★★★★★ (7875)	Into the Night wrote: Swan wrote: Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: "Define your terms." ... Stop spamming. Says the village idiot spammer and chief LIF. Grow up. Go cry in your panties IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD. According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND. ULTRA MAGA "Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic? Sonia makes me so proud to be a dumb white boy Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
19-09-2024 05:30
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3710)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: "Define your terms." ... Stop spamming. IBdaMann never provided an unambiguous definition for the term he introduced: "Truly scientific journal" I couldn't help you define it, because IBdaMann was making exactly that point. I wouldn't know a truly scientific journal if one were handed to me and I was told "This is a truly scientific journal". Into the Night, are you confident that you know what IBdaMann intended to say by using the term "truly scientific journal"? Could you give me an example? IBdaMann is too busy to answer the question. Does any particular journal come to mind as a clear example of a "truly scientific journal"? Nobody is trying to say "science is a journal" here. Just trying to get an example of how truly scientific communication is written.
19-09-2024 08:27
Into the Night★★★★★ (24245)	Swan wrote: Into the Night wrote: Swan wrote: Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: "Define your terms." ... Stop spamming. Says the village idiot spammer and chief LIF. Grow up. Go cry in your panties Mantra 1i. Lame. 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
19-09-2024 08:31
Into the Night★★★★★ (24245)	Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann never provided an unambiguous definition for the term he introduced: Mantra 30a. Lame. Im a BM wrote: "Truly scientific journal" I couldn't help you define it, because IBdaMann was making exactly that point. I wouldn't know a truly scientific journal if one were handed to me and I was told "This is a truly scientific journal". Science is not a journal. Im a BM wrote: Into the Night, are you confident that you know what IBdaMann intended to say by using the term "truly scientific journal"? Could you give me an example? IBdaMann is too busy to answer the question. RQAA Im a BM wrote: Does any particular journal come to mind as a clear example of a "truly scientific journal"? RQAA Im a BM wrote: Nobody is trying to say "science is a journal" here. Blatant lie. YOU are. DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS! Im a BM wrote: Just trying to get an example of how truly scientific communication is written. Science is not a 'communication'. It is not a journal, magazine, website, phone call, paper, or gossip. 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
19-09-2024 08:35
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3710)	According "The Board" at this website, it is necessary to provide an "unambiguous definition of climate change that does not violate the laws of thermodynamics". Apparently, there is some rule in science that you have to define all your terms. I was hoping to see an example of something published where scientists really do define their terms as described. All the "shit-rags" I know that try to pass for scientific journals let the authors get away with using the term "climate change" without providing ANY definition Even the textbooks... They always have a definition of climate change, but it is NEVER the unambiguous kind that explains exactly how it conforms to thermodynamics. So, I was hoping to learn what a "truly scientific journal" is so I can read one and learn how truly scientific authors always provide an unambiguous definition of climate change that does not violate the laws of thermodyamics. Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: "Define your terms." ... Stop spamming. IBdaMann never provided an unambiguous definition for the term he introduced: "Truly scientific journal" I couldn't help you define it, because IBdaMann was making exactly that point. I wouldn't know a truly scientific journal if one were handed to me and I was told "This is a truly scientific journal". Into the Night, are you confident that you know what IBdaMann intended to say by using the term "truly scientific journal"? Could you give me an example? IBdaMann is too busy to answer the question. Does any particular journal come to mind as a clear example of a "truly scientific journal"? Nobody is trying to say "science is a journal" here. Just trying to get an example of how truly scientific communication is written.[/quote]
19-09-2024 08:43
Into the Night★★★★★ (24245)	Im a BM wrote: According "The Board" at this website, it is necessary to provide an "unambiguous definition of climate change that does not violate the laws of thermodynamics". Climate cannot change. There is no 'board'. You are just ignoring thermodynamics. Im a BM wrote: Apparently, there is some rule in science that you have to define all your terms. You can't form a theory unless you define all of it's terms. You can't form an equation either unless you define all of it's terms. Im a BM wrote: I was hoping to see an example of something published where scientists really do define their terms as described. There is. Theories of science. Im a BM wrote: All the "shit-rags" I know that try to pass for scientific journals let the authors get away with using the term "climate change" without providing ANY definition Climate cannot change. Science is not a journal. Im a BM wrote: Even the textbooks... They always have a definition of climate change, but it is NEVER the unambiguous kind that explains exactly how it conforms to thermodynamics. Science is not a textbook. Climate cannot change. You ignore the laws of thermodynamics. Im a BM wrote: So, I was hoping to learn what a "truly scientific journal" is so I can read one and learn how truly scientific authors always provide an unambiguous definition of climate change that does not violate the laws of thermodyamics. Science is not a journal. Climate cannot change. You are ignoring the laws of thermodynamics. 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
19-09-2024 21:11
Swan★★★★★ (7875)	Into the Night wrote: Swan wrote: Into the Night wrote: Swan wrote: Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: "Define your terms." ... Stop spamming. Says the village idiot spammer and chief LIF. Grow up. Go cry in your panties Mantra 1i. Lame. Cool IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD. According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND. ULTRA MAGA "Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic? Sonia makes me so proud to be a dumb white boy Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
19-09-2024 23:31
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3710)	Is there a correlation between belief systems? There are only two possible answers to each of the following questions. Is "climate change" a hoax? Were the 9-11 attacks an inside job? Is biological evolution a scientific falsehood? Was the JFK assassination the result of a deep state conspiracy? Did Donald Trump have more eligible voters cast their votes for him than Biden? Do Haitians steal dogs and cats and then eat them? Is Taylor Swift just despicable? If you answered "yes" to even ONE of these questions, your grasp of reality is dubious. (Who doesn't love Taylor Swift?) If you answered "yes" to more than one... Let me give you some space here... If you answered "yes" to most or all of these questions... Let me give you a WHOLE LOT OF SPACE... I'm not sure that we even live in the same universe. Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: "Define your terms." ... Stop spamming. IBdaMann never provided an unambiguous definition for the term he introduced: "Truly scientific journal" I couldn't help you define it, because IBdaMann was making exactly that point. I wouldn't know a truly scientific journal if one were handed to me and I was told "This is a truly scientific journal". Into the Night, are you confident that you know what IBdaMann intended to say by using the term "truly scientific journal"? Could you give me an example? IBdaMann is too busy to answer the question. Does any particular journal come to mind as a clear example of a "truly scientific journal"? Nobody is trying to say "science is a journal" here. Just trying to get an example of how truly scientific communication is written.
20-09-2024 01:50
Into the Night★★★★★ (24245)	Im a BM wrote: Is there a correlation between belief systems? There are only two possible answers to each of the following questions. False dichotomy fallacy. Im a BM wrote: Is "climate change" a hoax? RQAA. Im a BM wrote: Were the 9-11 attacks an inside job? No. Im a BM wrote: Is biological evolution a scientific falsehood? Science is not a falsehood. The Theory of Evolution is not a theory of science. Im a BM wrote: Was the JFK assassination the result of a deep state conspiracy? Unknown. Im a BM wrote: Did Donald Trump have more eligible voters cast their votes for him than Biden? There was no election in 2020. Im a BM wrote: Do Haitians steal dogs and cats and then eat them? RQAA Im a BM wrote: Is Taylor Swift just despicable? A personal opinion question. Not a fan of hers. Im a BM wrote: If you answered "yes" to even ONE of these questions, your grasp of reality is dubious. (Who doesn't love Taylor Swift?) You don't get to define 'reality' for everyone. Omniscience fallacy. Im a BM wrote: If you answered "yes" to more than one... Let me give you some space here... If you answered "yes" to most or all of these questions... Let me give you a WHOLE LOT OF SPACE... I'm not sure that we even live in the same universe. Redefinition fallacy. There is only one universe. Mantra 1d. Lame. 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 20-09-2024 01:51
20-09-2024 07:32
IBdaMann★★★★★ (15308)	Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann never provided an unambiguous definition for the term he introduced: "Truly scientific journal" I apologize for the delay. I thought the definition was obvious, but since you're asking, I'll define: A truly scientific journal is a journal that documents actual/true science. Let me know if you have any questions, and don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.
20-09-2024 17:49
sealover ★★★★★ (2116)	IBdaMann wrote: Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann never provided an unambiguous definition for the term he introduced: "Truly scientific journal" I apologize for the delay. I thought the definition was obvious, but since you're asking, I'll define: A truly scientific journal is a journal that documents actual/true science. Let me know if you have any questions, and don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff. 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.
20-09-2024 18:46
Into the Night★★★★★ (24245)	sealover wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann never provided an unambiguous definition for the term he introduced: "Truly scientific journal" I apologize for the delay. I thought the definition was obvious, but since you're asking, I'll define: A truly scientific journal is a journal that documents actual/true science. Let me know if you have any questions, and don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff. You always avoid answering the questions about the hard stuff. Blatant lie. sealover wrote: 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"? Science is not a journal. sealover wrote: You say the journal NATURE, one of the journals that published my widely-cited discoveries, is a "shit-rag". NOT "truly scientific". Science is not a journal. sealover wrote: 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. Science is not a journal. RQAA. sealover wrote: TRY SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN! Science is not a magazine or journal. sealover wrote: Scientific American is a good journal. Nope. A rag. sealover wrote: Many would say it qualifies as "truly scientific", although it isn't really a research science journal. Science isn't a 'research' or 'study'. Science isn't a journal. sealover wrote: But right now, Scientific American is my HERO among truly scientific journals. Science is not a journal. sealover wrote: They took the VERY UNUSUAL STEP of making a presidential endorsement. Science has no politics. sealover wrote: Scientific American has endorsed Kamala Harris. Science has no politics. Science is not a journal. sealover wrote: They don't just see Trump as a threat to democracy. There are no democracies currently in the world. The United States was never a democracy. sealover wrote: TRUMP IS A THREAT TO SCIENCE! Science cannot be threatened. sealover wrote: "..the prestigious magazine Scientific American argued persuasively that reality and science are on the ballot, too." Buzzword fallacy (reality). Science is not a journal. Science has no politics. There is no voting bloc in science. Science is not a ballot. sealover wrote: The problem is that what Trump would do as president, again, "endangers public health and safety Void argument fallacy. [b]sealover wrote: and rejects evidence, preferring instead nonsensical conspiracy fantasies."[/b] The Democrat party is a conspiracy. It is no fantasy. sealover wrote: 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. Science has no politics. Science is not a journal. sealover wrote: The first time was in 2020, when they endorsed Joe Biden. Science has no politics. Science is not a journal. sealover wrote: Because in 2020 Trump was a threat to public health and safety due to his rejection of evidence and preference for nonsensical conspiracy fantasies. Void argument fallacy. Repetition fallacy (chanting). sealover wrote: 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. Mantra 1d. Science is not a journal. Science has no politics. 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
22-09-2024 00:18
Swan★★★★★ (7875)	Im a BM wrote: Is there a correlation between belief systems? There are only two possible answers to each of the following questions. Is "climate change" a hoax? Were the 9-11 attacks an inside job? Is biological evolution a scientific falsehood? Was the JFK assassination the result of a deep state conspiracy? Did Donald Trump have more eligible voters cast their votes for him than Biden? Do Haitians steal dogs and cats and then eat them? Is Taylor Swift just despicable? If you answered "yes" to even ONE of these questions, your grasp of reality is dubious. (Who doesn't love Taylor Swift?) If you answered "yes" to more than one... Let me give you some space here... If you answered "yes" to most or all of these questions... Let me give you a WHOLE LOT OF SPACE... I'm not sure that we even live in the same universe. Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: "Define your terms." ... Stop spamming. IBdaMann never provided an unambiguous definition for the term he introduced: "Truly scientific journal" I couldn't help you define it, because IBdaMann was making exactly that point. I wouldn't know a truly scientific journal if one were handed to me and I was told "This is a truly scientific journal". Into the Night, are you confident that you know what IBdaMann intended to say by using the term "truly scientific journal"? Could you give me an example? IBdaMann is too busy to answer the question. Does any particular journal come to mind as a clear example of a "truly scientific journal"? Nobody is trying to say "science is a journal" here. Just trying to get an example of how truly scientific communication is written. Everything is a lie, including your own thoughts that are based on the lies you heard recently IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD. According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND. ULTRA MAGA "Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic? Sonia makes me so proud to be a dumb white boy Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
23-09-2024 00:57
Into the Night★★★★★ (24245)	Swan wrote: Everything is a lie, including your own thoughts that are based on the lies you heard recently Strange loop. Irrational. 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
25-04-2026 19:15
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3710)	"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?
26-04-2026 16:56
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3710)	Before using the term "YARP" in scientific communication, one should provide an "unambiguous definition". "YARP" means "Yellow And Red Parrot" The math equation is YARP = BS + FU It saves time in communication to simply write "YARP" rather than "Into the Night". Like simply saying "carbonate" rather than "the dissolved divalent anion of carbonate, CO3(2-)", when talking about aqueous solutions. "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? Edited on 26-04-2026 17:02
26-04-2026 20:56
Into the Night★★★★★ (24245)	Im a BM wrote: "Define your terms." - Oh, the irony! Okay. Define 'climate change'. What is 'changing' in climate? I have given you more than a fair chance to define this one term. You have so far failed to do so...just like all the rest. Im a BM wrote: At the time of this post, new prey were still being directed to the ambush by Google searches for climate discussion sites. What ambush, Robert? You STILL can't seem to define 'climate change'. What is 'changing' in climate? Im a BM wrote: There was still a whole team of trolls ready to pounce as each new member attempted to express concern about climate change. Define your terms. Im a BM wrote: Most terms in science require more than one or two words to adequately define them. 'Climate change' is a meaningless buzzword. Climate cannot change. The Church of Global Warming is not science. Buzzwords aren't science either. Im a BM wrote: ...deleted pivot and fixation... I hold the truth of climate change to be self evident at this point in history. Buzzword fallacy. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Im a BM wrote: This website, climate-debate.com, is a special kind of rabbit hole. The software on this website is dated, but it still runs extremely well. Im a BM wrote: New members who use the term "climate change" in their first post are subjected to a special kind of hazing. Climate cannot change. Im a BM wrote: 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. It is. Science is not buzzwords. The Church of Global Warming routinely denies the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. YOU have so far denied the 1st law of thermodynamics and Black's law. Im a BM wrote: EVERYONE MUST DEFINE THEIR TERMS BEFORE BEING ALLOWED TO USE THEM I ask again: What is 'changing' in climate? Im a BM wrote: Supposedly, that is what "scientists" are REQUIRED to do. Theories of science are transposed into mathematics, Robert. You must define the terms of the resulting equation. Im a BM wrote: You can't say "climate change" because nobody will have any idea what you mean until you provide that "unambiguous definition". Apparently you can't define it. Climate cannot change. Im a BM wrote: And that "unambiguous definition" must then pass muster according to THERMODYNAMIC criteria. Yes it does, Robert. You cannot just discard the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. But you attempt to do so anyway. You discard science. Im a BM wrote: Thermodynamic criteria will determine if the new member's unambiguous definition of "climate change" can be allowed for use in discussion. No theory of science may conflict with any other theory of science, Robert. If you are going to claim 'climate change' as a theory of science, you MUST define your terms. You MUST conform to the laws of thermodynamics. There is no option in this. Im a BM wrote: NO NEW MEMBER HAS EVER PASSED THE TEST So far that is true. No member of the Church of Global Warming has EVER been able to define what is 'changing' in climate. Im a BM wrote: But EVERY new member who tries is informed of their identity as a "scientifically illiterate moron." Because you routinely discard theories of science. Im a BM wrote: 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. The Church of Global stems from the Church of Green, which in turn stems from the Church of Karl Marx. You want to destroy capitalism. Im a BM wrote: Ironic that they criticize climate science as religious dogma, and followers of that dogma as preachers for the Church of Global Warming. Climate is not science. Climate is a subjective description of a prevailing condition of a region or environment. It cannot change. A marine climate will always be a marine climate. A poor climate will always be a poor climate. A jungle climate will always be a jungle climate. Im a BM wrote: Because what they have in this little rabbit echo chamber looks a whole lot like a religious cult. Yup. I call it the Church of Global Warming. Im a BM wrote: 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. I just call it the Church of Global Warming. Climate-debate.com was established in 2009. 2026-2009 = 17 years. The Church of Global Warming is much older...coming up on about 50 years now. Im a BM wrote: There used to be a whole team of trolls who would all pile on to new member who naively used the term "climate change". I will assume that what you mean by 'troll' is anyone that disagrees with you. That DOES seem to be the meaning that Democrats like you tend to use the word. They seem to use other buzzwords the same way, including MAGA (which isn't even a person!), MAGAt which isn't even a word, and MAGAts which isn't even a word. I have no idea what 'team' you are talking about here. IBdaMann, who joined Climate-Debate before I did, myself, and a couple of people with open minds that learned the science and mathematics we were referencing and which YOU continue to ignore and deny. So if you consider two people a 'team', I will take it as such. (Thanks for being such a great teammate IBdaMann!). Im a BM wrote: 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. I have openly asked you to define what is 'changing' in climate for awhile now. You seem unable to answer the question. You spend your time here making personal attacks (this post is but one example), and griping about your personal grievances (this post is but one example). Then you have the gall to blame someone else for YOUR problem. Im a BM wrote: But the cult of the Church of Thermodenial at climate-debate.com isn't what it used to be. True. The Church of Global Warming is dying. There will always be a few like you that keep the candle lit in the window hoping for the 'Great Reawaking', but your religion is a has-been. Your adherents tend to come out of the woodwork each Earth Day, but even that is happening less and less. Earth Day has returned to more of it's roots in the Church of Green, combined with the Church of Hate. Im a BM wrote: 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. For the reasons I have just given. Political boards don't discuss it anymore, except in passing. This place is dying. Not even the 'news' media mentions it much anymore. Im a BM wrote: 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? Nobody has ever described what it means. No one has ever described what is 'changing' in climate. The Church of Global Warming has had almost 50 years, and NO ONE has ever been able to describe what is 'changing' in climate or even been able to show the current temperature of the Earth. Im a BM wrote: Define your terms define your terms define your terms you stupid, gullible, scientifically illiterate moron Marxist infiltrator... I know you won't, because you can't. You think mindless chanting of buzzwords is sufficient. Well, you can't baffle 'em with your bullshit here! Im a BM wrote: Wonder why you now find themselves pretty much alone in your echo chamber? I don't own climate-debate.com. I am not a moderator of climate-debate.com. There are currently about six active users here; which is pretty normal for the past 6 years. 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
26-04-2026 21:01
Into the Night★★★★★ (24245)	Im a BM wrote: Before using the term "YARP" in scientific communication, one should provide an "unambiguous definition". "YARP" means "Yellow And Red Parrot" Redefinition fallacy. I've already told you what the YARP acronym means. Yet Another Random Post Im a BM wrote: The math equation is YARP = BS + FU It saves time in communication to simply write "YARP" rather than "Into the Night". Like simply saying "carbonate" rather than "the dissolved divalent anion of carbonate, CO3(2-)", when talking about aqueous solutions. "Define your terms." - Oh, the irony! An acronym is not a math equation, but your YARPS are typically full of BS and FU. Carbonate is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: ...deleted spam... Stop spamming. Repetition 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
26-04-2026 22:01
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3710)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: Before using the term "YARP" in scientific communication, one should provide an "unambiguous definition". "YARP" means "Yellow And Red Parrot" Redefinition fallacy. I've already told you what the YARP acronym means. Yet Another Random Post Im a BM wrote: The math equation is YARP = BS + FU It saves time in communication to simply write "YARP" rather than "Into the Night". Like simply saying "carbonate" rather than "the dissolved divalent anion of carbonate, CO3(2-)", when talking about aqueous solutions. "Define your terms." - Oh, the irony! An acronym is not a math equation, but your YARPS are typically full of BS and FU. Carbonate is not a chemical. Im a BM wrote: ...deleted spam... Stop spamming. Repetition fallacy. "Carbonate is not a chemical." Nobody EVER said that it was, YARP! (Yellow and Red Parrot) You saw the reference to the carbonate ion, CO3(2-), a divalent oxyanion with its own unique chemical formula, as a solute in aqueous solution. Chemists always just say "carbonate" in that context. Nobody thinks its some kind of declaration that "carbonate is a chemical". It is understood as shorthand for "the carbonate ion, CO3(2-)" And it is all you need to know about "carbonate" to be able to have meaningful discussion about its major role in pH buffering and marine biology.
26-04-2026 22:14
Into the Night★★★★★ (24245)	Im a BM wrote: "Carbonate is not a chemical." Nobody EVER said that it was, YARP! (Yellow and Red Parrot) Redefinition fallacy. DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS! Im a BM wrote: You saw the reference to the carbonate ion, CO3(2-), a divalent oxyanion with its own unique chemical formula, as a solute in aqueous solution. Chemists always just say "carbonate" in that context. Nobody thinks its some kind of declaration that "carbonate is a chemical". It is understood as shorthand for "the carbonate ion, CO3(2-)" And it is all you need to know about "carbonate" to be able to have meaningful discussion about its major role in pH buffering and marine biology. Carbonate is not a chemical. Buzzwords are not a buffer. You somehow think that oysters and clams don't exist! snicker 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
30-04-2026 17:31
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3710)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: "Carbonate is not a chemical." Nobody EVER said that it was, YARP! (Yellow and Red Parrot) Redefinition fallacy. DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS! Im a BM wrote: You saw the reference to the carbonate ion, CO3(2-), a divalent oxyanion with its own unique chemical formula, as a solute in aqueous solution. Chemists always just say "carbonate" in that context. Nobody thinks its some kind of declaration that "carbonate is a chemical". It is understood as shorthand for "the carbonate ion, CO3(2-)" And it is all you need to know about "carbonate" to be able to have meaningful discussion about its major role in pH buffering and marine biology. Carbonate is not a chemical. Buzzwords are not a buffer. You somehow think that oysters and clams don't exist! snicker I don't know whose thoughts about oysters and clams you have been stealing, but they are not mine. "Buzzwords are not a buffer." Thank God someone had to courage to say it! Okay, so what IS a "buffer"? Would you be willing to offer some kind of DEFINITION? "Water itself is a buffer for acid." - Into the Night I didn't go the Chemistry Clown College, so I have no idea what they teach there as the definition of a "buffer". At the University of California, the definition they teach for "buffer" is NOT consistent with the idea that "water itself is a buffer for acid". The conjugate bases of weak acids make good buffers for acid. Carbonic acid, H2CO3, is a weak acid that dissociates into H+ and HCO3-. Bicarbonate ion, HCO3-, is the conjugate base of carbonic acid. "Bicarbonate buffer" is a term ANYONE can find in a matter of seconds. Even if Into the Night declares that there is "no such thing", you will still be able to find the definition of the term that scientists use to communicate about it. Can't wait to learn that "there is no such thing as 'conjugate base'." because it is just a "buzzword"! Science is NOT a chemical!
30-04-2026 20:37
Into the Night★★★★★ (24245)	Im a BM wrote: I don't know whose thoughts about oysters and clams you have been stealing, but they are not mine. "Buzzwords are not a buffer." Thank God someone had to courage to say it! Okay, so what IS a "buffer"? Would you be willing to offer some kind of DEFINITION? "Water itself is a buffer for acid." - Into the Night I didn't go the Chemistry Clown College, so I have no idea what they teach there as the definition of a "buffer". At the University of California, the definition they teach for "buffer" is NOT consistent with the idea that "water itself is a buffer for acid". The conjugate bases of weak acids make good buffers for acid. Carbonic acid, H2CO3, is a weak acid that dissociates into H+ and HCO3-. Bicarbonate ion, HCO3-, is the conjugate base of carbonic acid. "Bicarbonate buffer" is a term ANYONE can find in a matter of seconds. Even if Into the Night declares that there is "no such thing", you will still be able to find the definition of the term that scientists use to communicate about it. Can't wait to learn that "there is no such thing as 'conjugate base'." because it is just a "buzzword"! Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Science is not buzzwords. RQAA 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
30-04-2026 23:00
Im a BM ★★★★★ (3710)	Into the Night wrote: Im a BM wrote: I don't know whose thoughts about oysters and clams you have been stealing, but they are not mine. "Buzzwords are not a buffer." Thank God someone had to courage to say it! Okay, so what IS a "buffer"? Would you be willing to offer some kind of DEFINITION? "Water itself is a buffer for acid." - Into the Night I didn't go the Chemistry Clown College, so I have no idea what they teach there as the definition of a "buffer". At the University of California, the definition they teach for "buffer" is NOT consistent with the idea that "water itself is a buffer for acid". The conjugate bases of weak acids make good buffers for acid. Carbonic acid, H2CO3, is a weak acid that dissociates into H+ and HCO3-. Bicarbonate ion, HCO3-, is the conjugate base of carbonic acid. "Bicarbonate buffer" is a term ANYONE can find in a matter of seconds. Even if Into the Night declares that there is "no such thing", you will still be able to find the definition of the term that scientists use to communicate about it. Can't wait to learn that "there is no such thing as 'conjugate base'." because it is just a "buzzword"! Bicarbonate is not a chemical. Science is not buzzwords. RQAA STOP SPAMMING with that same, stupid repetitive question! DON'T DENY YOUR OWN POSTS! All this YARP about "define your terms" for "climate change". RQAA, dude. RQAA.

Page 1 of 2

Join the debate The Church of Thermodenial - DEFINE YOUR TERMS!:

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