There are some paid climate deniers in this forum to spread false information, ignore them

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > There are some paid climate deniers in this forum to spread false information, ignore them

Page 1 of 4

There are some paid climate deniers in this forum to spread false information, ignore them16-01-2020 08:10
decentralmind ☆☆☆☆☆ (7)	Recently it came to my attention that few climate deniers are spreading false information massively and trying to manipulate healthy informative threads. I'm going to list few climate deniers users name, please ignore them at all cost. I'll keep updating this thread. One can easily look at their past post histories and confirm it. List of climate deniers users in this forum:- Into the Night : https://www.climate-debate.com/into-the-night-p668.php IBdaMann : https://www.climate-debate.com/ibdamann-p511.php Edited on 16-01-2020 08:46
16-01-2020 08:39
ronaldray ☆☆☆☆☆ (2)	Jesus christ, these idots are everywhere.
16-01-2020 09:02
MarcusR★☆☆☆☆ (111)	decentralmind wrote: Recently it came to my attention that few climate deniers are spreading false information massively and trying to manipulate healthy informative threads. I'm going to list few climate deniers users name, please ignore them at all cost. I'll keep updating this thread. One can easily look at their past post histories and confirm it. List of climate deniers users in this forum:- Into the Night : https://www.climate-debate.com/into-the-night-p668.php IBdaMann : https://www.climate-debate.com/ibdamann-p511.php Just ignore them and keep posting relevant info from relevant sources. Most People get what AGW and the consequential climate change is, so they can see right through it. But parts of the science behind this is not as easy once you start to dig in to the details. I tried to explain this in another thread, thag was quickly hijacked. BUT I don't mind, they just keep on making tools of themselves. Then there are thoose who knows what they are talking about. If you want a perspecive on the ongoing Forest fires in Australia visit royspencers blog. I Think hos view on media hysteria is really Good. But me and Roy do not share the view on energy politics, but we do share the view on the works of Grant W Petty (look at my post in man made vs natural and you understand why that is important)
16-01-2020 09:22
ronaldray ☆☆☆☆☆ (2)	MarcusR wrote: Just ignore them and keep posting relevant info from relevant sources. Look at Australia, it is estimated that 1 billion animals died, thousand of homes burned and many people have died. If any climate deniers spread false information by taking some financial incentive than they have to be persecuted for their contribution, just ignoring doesn't justify their action. Edited on 16-01-2020 09:23
16-01-2020 10:37
MarcusR★☆☆☆☆ (111)	ronaldray wrote: Look at Australia, it is estimated that 1 billion animals died, thousand of homes burned and many people have died. If any climate deniers spread false information by taking some financial incentive than they have to be persecuted for their contribution, just ignoring doesn't justify their action. However bad and horrible the ongoing situation is in Australia, I have not yet read any paper/research saying there is a 1:1 relation between AGW and the CC it causes and what has happened, and still is ongoing, in Australia. AGW do contribute - without a doubt: https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JAMC-D-17-0167.1 but as written in some blogs that AGW and CC is <entirely> to blame for what has happened ? I still have not read a paper/research that can show that 1:1 relation. Don't get me wrong here, my opinion is that even the increase we see in i.e FDDI by causing AGW is reason enough to act (i.e rapidly decrease our emissions of GHG's). Other people however obviously don't care, or has a political, financial, personal or other motives that makes them accept increased FFDI - or whatever consequences AGW will have. Another aspect of it all is that technology now has devloped so far that we can and already have started to move away from our fossil dependency. Perhaps that is the biggest scare of it all for thoose still denying AGW.

16-01-2020 10:38
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	decentralmind wrote:...ignore them at all cost.... I've found they are pretty useful to an extent. Climate Deniers of this particular breed, where all knowledge is disqualified, NASA is part of some giant conspiracy, and even college text books have to be thrown out, are a nitch online specifically. The trade the same arguments and I think it's worth learning how to break them down. Most recently ITN and IBD got to the point where even "Fact", yes the word "Fact", was denied. Talk about nothing can be known!!! IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:....A 'fact' is not....Define 'reality'....A 'fact' is not...A 'fact' is not ...Learn what 'fact' means...A 'fact' is not ...'fact' as 'universal truth' and is often conflated... It does not mean ...A fact is not.;.. A fact is not ...what 'fact' means....I've explained it, and the etymology of the word. Still my favorite though: IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: No one can know the temperature of Denver. He's absolutely correct.... Here is a trick with these folks. Not an achilles heal but an achilles torso. They can never admit they are wrong about anything (true of Trump too) so if they say something stupid they have to live with it forever. That's because it's not science for them it's combat. They just want to win, not discover or learn. I highly recommend watching at least some of this. You'll recognize the twisted minds! It applies to any topic: watch flat earthers "debate" scientists "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
16-01-2020 10:52
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	I never really liked the label, 'denier', kind of childish, playground name calling. Only silly fools, need to resort to simplistic tactics, to bully an issue, they know nothing about. I may not know a lot about the intimate details, as most people don't either. Takes a lot of time and dedication, and even then to understand it, keeps getting deeper. Lies, kind of work the same way, they keep growing, becoming larger, more complex, until you eventually have nothing else in your life, or you simply accept the lie as truth, without fully understanding why. The truth is simple, straightforward, not difficult to follow. The truth doesn't need a long, complicated, circumstantial series of explanations. The truth, doesn't require and individual to accept a great deal of unknowables on faith, to accept. The scam of it all, is that there has never been enough time to actually learn all the details, unless you have nothing else going on in your life. Even then, I think many that claim to know, actually just learned the terminology, but not the mechanism. The sense of urgency, have to act right now, tomorrow is too late, maybe already too late... For the past 40 years or so, we've been getting the same hype, and only 10 years or so to act. Not a whole lot of action taken, and none of the promised signs of the apocalypse either. Both California, and Australia have had massive, and deadly wildfires in the past centuries. It's nothing new, only that they do little any more, to prevent, and reduce the spread, during the cold/wet seasons. They wanted to go back to a more natural environment, and wildfires are a natural part of it. Well, accept for acts of arson, which Australia, recently announced 186 arrests relate to the current fires.
16-01-2020 13:32
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	HarveyH55 wrote:...The truth is simple, straightforward, not difficult to follow. The truth doesn't need a long, complicated, circumstantial series of explanations. .... Where on Earth did you get this Harvey? You cannot get more elemental than an atom. Is that simple and uncomplicated to explain? Well, we still don't even know what it is completely. I personally don't understand what it is at all. It's really, really weird. Those scientists working on that one at the supercollider, or an oncologist, hell even an auto mechanic can tell you that when they pull someone off the street (me and you both) and try to share with them what they understand as a real expert, who has studied a subject for decades, that average human is as dumb as a post and it's REALLY Fing complicated to them (again, me and you both). I do think you're right in another way though. Not that it should be simple to understand but that an argument you can discount is one that requires one to believe all the experts are wrong, that every textbook ever written on the subject has been falsified, that there is grand conspiracy involving nearly everyone who does something professionally. That is simple to understand as a load of BS.
16-01-2020 15:42
Harry C★★☆☆☆ (157)	decentralmind wrote: Recently it came to my attention that few climate deniers are spreading false information massively and trying to manipulate healthy informative threads. I'm going to list few climate deniers users name, please ignore them at all cost. I'll keep updating this thread. One can easily look at their past post histories and confirm it. List of climate deniers users in this forum:- Into the Night : https://www.climate-debate.com/into-the-night-p668.php IBdaMann : https://www.climate-debate.com/ibdamann-p511.php This is just ridiculous. To use the term "denier" as if it's some sort of universally held conviction is absurd. It is as absurd as to take the position that the "science is settled". That's what we are here debating. It's an inconvenient truth that they are the standard bearers for what is deemed science. Besides a simplified soundbite description of what we are told is happening, what is the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming and where my I find it? You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
16-01-2020 16:00
Third world guy ★☆☆☆☆ (88)	decentralmind: Your list is not about climate change deniers, but about people who destroy the threads. On the other hand, being a climate change denier is everyone's right, and it may be interesting to consider their opinions. I believe that the Earth is warming up. What I think is that this is being exaggerated. I also have my doubts about CO2 and some other issues. I consider myself skeptical. I am in this forum to learn, so we must try to read all the postures, and achieve a healthy debate. However to achieve this, we must ignore IBDM and ITN. There are three kinds of climate change: that generated by natural factors; that generated by man; and that generated by economic interests. Edited on 16-01-2020 16:01
16-01-2020 16:14
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14420)	Harry C wrote: That's what we are here debating. It's an inconvenient truth that they are the standard bearers for what is deemed science. Besides a simplified soundbite description of what we are told is happening, what is the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming and where my I find it? This is exactly how I got my start on this particular topic. I naively asked for the "climate" model so I could code it up into a program. It turns out that there is no science whatsoever supporting Global Warming, Climate Change, Greenhouse Effect or any other Marxism-based religion. Take note of all the posters who consider Into the Night and myself to be threats to their religious faith. Religions tend to not get along with science, but the Marxism-based religions absolutely NEED to afix the word "science" or "scientific" to all of their WACKY dogma to fool people into thinking that it must be "The Truth, The Light and The Way." This is why MarcusR flees in terror every time he is asked to specify what makes a journal "scientific." He doesn't want to admit that the requirement to be "scientific" is to preach his WACKY religious dogma. For example, tmiddles will admit that he's a virtual bonehead when it comes to science ... but MarcusR will nonetheless consider his discussion to be "scientific" as long as he is preaching the Good News of Global Warming. However, if I happen to inject actual science into the discussion, or even inquire as to what is accepted as science, MarcusR arches his back and hisses, claiming that I am "disrupting" the thread. MarcusR's intention for the thread was never anything other than spamming the board with Global Warming preaching ... like injecting an unwanted sermon. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-01-2020 16:34
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	decentralmind wrote: Recently it came to my attention that few climate deniers are spreading false information massively and trying to manipulate healthy informative threads. I'm going to list few climate deniers users name, please ignore them at all cost. I'll keep updating this thread. One can easily look at their past post histories and confirm it. List of climate deniers users in this forum:- Into the Night : https://www.climate-debate.com/into-the-night-p668.php IBdaMann : https://www.climate-debate.com/ibdamann-p511.php You can add me to your fancy little dat dere hey "Denier" list as well. You go enjoy the kiddie splash pool now!
16-01-2020 16:42
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	MarcusR wrote: Just ignore them and keep posting relevant info from relevant sources. Various "holy links" to a particular scientist, journal, government agency, etc. are not "relevant sources". They are not the theories of science themselves. MarcusR wrote: Most People get what AGW and the consequential climate change is, so they can see right through it. Define "climate change". Remember, definitions cannot be circular. MarcusR wrote: But parts of the science behind this There is no science behind an undefined buzzword. MarcusR wrote: is not as easy once you start to dig in to the details. I tried to explain this in another thread, thag was quickly hijacked. BUT I don't mind, they just keep on making tools of themselves. "My thwead got hijacked by doze nasty deny-ohs!!" ... Keep on splashing in that kiddie pool, son... MarcusR wrote: Then there are thoose who knows what they are talking about. Yes there are. MarcusR wrote: If you want a perspecive on the ongoing Forest fires in Australia visit royspencers blog. I Think hos view on media hysteria is really Good. But me and Roy do not share the view on energy politics, but we do share the view on the works of Grant W Petty (look at my post in man made vs natural and you understand why that is important) Alrighty then. Edited on 16-01-2020 16:58
16-01-2020 16:43
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	ronaldray wrote: MarcusR wrote: Just ignore them and keep posting relevant info from relevant sources. Look at Australia, it is estimated that 1 billion animals died, thousand of homes burned and many people have died. If any climate deniers spread false information by taking some financial incentive than they have to be persecuted for their contribution, just ignoring doesn't justify their action. Fires -> "climate change"??
16-01-2020 16:48
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	MarcusR wrote: However bad and horrible the ongoing situation is in Australia, I have not yet read any paper/research saying there is a 1:1 relation between AGW and the CC it causes and what has happened, and still is ongoing, in Australia. AGW do contribute - without a doubt: https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JAMC-D-17-0167.1 but as written in some blogs that AGW and CC is <entirely> to blame for what has happened ? I still have not read a paper/research that can show that 1:1 relation. Don't get me wrong here, my opinion is that even the increase we see in i.e FDDI by causing AGW is reason enough to act (i.e rapidly decrease our emissions of GHG's). Define "AGW". Define "CC". You are speaking gibberish. MarcusR wrote: Other people however obviously don't care, or has a political, financial, personal or other motives that makes them accept increased FFDI - or whatever consequences AGW will have. No, other people just wanna know WTF you're even talking about. You are speaking gibberish. MarcusR wrote: Another aspect of it all is that technology now has devloped so far that we can and already have started to move away from our fossil dependency. I have never once in my life ever depended on a fossil for anything. MarcusR wrote: Perhaps that is the biggest scare of it all for thoose still denying AGW. What I find scary is the amount of people (such as yourself) who are completely and utterly illiterate in logic, math, and science.

16-01-2020 16:59
MarcusR★☆☆☆☆ (111)	IBdaMann wrote: This is why MarcusR flees in terror every time he is asked to specify what makes a journal "scientific." He doesn't want to admit that the requirement to be "scientific" is to preach his WACKY religious dogma. For example, tmiddles will admit that he's a virtual bonehead when it comes to science ... but MarcusR will nonetheless consider his discussion to be "scientific" as long as he is preaching the Good News of Global Warming. However, if I happen to inject actual science into the discussion, or even inquire as to what is accepted as science, MarcusR arches his back and hisses, claiming that I am "disrupting" the thread. MarcusR's intention for the thread was never anything other than spamming the board with Global Warming preaching ... like injecting an unwanted sermon. . For many of us a scientific journal is a undisputed and very comonly used term. Journal names such as Nature, Lancet, PNAS, Science is a natural reference and a very important source for knowledge just by read in what other scientists around the world has accomplished in their research. Being published in any of the journals with the highest impact factors is the pinacle of many scientists work and career. I appologise for not being clear about that previously, but a scientific journal is to me such an obvious term it shouldn't require any explanation. So I Will continue to post links to papers and research published in the scientific journals that I have access to.
16-01-2020 17:09
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14420)	Third world guy wrote: On the other hand, being a climate change denier is everyone's right, and it may be interesting to consider their opinions. At least you admit to CLimate Change being your religion, and that not accepting your WACKY religious dogma is a matter of opinion. At least you aren't claiming that you have science supporting your WACKY religious dogma. You're making progress. Third world guy wrote: I believe that the Earth is warming up. It will certainly be fascinating to listen to your rationale for why you believe this, assuming it is something other than the standard alternating violations of thermodynamics and of Stefan-Boltzmann. So, why do you believe the earth is "warming up"? Third world guy wrote: I am in this forum to learn, so we must try to read all the postures, and achieve a healthy debate. Bullshit. You are here to preach your WACKY religion and to denigrate those who do not accept your gibberish. You're a dumbass who has a need to feel important, and you can only feel good about yourself if you are insulting others. So, I'm waiting for you to bring it on like you promised. Show everyone that I'm wrong and that you aren't a completely brain-dead warmizombie. What science do you have? What math do you have? Third world guy wrote:However to achieve this, we must ignore IBDM and ITN. Absolutely, because they want to inject SCIENCE into the discussion. What a loser. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-01-2020 17:17
MarcusR★☆☆☆☆ (111)	IBdaMann wrote: What science do you have? What math do you have? We could start with the few parts I posted. And you buy Petty's A first Course to Atmospheric Radiation ? It will give quite a lot more background than I posted.
16-01-2020 17:53
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14420)	MarcusR wrote: We could start with the few parts I posted. You haven't stated how the earth's average global temperature supposedly increases. Specifically. MarcusR wrote:And you buy Petty's A first Course to Atmospheric Radiation ? It will give quite a lot more background than I posted. Stop referring me to your minister. Tell me what you believe in your own words. Only fundamentalist cult members need to check with their clergy before they can speak about what they think. One more time: How does the earth's average global temperature supposedly increase without violating either thermodynamics or Stefan-Boltzmann. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-01-2020 17:56
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	MarcusR wrote: IBdaMann wrote: This is why MarcusR flees in terror every time he is asked to specify what makes a journal "scientific." He doesn't want to admit that the requirement to be "scientific" is to preach his WACKY religious dogma. For example, tmiddles will admit that he's a virtual bonehead when it comes to science ... but MarcusR will nonetheless consider his discussion to be "scientific" as long as he is preaching the Good News of Global Warming. However, if I happen to inject actual science into the discussion, or even inquire as to what is accepted as science, MarcusR arches his back and hisses, claiming that I am "disrupting" the thread. MarcusR's intention for the thread was never anything other than spamming the board with Global Warming preaching ... like injecting an unwanted sermon. . For many of us a scientific journal is a undisputed and very comonly used term. Science is not a journal or a magazine. It is a set of falsifiable theories. It does not use consensus, requires no journal or magazine, and requires no blessing from Holy Priests of any kind. MarcusR wrote: Journal names such as Nature, Lancet, PNAS, Science is a natural reference False authority fallacy. NONE of these magazines are science. MarcusR wrote: and a very important source for knowledge No. They are very important scripture to you. MarcusR wrote: just by read in what other scientists around the world has accomplished in their research. Science isn't a 'research' or a 'study'. It is a set of falsifiable theories. You ignore and deny them, including the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. MarcusR wrote: Being published in any of the journals with the highest impact factors is the pinacle of many scientists work and career. Science isn't a scientist or any group of scientists. Science does not use consensus or a priesthood. MarcusR wrote: I appologise for not being clear about that previously, but a scientific journal is to me such an obvious term it shouldn't require any explanation. Your explanation is a false authority fallacy. MarcusR wrote: So I Will continue to post links to papers and research published in the scientific journals that I have access to. And I will continue to call you on your false authority fallacy. Get a clue. 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
17-01-2020 04:40
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	Of course there is global warming... It's mid January, and 83 F outside, middle of winter. Well, actually, it's normal Florida winter, although we did almost break a record high, set in 1972. What's the carbon foot print of an active volcano? Big time eruption near Manila, and it's getting set for a second major blast soon. We hear all this talk of reducing our carbon contributions, but nature is just ramping up. I know know that California and Australia contributed a lot, with their record breaking wildfire seasons, as did Brazil. I had no luck finding out what the carbon foot print was for each acre of scorch earth. simple gets dismissed, as being carbon-neutral. Which is of course false. A lot of CO2 gets dumped into the atmosphere, over a short span of time. Takes years to sequester all that carbon again. There is a very real impact, but considered unimportant, compared to man, pulling sequestered carbon out of the ground, and burning it. To me, man's activities have very little impact on the planet. We can torture, starve, and sacrifice, but it will make little difference, since nature can/does more Co2 polluting in a few weeks, than we do all year. Oddly enough, even then, there isn't a huge jump in global warming, during these years, where nature gets angry. It's still the same, pre-programmed warming rate, as in the hockey-stick graph.
17-01-2020 14:42
MarcusR★☆☆☆☆ (111)	IBdaMann wrote: Tell me what you believe in your own words. Science, facts and math - That is what I believe in. Such as the way EM waves propagates through the atmopshere, just as described in the post You probably refered to. The good thing about science, fact, math, physics, chemistry etc is that You could always LEARN them.
17-01-2020 16:13
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14420)	MarcusR wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Tell me what you believe in your own words. Science, facts and math - That is what I believe in. Such as the way EM waves propagates through the atmopshere, just as described in the post You probably refered to. Except that you DENY science ... and you are probably incompetent in math. You claim that the earth's average global temperature increases as a result of energy changing form. Hence you deny the laws of thermodynamics. You claim that the earth's average global temperature increases with a corresponding decrease in radiance. Hence you deny Stefan-Boltzmann. We can touch on your mathematical incompetence whenever we get to the topic of determining the earth's average global temperature. MarcusR wrote: The good thing about science, fact, math, physics, chemistry etc is that You could always LEARN them. Just because I learned them doesn't mean everyone can. You, for example, haven't shown the capacity to grasp basic concepts. You haven't shown the ability follow a logical argument, nor to construct one. You haven't shown any ability to realize errors that are explicitly pointed out to you. You haven't demonstrated any ability to learn science and you have a penchant for blaming others for your cognitive shortcomings. I therefore believe you have overestimated your potential. Perhaps if you were to set your sights a little lower and pursue basic arithmetic first ... and maybe aspire to one day be, say, an accountant, you might put yourself on a more attainable path. I think you'll find that allowing yourself to be manipulated by Marxists just isn't ever a good career path. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-01-2020 17:57
Third world guy ★☆☆☆☆ (88)	This is only one more example of hundred of threades intencionally destroyed in this forum. Is there any case to keep trying to get something positive in this place? It is not clear to me who finances it or his intentions. It is something similar to the tower of Babel. Doesn't the moderators realize what happens, or do they not even exist? The fact is that this forum does not meet my expectations. It is kidnapped by a couple of morons (and a little brother who just appeared). There are three kinds of climate change: that generated by natural factors; that generated by man; and that generated by economic interests.
17-01-2020 18:46
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14420)	Third world guy wrote: The fact is that this forum does not meet my expectations. I think everyone is painfully aware that you are looking to go eat at the kids table with your little friends where there aren't any grown-ups to tell you that you should eat your vegetables. The adults give you permission to go and have fun. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-01-2020 19:12
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	MarcusR wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Tell me what you believe in your own words. Science, facts and math - That is what I believe in. Such as the way EM waves propagates through the atmopshere, just as described in the post You probably refered to. The good thing about science, fact, math, physics, chemistry etc is that You could always LEARN them. Still trying to deny the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law using magick 'EM propagation', eh? 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
18-01-2020 02:57
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	Third world guy wrote: This is only one more example of hundred of threades intencionally destroyed in this forum. Is there any case to keep trying to get something positive in this place? It is not clear to me who finances it or his intentions. It is something similar to the tower of Babel. Doesn't the moderators realize what happens, or do they not even exist? The fact is that this forum does not meet my expectations. It is kidnapped by a couple of morons (and a little brother who just appeared). Maybe your expectations are too high, or you are learning things, that dispute what you want to believe. There are two sides to every debate, otherwise, it's kind of like watching the democrat presidential debates. Would be much of a debate forum, if everybody agreed. I don't do debate, but will get involved with discussions. When those threads get taken over with debate style crap, i just move on, too repetitious to be interesting. I prefer to read things, only one time. For some, debate is sort of a sport, and everyone that comes to the forum, is an opponent, whether they like it or not. It's not easy, to learn you landed in the middle of the game, and need to figure what's going on. the rules, and such. Takes time to avoid the bait, and just walk away, when a thread turns into a game. I didn't come here to play, but it is a debate forum, so I don't let it bother much.
18-01-2020 03:07
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	HarveyH55 wrote: Third world guy wrote: This is only one more example of hundred of threades intencionally destroyed in this forum. Is there any case to keep trying to get something positive in this place? It is not clear to me who finances it or his intentions. It is something similar to the tower of Babel. Doesn't the moderators realize what happens, or do they not even exist? The fact is that this forum does not meet my expectations. It is kidnapped by a couple of morons (and a little brother who just appeared). Maybe your expectations are too high, His expectations are that he doesn't want to swim in the adult pool. He can only tolerate the kiddie pool. His expectations is that he wants any dissenting opinion to be removed and quashed. He wants a kiddie pool. Why he's here is beyond me. There are plenty of kiddie board forums out there. HarveyH55 wrote: or you are learning things, that dispute what you want to believe. I don't think he is learning anything. He doesn't want to. 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
18-01-2020 03:10
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Harry C wrote:... what is the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming and where my I find it? Do I have the CO2 calamity math right? (help from an expert please) How about we actually discuss it Harry and not go through this cycle of you asking, me answering, and then you moving on to ask again. gfm7175 wrote: MarcusR wrote: Just ignore them and keep posting relevant info from relevant sources. Various "holy links" to a particular scientist, journal, government agency, etc. are not "relevant sources". So what is? This is where you'd say "No you got it wrong THIS is the right way to do it!" But your good example is missing. See in my sig where ITN dismissed my data on human skin's emissivity. It's a joke with ITN/IBD at least, is it with you too? gfm7175 wrote: Define "climate change". Remember, definitions cannot be circular...Define "AGW". Define "CC". How is a change in the mean annual temperature for the planet a circular definition? AGW is the theory that human (anthropogenic) burning of fossil fuels adds CO2 to the atmosphere which in turn results in a higher mean temp at ground level. Is that also circular for you? MarcusR wrote:...a scientific journal is to me such an obvious term it shouldn't require any explanation.... It doesn't. It means it's peer reviewed by those at the highest positions in their disciplines. As opposed to something published in the Financial Times. HarveyH55 wrote: To me, man's activities have very little impact on the planet. And why do you elevate your opinion on a complex issue over that of those who study it professionally? "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
18-01-2020 03:27
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	tmiddles wrote: Harry C wrote:... what is the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming and where my I find it? Do I have the CO2 calamity math right? (help from an expert please) No. You are again ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law. tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: MarcusR wrote: Just ignore them and keep posting relevant info from relevant sources. Various "holy links" to a particular scientist, journal, government agency, etc. are not "relevant sources". So what is? The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. tmiddles wrote: This is where you'd say "No you got it wrong THIS is the right way to do it!" But your good example is missing. None necessary. tmiddles wrote: See in my sig where ITN dismissed my data on human skin's emissivity. I still do. It is not data. It is just made up numbers. tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: Define "climate change". Remember, definitions cannot be circular...Define "AGW". Define "CC". How is a change in the mean annual temperature for the planet a circular definition? Not the meaning of 'climate'. Climate has no quantitative value. tmiddles wrote: AGW is the theory that human (anthropogenic) burning of fossil fuels adds CO2 to the atmosphere which in turn results in a higher mean temp at ground level. You have to define 'climate change' before you can have a theory. Fossils don't burn. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing. tmiddles wrote: Is that also circular for you? Yes. You are making a circular argument. Are are making extensions from that initial circular argument. That makes your entire set of arguments a religion. You are trying to prove your circular argument. That's a circular argument falllacy and that makes you a fundamentalist. tmiddles wrote: MarcusR wrote:...a scientific journal is to me such an obvious term it shouldn't require any explanation.... It doesn't. It means it's peer reviewed by those at the highest positions in their disciplines. There is no consensus in science. There is no Holy Blessing by the priests in science. There is no peer review in science. tmiddles wrote: As opposed to something published in the Financial Times. the Financial Times also does peer review. tmiddles wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: To me, man's activities have very little impact on the planet. And why do you elevate your opinion on a complex issue over that of those who study it professionally? Science isn't 'experts'. It isn't a peer review. It does not use consensus. It is not any credential or degree. Science is just a set of falsifiable theories. 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

18-01-2020 03:48
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14420)	Third world guy wrote: This is only one more example of hundred of threades intencionally destroyed in this forum. ... y también, tu uso del inglés no resulta. Mejor que escribas en el castellano y posiblimente tendrás algún chance de expresar algo entendible. Estás fastidiando la conversación nomás. Que vergüenza. I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-01-2020 04:51
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: Third world guy wrote: This is only one more example of hundred of threades intencionally destroyed in this forum. ... y también, tu uso del inglés no resulta. Mejor que escribas en el castellano y posiblimente tendrás algún chance de expresar algo entendible. Estás fastidiando la conversación nomás. Que vergüenza. По Английски Я сказала вам. Они не понимают вас. Я могу помочь вам если вы хотите. Кто проблемы? Easiest way to keep a thread on topic, actually no thread in does. Discussing climate change is like discussing politics or religion. A person's belief will be challenged. And yes, Trump is the One True Living God and not those wanna be's Kim Jung Su or Putin. Trump is simply God.
18-01-2020 06:05
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14420)	James___ wrote: По Английски Я сказала вам. Они не понимают вас. Я могу помочь вам если вы хотите. Кто проблемы? Это второй раз, когда Тмидлс притворяется, что игнорирует тех, кто не прославляет его религиозную веру. Как вы думаете, сколько времени пройдет, прежде чем он уйдет или возобновит проповедь? Тмидлс разрушает каждую дискуссию. Он только стремится беспокоить тех, кто не верит в его религию. У него никогда не было намерения честно обсуждать какую-либо тему. I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-01-2020 08:25
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote: По Английски Я сказала вам. Они не понимают вас. Я могу помочь вам если вы хотите. Кто проблемы? Это второй раз, когда Тмидлс притворяется, что игнорирует тех, кто не прославляет его религиозную веру. Как вы думаете, сколько времени пройдет, прежде чем он уйдет или возобновит проповедь? Тмидлс разрушает каждую дискуссию. Он только стремится беспокоить тех, кто не верит в его религию. У него никогда не было намерения честно обсуждать какую-либо тему. Очень хорошо шутки мои друг. Со ему, что ты думаешь? Правда? Более пево? Изменение климата ушло от науки. Что делать?
18-01-2020 12:24
starryowl ☆☆☆☆☆ (13)	"Climate Change" is religion now. It tells people how they should live their lives based on morals that are inversely related to people that are successful in life. America has had marketable success by using the resources of the earth, and the rest of the world somehow hates that.
18-01-2020 19:47
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	tmiddles wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: To me, man's activities have very little impact on the planet. And why do you elevate your opinion on a complex issue over that of those who study it professionally? I do it all the time. I've never studied auto mechanics, but manage to keep my vehicle on the road, and I've never owned a new car, most are about 10 years old, and have issues. When my central air conditioning fails, I've managed to do my own repairs, with absolutely no training or experience in the field. Only had three failures, in over 20 years, so guessing, I got it figured right. I don't have any formal training, or job experience for a lot of stuff, and it doesn't stop me from getting the job done myself. You see, I figure, a professional had to learn, at some point, so anybody can learn the same things. The difference, is that I only learn what I need, to get me through a specific task. Where a 'professional' would spend years, learning ever aspect of his specific field, much of which seldom, if ever, is needed, or applied. Why do I bother learning, and go through the hassles and labor, of doing all my own repairs, rather than pay a professional? Mostly, I'm cheap, parts are only a fraction of what a professional charges. There is no way of telling how good a professional will be, how long the repairs will take, and if they were done well, or even actually needed. Professionals do make mistakes, they are human, and subject to the same failings of any other human. Which of course, includes honesty and integrity. A piece of paper, isn't proof of credibility. Sure, I have trust issues, and a lack of faith in others. Never claim to be perfect, I'm human, just like any other of the species.
18-01-2020 20:09
starryowl ☆☆☆☆☆ (13)	There is a lot areas in life where people are labeled as "professionals". Sometimes all it takes is a bit of personal research to become a "professional" yourself. There is a lot to respect about someone that is willing to put forth the effort to research and establish the knowledge about a certain subject in order to create a practical purpose for themselves. That is what personal independence is based on, and what I think the country of America should represent.
18-01-2020 20:23
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14420)	James___ wrote: Очень хорошо шутки мои друг. Со ему, что ты думаешь? Правда? Более пево? Изменение климата ушло от науки. Что делать? Я всегда задаю один и тот же вопрос: почему ты веришь в то, во что веришь? По крайней мере, вы объясняете свои причины и вступаете в дискуссию. Тмидллс и другие ожидают, что я приму их убеждения как устоявшуюся науку, и они никогда не будут обсуждать этот вопрос. Они протестуют против того, чтобы их вере бросили вызов. I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-01-2020 20:57
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote: По Английски Я сказала вам. Они не понимают вас. Я могу помочь вам если вы хотите. Кто проблемы? Это второй раз, когда Тмидлс притворяется, что игнорирует тех, кто не прославляет его религиозную веру. Как вы думаете, сколько времени пройдет, прежде чем он уйдет или возобновит проповедь? Тмидлс разрушает каждую дискуссию. Он только стремится беспокоить тех, кто не верит в его религию. У него никогда не было намерения честно обсуждать какую-либо тему. Dōi shinakereba narimasen. 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 18-01-2020 21:00
18-01-2020 21:21
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14420)	Into the Night wrote:Dōi shinakereba narimasen. Anata wa nihongo ga kan'nōdesu. Watashi wa chigaimasu. Nonetheless, I can say "gomoku" and "sudoku" and "Godzilla." . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

Page 1 of 4

Join the debate There are some paid climate deniers in this forum to spread false information, ignore them:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Does the forum have push notifications?	0	07-04-2024 06:37
False Alarm by Bjorn Lomborg	0	24-02-2024 01:58
$50,000 Reward For Information Leading to Convictions in Arizona Voting Conspiracy	2	18-02-2024 00:27
Spam in forum	9	19-11-2023 23:27
Spread the word	4	11-11-2023 23:49