There is still no Global Warming science.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
I am starting to get the impression that you are of the OPINION that "Carbonate is not a chemical."

Apology accepted!

YARP

This religious nut pretends that he's a "chemist"

He doesn't even know that he's a TROLL

Delusional, he LIES and LIES, relentless

I'd pity him, but he does not have a soul

branner wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
you moron
...
you are a religious WACK-JOB
...
ignore any of your crap
...
you are a fraud
...

Forum admin here. Please use a civilized language on Climate-Debate.com.

It would be great to attract more active users with interesting points to discuss and share, so please don't scare them away from participating with rude language.

Ok?

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted whining...
The climate "debate" came to be dominated by a handful of members who insist that CLIMATE CANNOT CHANGE.

Im a BM wrote:
Not even the "skeptic" position that humans are not responsible for climate change.

Im a BM wrote:
They take science denial ALL THE WAY. Climate cannot change by ANY mechanism.

Im a BM wrote:
And you are a "moron" if you disagree.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
...deleted whining...
The climate "debate" came to be dominated by a handful of members who insist that CLIMATE CANNOT CHANGE.

What is climate is 'changing', Robert? You still haven't answered that question.

Im a BM wrote:
Not even the "skeptic" position that humans are not responsible for climate change.

What is 'changing'?

Im a BM wrote:
They take science denial ALL THE WAY. Climate cannot change by ANY mechanism.

What is 'changing'?

Im a BM wrote:
And you are a "moron" if you disagree.

You haven't demonstrated anything better.

What is 'changing', Robert?

Im a BM wrote:
Perhaps if we dissect the term "climate change", we can find a clue to help answer your question. We won't even have to dig up any Latin root words.

Im a BM wrote:
What is "changing" in "climate change"? That would be the climate.

Im a BM wrote:
If you are ignorant of what the climate is, there are many resources available to you to help you learn more.

Im a BM wrote:
Here is just one example of the consistent answer to be found:

Google the precise keywords "What is climate?"
Google's answer agrees with what you will find just about everywhere else you inquire:

Im a BM wrote:
"Climate is the long-term average of weather patterns - including temperature, precipitation, humidity, and wind - in a specific area over extended periods, typically 30 years or more."

Im a BM wrote:
Google is clear that climate is characterized for a SPECIFIC AREA because there is NO SUCH THING as "global climate".

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Perhaps if we dissect the term "climate change", we can find a clue to help answer your question. We won't even have to dig up any Latin root words.

Oh, this tired old word game again...*yawn*

You think you aren't the first to try this?

Im a BM wrote:
What is "changing" in "climate change"? That would be the climate.

Climate does not mean 'change'. Try again. Circular definition fallacy. What is 'changing' in climate, Robert?

Im a BM wrote:
If you are ignorant of what the climate is, there are many resources available to you to help you learn more.

Obviously have don't know what 'climate' means either.

Im a BM wrote:
Here is just one example of the consistent answer to be found:

Google the precise keywords "What is climate?"
Google's answer agrees with what you will find just about everywhere else you inquire:

Google is not sentient. Google is not God. Obviously you don't even know what 'climate' means.

Im a BM wrote:
"Climate is the long-term average of weather patterns - including temperature, precipitation, humidity, and wind - in a specific area over extended periods, typically 30 years or more."

Climate is not an average. What are you 'averaging'? Climate has no temperature. Climate has no precipitation. Climate has no humidity. Climate has no wind.

Why the Magick Number 30?

Im a BM wrote:
Google is clear that climate is characterized for a SPECIFIC AREA because there is NO SUCH THING as "global climate".

Climate has no area. You can't measure it in acres, feet, or inches, meters, or miles.

Weather is not climate.

Try again. What is 'changing' in climate?

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

What is 'changing' in climate?

Stop spamming.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

What is 'changing' in climate?

Stop spamming.

Not an answer. Try again.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

What is 'changing' in climate?

Stop spamming.

Not an answer. Try again.

Lo obvio es que no entiendes ningunos terminos cientificos en ingles. La unica respuesta que eres capaz de ofrecer es insistir que sean "buzzwords". Tal vez sabes buscar definiciones del vocubulario, con tal que no sea en ingles.

Im a BM wrote:
Que es lo que esta "cambiando" cuando dicen "cambio de clima"?

El CLIMA es lo que esta cambiando.

Im a BM wrote:
"Clima" es muy localizada, y no se define a nivel "global".

Ejemplos de cambios de clima incluyen el traslado de linderos entre biomes.

Im a BM wrote:
Talk about BUZZWORDS!

Nothing but meaningless buzzwords. They couldn't mean anything to anyone. Nobody understands those kinds of words and they are impossible to look up.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

What is 'changing' in climate?

Stop spamming.

Not an answer. Try again.

Lo obvio es que no entiendes ningunos terminos cientificos en ingles. La unica respuesta que eres capaz de ofrecer es insistir que sean "buzzwords". Tal vez sabes buscar definiciones del vocubulario, con tal que no sea en ingles.

This board runs in English, Robert. Stick to the language of this forum.

Im a BM wrote:
Que es lo que esta "cambiando" cuando dicen "cambio de clima"?

El CLIMA es lo que esta cambiando.

Circular definition. Try again.

Im a BM wrote:
"Clima" es muy localizada, y no se define a nivel "global".

Ejemplos de cambios de clima incluyen el traslado de linderos entre biomes.

Biomes is not a word.

Im a BM wrote:
Talk about BUZZWORDS!

Nothing but meaningless buzzwords. They couldn't mean anything to anyone. Nobody understands those kinds of words and they are impossible to look up.

Another language is not buzzwords, Robert. Stick to English on this forum.

You still haven't answered the question: What is 'changing' in climate?

sealover wrote:
Perhaps your single greatest handicap is that you don't understand that scientists speak the equivalent of a foreign language that doesn't always correspond to the meaning of the term in common English.

sealover wrote:
You failed to learn the vocabulary required to speak the language of science.

sealover wrote:
This is a fundamental feature of your (literal) SCIENTIFIC ILLITERACY.

sealover wrote:
You don't know how to speak, read, or write in Science. You were never trained.

Into the Night wrote:

sealover wrote:
Perhaps your single greatest handicap is that you don't understand that scientists speak the equivalent of a foreign language that doesn't always correspond to the meaning of the term in common English.

Science isn't a foreign language. Science isn't buzzwords.

sealover wrote:
You failed to learn the vocabulary required to speak the language of science.

Science isn't a language.

sealover wrote:
This is a fundamental feature of your (literal) SCIENTIFIC ILLITERACY.

Inversion fallacy. You can't blame your problems on anybody else, Robert.

sealover wrote:
You don't know how to speak, read, or write in Science. You were never trained.

Science isn't a language. .Science is not a school, college, university, degree, license, or any other sanctification.

Im a BM wrote:
You are the only "scientist" I have ever heard of who uses the term "buzzwords".

Im a BM wrote:
On the other hand, you are the only "chemist" I have ever heard of who refuses to believe in the existence of organic carbon, organic nitrogen, terminal electron acceptors, biogeochemistry, etc., etc., etc., and the list of what you refuse to believe even exists is very long.

Im a BM wrote:
But you certainly do NOT qualify as a "chemist" by any definition that I know.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
You are the only "scientist" I have ever heard of who uses the term "buzzwords".

You should get out more.

Im a BM wrote:
On the other hand, you are the only "chemist" I have ever heard of who refuses to believe in the existence of organic carbon, organic nitrogen, terminal electron acceptors, biogeochemistry, etc., etc., etc., and the list of what you refuse to believe even exists is very long.

Carbon is not organic. Nitrogen is not organic. There is no such thing as a 'terminal electron acceptor'. There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'. Chemistry is not a religion.

Im a BM wrote:
But you certainly do NOT qualify as a "chemist" by any definition that I know.

Since you don't know what a chemist is, that's a given. I am a chemist. Your opinion is not required.

Im a BM wrote:
"The Transparently Hollow 'Science' of Thermodenial"

[b]Im a BM wrote:
[/b]
I'm pretty sure that you will continue to troll relentlessly, even if all the other cult members ditched you and your leader only shows up for sporadic cameos.

It is absolutely HILARIOUS how you guys try to pretend your shit is "science"!

Im a BM wrote:
Since you refuse to stop trolling, I'm going to synthesize a few things I learned from you about the transparently hollow "science" of thermodenial.

Im a BM wrote:
I will encourage you to contact persons at Google, but don't you dare look up my nephew, to help them correct the horrendous mistakes they keep making.

Google doesn't even know what science IS!

Im a BM wrote:
You could probably be handsomely rewarded financially, but you should do it for the public education value of providing CORRECT chemistry information to the billions of people who seek it from GOOGLE.

Im a BM wrote:
And you are virtually GUARANTEED a Nobel Prize after you publish the FIRST proof the chemists got it all wrong for more than a century about how low pH can go.

Im a BM wrote:
Once you clear the deck of all those meaningless "buzzwords" that Google shouldn't be using at all, it will be able to provide much more meaningful answers to scientific inquiries.

Im a BM wrote:
Well, the person making the inquiry will have to be informed that the keywords in the Google search contains "buzzwords", and alternative terms must be provided before a meaningful answer can be generated for the inquiry.

Im a BM wrote:
So... Well, you can help them figure it out. What should Google SAY if someone inquires "Why is it not possible for pH to be below zero"?

Im a BM wrote:
Follow up: Here is the messed up answer Google's dysfunctional AI provides right NOW.

IBdaMann wrote:
In order to have any Global Warming science there must be a falsifiable Global Warming model (that isn't false). Without one, Global Warming cannot rise above the level of "religion."

If anyone believes s/he has Global Warming science, please post the falsifiable Global Warming model into this thread. I prefer the actual model be posted into this thread, not the link, because thus far every single person who has posted a link has posted a bogus link that did not lead to the falsifiable Global Warming model (that isn't false).

IBdaMann wrote:

branner wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
you moron
...
you are a religious WACK-JOB
...
ignore any of your crap
...
you are a fraud
...

Forum admin here. Please use a civilized language on Climate-Debate.com.

It would be great to attract more active users with interesting points to discuss and share, so please don't scare them away from participating with rude language.

Ok?

I'm with you and I'm open to suggestions. I'd appreciate the board's recommended way to:

1) point out a religious WACK-job
2) identify crap for what it is
3) point out a complete fraud
4) respond to someone who is engaging in uncivilized sarcasm (or is that, by definition, civilized)?

I'm all for keeping discussions civilized except when I encounter abusive troll frauds who insist on driving the discussion into the muck...and it's for those instances that I ask for your guidance.

Im a BM wrote:
"abusive troll fraud" Aren't they the worst?

Im a BM wrote:
Define your terms!

Im a BM wrote:
What is an "abusive troll fraud"?

For that matter, what the heck is a "biogeochemist"?

Google inquiry: "What the heck is a 'biogeochemist'?"

Im a BM wrote:
Google's AI appears to be convinced that there really IS "such a thing".

Google says: "A biogeochemist is a scientist who studies how life (biology), earth materials (geology), and chemical processes interact to shape the environment."

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
"abusive troll fraud" Aren't they the worst?

Buzzword fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
Define your terms!

Good idea, or at least stop post spam filled with buzzwords.

Im a BM wrote:
What is an "abusive troll fraud"?

For that matter, what the heck is a "biogeochemist"?

Google inquiry: "What the heck is a 'biogeochemist'?"

There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'.

Im a BM wrote:
Google's AI appears to be convinced that there really IS "such a thing".

Google says: "A biogeochemist is a scientist who studies how life (biology), earth materials (geology), and chemical processes interact to shape the environment."

Google is not sentient. Google is not God. Google does not define any word. There is no 'biogeochemistry' in science.

So all you want to do is whine now and throw insults.

Im a BM wrote:
Nobody ever said that it was, YARP. (Yellow And Red Parrot)

"Google is not God."

Nobody ever said that it was, YARP.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
I am starting to get the impression that you are of the OPINION that "Carbonate is not a chemical."

Apology accepted!

YARP

This religious nut pretends that he's a "chemist"

He doesn't even know that he's a TROLL

Delusional, he LIES and LIES, relentless

I'd pity him, but he does not have a soul

YARP

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
I am starting to get the impression that you are of the OPINION that "Carbonate is not a chemical."

Apology accepted!

YARP

This religious nut pretends that he's a "chemist"

He doesn't even know that he's a TROLL

Delusional, he LIES and LIES, relentless

I'd pity him, but he does not have a soul

YARP

YARP is right, man!

YARP (Yellow And Red Parrot)

YARP = BS + FU

pH = -log(H+)

for example, a 1.0 M solution of nitric acid has pH = 0.0, because the negative logarithm of 1.0 is zero.

Nitric is not a chemical!

IBdaMann wrote:
In order to have any Global Warming science there must be a falsifiable Global Warming model (that isn't false). Without one, Global Warming cannot rise above the level of "religion."

If anyone believes s/he has Global Warming science, please post the falsifiable Global Warming model into this thread. I prefer the actual model be posted into this thread, not the link, because thus far every single person who has posted a link has posted a bogus link that did not lead to the falsifiable Global Warming model (that isn't false).

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
In order to have any Global Warming science there must be a falsifiable Global Warming model (that isn't false). Without one, Global Warming cannot rise above the level of "religion."

If anyone believes s/he has Global Warming science, please post the falsifiable Global Warming model into this thread. I prefer the actual model be posted into this thread, not the link, because thus far every single person who has posted a link has posted a bogus link that did not lead to the falsifiable Global Warming model (that isn't false).

October 22, 2014 - IBdaMann's first post at climate-debate.com

Establishing himself as the SENIOR TROLL at this website.

"Your religion is stupid." - IBdaMann

climate scientist wrote:
mywifesatan wrote:
In all fairness you don't know the elite scientific community..there are not that many true
"climate scientists" there is not really a qaulifying criteria for that anyway...very few scientists study this...you never gave me proof of a consensus..saying something vague like 97% of scientists..what does that mean?.every scientist in the world was polled? There are so many ways to run this scam. there never was any poll ever to support your claim..you have no source..you just believe what is being reported by liberal news outlets...that would be every news station besides fox news on tv..I know..how dare fox news exist! If this is what you base your assertion on that agw is a fact and we all are doomed.....and you might want to rethink your standpoint

Hi everyone.

I am a climate scientist. I work in a department with at least 50 other people that would identify themselves as climate scientists. There are at least 10 other such departments in the country I live in alone. I would estimate that there are thousands of people world-wide who identify themselves as climate scientists and who publish research on climate science in peer reviewed journals.

The Cook et al. (2013) paper referring to 97% of agreement between climate scientists about AGW examined abstracts from peer reviewed climate research papers, and found that out of those that stated a view on climate change, 97.1% endorsed AGW.

If you were serious in finding 'the truth' about climate change, I would recommend that instead of debating your opinion on this forum and reading about the 'climate change conspiracy' on the internet, that you should arrange a meeting with some real climate scientists at a university or institution close to where you live, and ask if you can meet with them to discuss your concerns about the link between atmospheric CO2 and AGW and see what they have to say and show you.

This would be a more evidence based way of finding out more about climate change, rather than relying on non-expert opinions on the internet, and I am sure that most climate scientists would be happy to talk to you about their research and work.

IBdaMann wrote:

climate scientist wrote:Your posts so far have largely been ramblings

You're one to speak! You're a fraud, plain and simple. You are no scientist, you are a religious WACK-JOB.

First, you have no "Climate" science. None.

Secondly, there is no falsifiable model within the body of science for "Climate" or for "Global Warming." There is no "greenhouse effect" and no "greenhouse gases."

Third, one cannot be a "scientist" for that which is not in the body of science.

Fourth, an actual scientist would know that there is no role for "evidence" in the body of science, only falsifiable models that help us predict nature. The scientific method has one purpose, to prove falsifiable models false. The scientific method uses data/measurements/observations to help prove a model false but cares nothing for "evidence" that indicates something might be true.

climate scientist wrote: I am not an alarmist troll.

No, you're just another ordinary, religious climate lemming. Go pray to "Climate" (PBUH)

climate scientist wrote:For me, climate change is not a question of belief - it is happening, and it is caused largely by anthropogenic influences.

So, yes, it's entirely a question of your WACKY faith. You have no science whatsoever to support your claims. All you have is your religious dogma.

climate scientist wrote: I know this because of the scientific evidence from many measurements of many different variables

"Evidence" is the stuff of religions. Ask any Christian and he'll tell you that all the scientific evidence points to God being real and active in our lives. Ask any climate lemming like yourself and the answer is the same "Global Warming is real and active in our lives."

I wish all your devout religious believers would snap out of your delusions.

climate scientist wrote: There have, however, been numerous subsequent studies using a wide variety of methods, based on a wide range of data (tree rings from many species, and also other data, such as glacial deposits, lake bed deposits, etc.)

Hey, climate lemming, studies do not constitute science. In fact, the more common word for them is "trivia."

If you are getting the impression that I don't hold your religion in high regard it's because I don't.

Im a BM wrote: I wish that I had arrived in time to interact with "climate scientist". He was the REAL THING!

Im a BM wrote: Rational and well-informed discussion about science related to climate is what this PhD climate scientist freely offered here in good faith.

Im a BM wrote:He was not alone. Before the [science saavy and mathematically knowledgeable rational adults demanding unambiguous definitions] took over, there were many other undereducated leftist cowards who were well-versed in [hard-line dogmatism of the wondrous and magically omnipotent global climate].

Im a BM wrote: By the time I got here, most of the posts were by Into the Night, IBdaMann, HarveyH55, GasGuzzler, and gfm7175.

Im a BM wrote: The "Define-your-terms-you-scientifically-illiterate-moron-Commie-liar-grifter-in-the-service-of-evil.." gang.

Im a BM wrote: Four years ago, there was only one member remaining, "tmiddles" who was [proselytizing the Word of the global climate].

Im a BM wrote:I can certainly understand why "climate scientist" made the choice to discontinue his participation after IBdaMann personally fixated on him with personal attacks and false accusations.

Im a BM wrote: Any further discussion of "climate change" was always gonna have to get UGLY!

Im a BM wrote:
In the early part o 2015 - Before the Scientifically Illiterate Trolls Infested climate-debate.com

I wish that I had arrived in time to interact with "climate scientist".

He was the REAL THING!

Im a BM wrote:
Rational and well-informed discussion about science related to climate is what this PhD climate scientist freely offered here in good faith.

Im a BM wrote:
He was not alone. Before the vermin took over, there were many others who were well-versed in real world science related to climate.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
In the early part o 2015 - Before the Scientifically Illiterate Trolls Infested climate-debate.com

I wish that I had arrived in time to interact with "climate scientist".

He was the REAL THING!

Nope. He was a religious nut like you.

Im a BM wrote:
Rational and well-informed discussion about science related to climate is what this PhD climate scientist freely offered here in good faith.

There is no science related to climate, Robert. Climate is not a branch of science.

Im a BM wrote:
He was not alone. Before the vermin took over, there were many others who were well-versed in real world science related to climate.

There is no science related to climate, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:Where are GasGuzzler, gfm7175, and HarveyH55 when you need them?

Im a BM wrote: They are too CHICKEN SHIT COWARD to face down the SPAM MASTER!

Im a BM wrote: Branner needs to crack down on the SPAM.

IBdaMann wrote:
In order to have any Global Warming science there must be a falsifiable Global Warming model (that isn't false). Without one, Global Warming cannot rise above the level of "religion."

If anyone believes s/he has Global Warming science, please post the falsifiable Global Warming model into this thread. I prefer the actual model be posted into this thread, not the link, because thus far every single person who has posted a link has posted a bogus link that did not lead to the falsifiable Global Warming model (that isn't false).

Im a BM wrote:
48,582 " Views" of this thread since October of 2014 when IBdaMann established his "library" at climate-debate.com

Im a BM wrote: ONE of your threads attracted as much attention as MINE!

Im a BM wrote:In less than 12 years!

IBdaMann wrote:

climate scientist wrote:Your posts so far have largely been ramblings

You're one to speak! You're a fraud, plain and simple. You are no scientist, you are a religious WACK-JOB.

First, you have no "Climate" science. None.

Secondly, there is no falsifiable model within the body of science for "Climate" or for "Global Warming." There is no "greenhouse effect" and no "greenhouse gases."

Third, one cannot be a "scientist" for that which is not in the body of science.

Fourth, an actual scientist would know that there is no role for "evidence" in the body of science, only falsifiable models that help us predict nature. The scientific method has one purpose, to prove falsifiable models false. The scientific method uses data/measurements/observations to help prove a model false but cares nothing for "evidence" that indicates something might be true.

climate scientist wrote: I am not an alarmist troll.

No, you're just another ordinary, religious climate lemming. Go pray to "Climate" (PBUH)

climate scientist wrote:For me, climate change is not a question of belief - it is happening, and it is caused largely by anthropogenic influences.

So, yes, it's entirely a question of your WACKY faith. You have no science whatsoever to support your claims. All you have is your religious dogma.

climate scientist wrote: I know this because of the scientific evidence from many measurements of many different variables

"Evidence" is the stuff of religions. Ask any Christian and he'll tell you that all the scientific evidence points to God being real and active in our lives. Ask any climate lemming like yourself and the answer is the same "Global Warming is real and active in our lives."

I wish all your devout religious believers would snap out of your delusions.

climate scientist wrote: There have, however, been numerous subsequent studies using a wide variety of methods, based on a wide range of data (tree rings from many species, and also other data, such as glacial deposits, lake bed deposits, etc.)

Hey, climate lemming, studies do not constitute science. In fact, the more common word for them is "trivia."

If you are getting the impression that I don't hold your religion in high regard it's because I don't.