There is still no Global Warming science.

Im a BM wrote: I can "acidify" any pHucking "alkaline" that I feel like acidifying.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: I can "acidify" any pHucking "alkaline" that I feel like acidifying.

Too funny! Any chemist can tell you that you can't acidify any alkaline, because you would ultimately change it to another 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 advances in rank to TOP troll according to the SENIORITY system.

...

Those other members all left, but IBdaMann and Into the Night are still here.

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: It must have been so horrible for IBdaMann when those "abusive troll frauds who insist on driving the discussion into the muck.." kept harassing him.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: It must have been so horrible for IBdaMann when those "abusive troll frauds who insist on driving the discussion into the muck.." kept harassing him.

It must have been so horrible for Robert to be rejected by Native Americans who found no humor in having the LGBTTQQIAPPIPALPHABETSOUP+ flag forced upon them when all they wanted was to learn some chemistry.

Robert should have been more assertive in pressing his sexual abnormality supremacy.

Robert should have at least responded with screams of VICTIMHOOD!, i.e. "I'm such a VICTIM!"

But Robert is a survivor and he's tough.

He was able to cope with the trauma of the abuse from those troll frauds.

Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann, you display traits that are characteristic of malignant narcissism.

Im a BM wrote: The [LGBTTQQIAPPIPALPHABETSOUP+ flag design] superimposed on a spiral of atomic numbers and symbols didn't happen until after 2001, and didn't get published until 2005.

Im a BM wrote:The homophobia injected into the discussion says more about IBdaMann than it does about the Cyclical Continuum of Elemental Properties.

Im a BM wrote: The moment that IBdaMann seeks to distort and pervert was a special one in 1999

Im a BM wrote:, and a high point in my career as a college science instructor.

Im a BM wrote: I will [respond with] SPAM with a repost of the [LGBTTQQIAPPIPALPHABETSOUP+ flag superimposed over the swirl-repost of the periodic table]

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann, you display traits that are characteristic of malignant narcissism.

Robert, not only do you pretend to be a chemist, you also pretend to be a licensed psychiatrist. What will you pretend to be tomorrow? ... a professional athlete? ... a MessiahGodSavior of Dominican coral reefs?

Im a BM wrote: The [LGBTTQQIAPPIPALPHABETSOUP+ flag design] superimposed on a spiral of atomic numbers and symbols didn't happen until after 2001, and didn't get published until 2005.

This is great trivia to know! Thank you!

Im a BM wrote:The homophobia injected into the discussion says more about IBdaMann than it does about the Cyclical Continuum of Elemental Properties.

The complete ignorance about what constitutes homophobia, and what does not, goes a long way to explain why Robert can't seem to get anything right. What will constitute homophobia tomorrow? ... a handful of gravel?

Im a BM wrote: The moment that IBdaMann seeks to distort and pervert was a special one in 1999

All LGBTTQQPPIPALPHABETSOUP+ ideologues say the same thing every time they pervert something in the name of supremacy for the sexually abnormal.

Im a BM wrote:, and a high point in my career as a college science instructor.

You have made it very clear that you become extremely defensive whenever you perceive anyone opposing supremacy for the sexually abnormal.

Im a BM wrote: I will [respond with] SPAM with a repost of the [LGBTTQQIAPPIPALPHABETSOUP+ flag superimposed over the swirl-repost of the periodic table]

Of course you will.

Im a BM wrote: Very similar to his evidence-free approach to science in general.

Im a BM wrote: FFF, or Fabricated Feces Fallacy is the use of purely made up shit as evidence to support bullshit assertions.

Im a BM wrote: In the special case of sea water chemistry, fabricated feces takes it to a whole different level.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: Very similar to his evidence-free approach to science in general.

Is your approach to science one of claiming that it is comprised of supporting data and supporting evidence?

You are correct that I do not use supporting evidence in place of science.

Im a BM wrote: FFF, or Fabricated Feces Fallacy is the use of purely made up shit as evidence to support bullshit assertions.

If you were to ever learn what science is, you wouldn't refer to it as "bullshit assertions". Citing science of which you are ignorant, or are outright denying, does not convert any science into mere fabrications of bullshit assertions.

However, since you have no idea what science even is, I can understand how my citing of science would appear to you as referencing arcane and confusing magick, and how you might become afraid and lash out in a sense of helplessness.

... but you won't get any sympathy until you make the first move to get yourself some help.

Im a BM wrote: In the special case of sea water chemistry, fabricated feces takes it to a whole different level.

You continue to claim to be a biogeoclimochemo, but you haven't gotten anything correct yet (except for catching my ln()/log() error, thank you), you still haven't defined any of your terms and you haven't answered any of the questions posed to you, presumably because you don't know the answers you are supposed to know.

You appear identical to a biogeo3rd-grader who doesn't know anything.

Im a BM wrote:
You appear identical to a malignant narcissist, scientifically-illiterate TROLL who has only ever admitted to TWO chemistry errors regarding sea water chemistry.

Im a BM wrote:
1. Admitted that pH actually uses the BASE TEN logarithm (log) rather than the natural log (ln). But then, NEVER admitted that this is why pH CAN be below zero, and that an acid doesn't have to be "magical" (as IBdaMann asserted) to have pH = 0.0. And never admitted that the convoluted obfuscation word game of "change to the acid" didn't erase the incredible ignorance displayed regarding more pH buffering in sea water compared to pure water. And continues to make ABSURD anti scientific claims that dilution is buffering, and evaporation somehow removes the acidifying effects of carbonic acid from sea water.

Im a BM wrote:
2. Admitted that it was totally irrelevant to produce a LONG LIST of carbonated beverage pH, as if it revealed something meaningful about sea water chemistry. But never admitted that it was RETARDED to claim that carbonic acid is only found in the uppermost meters of sea water, that researchers shifted the sampling positions to get closer to river mouths over time to provide deceptive data, that "special adaptations" were required to tolerate sea water alkalinity, and how marine life would thrive as never before if the sea were to have its pH reduced to below 7.

Im a BM wrote:
Still can't figure out that biogeochemistry is a genuine field of science, that organic carbon is different than inorganic carbon (or what the difference is)...

Im a BM wrote:
It would take all day to produce a list of the INCORRECT chemistry assertions that IBdaMann makes without ever ONCE citing a legitimate source other than his own not-at-all-apparent omniscience.

Im a BM wrote:
Trying to discuss chemistry with IBdaMann is a complete waste of time that immediately degenerates into personal insults and anti scientific word games.

Im a BM wrote:
There is little "added value" or "value added" that such a scientifically-illiterate troll can contribute to any discussion.

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: Most other members found it unpalatable to continue posting, given the aggressive nature of IBdaMann's trolling.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: Most other members found it unpalatable to continue posting, given the aggressive nature of IBdaMann's trolling.

Everything was fine until you arrived and began your spamming. You certainly know how to kill a board.

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: Most other members found it unpalatable to continue posting, given the aggressive nature of IBdaMann's trolling.

Everything was fine until you arrived and began your spamming. You certainly know how to kill a board.

Your thread from nearly 12 years ago is on the home page again.

How many "views" does it rack up over time?

More than 50,000 views, in fact.

Do you fans all know that they can find your library here?

So much can be learned from the insights you publish at climate-debate.com

How "fine" was everything when I arrived?

Of the 100 most recently active threads on the website that day, only three of them even pretended to be related to the website topic.

But you and Into the Night created a discussion so attractive that it...

You guys had already killed it before I got here, at least six years before my arrival.

I studied the history and saw the threads that were up at the time you joined the discussion. There were a LOT of members, discussing the actual website topic. Many of them were well-versed in the actual science related to it.

You and your pathetic little sidekick are just a couple of scientifically-illiterate TROLLS who insist on making every discussion stupid as well as ugly.

Im a BM wrote: How many "views" does it rack up over time? More than 50,000 views, in fact.

Im a BM wrote: There were a LOT of members, discussing the actual website topic. Many of them were well-versed in the actual science related to it.

climate scientist wrote:
Let's get a few things straight here:

Your posts so far have largely been ramblings *not* because you do not believe in climate change, but because you do not seem to base your opinions on any credible evidence.

I am not an alarmist troll. I certainty don't think that climate change is the end of the planet, or even the end of the human race, but I am concerned that a lot of people, particularly those in developing countries, will face serious consequences as a result of climate change, not to mention the impacts that other species will face/are already facing.

I have not been 'schooled' to put anyone down. I'm not even sure what you mean by this. I am trying to encourage you to ask reasonable questions about specific aspects of climate change that you do not understand/disagree with, rather than a mass onslaught of your opinions that I have no idea where to even begin addressing. I am also trying to encourage you to be more open minded, and consider all the options, before making up your mind.

For me, climate change is not a question of belief - it is happening, and it is caused largely by anthropogenic influences. I know this because of the scientific evidence from many measurements of many different variables - including but by no means limited to surface temperature - which indicates that the climate is warming and humans are the main contributing factor. Do you believe in gravity? Of course not - you simply know that it exists. What we do not know, is exactly how the climate will change in the future - this is what a lot of scientists in a lot of different institutions all over the world are working on, from a broad range of disciplines.

Now to address your questions:

There have been many reviews into the original Mann hockey stick graph, including one by Hans Von Storch (in 2004 I think). These reviews in general have found that the statistical methods used by Mann et al have a tendancy to underestimate variability, by up to a factor of 2.

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.) Here is a graph showing all of these other studies, including the Mann et al study, published in the 4th IPCC report: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-6.html. This page provides very detailed information about how this graph was constructed. The following text from the IPCC report summarises the graph:

"The instrumental temperature data that exist before 1850, although increasingly biased towards Europe in earlier periods, show that the warming observed after 1980 is unprecedented compared to the levels measured in the previous 280 years, even allowing for the greater variance expected in an average of so few early data compared to the much greater number in the 20th century. Recent analyses of instrumental, documentary and proxy climate records, focussing on European temperatures, have also pointed to the unprecedented warmth of the 20th century and shown that the extreme summer of 2003 was very likely warmer than any that has occurred in at least 500 years (Luterbacher et al., 2004; Guiot et al., 2005; see Box 3.6)."

Therefore, with respect to your question - statistical issues have been found with the method used by Mann et al, however, their conclusions still stand, as they have been independently replicated by many other studies. As you can see, there is quite a large error associated with the proxies used to create the IPCC graph, however, the recent temperature trend stands out above this error. I'm not sure what you mean when you refer to 'measurements within one hundredth of a degree Celcius'. The proxy data do not have to be this accurate, because the recent temperature trend is so large. An example: if you measure the height of a sunflower one day, and it is 15 cm tall, and one week later it is 20 cm tall then you know that it has grown by about 5 cm. You didn't need to measure to 0.1 cm accuracy to be able to come up with this conclusion. In fact, if you were simply trying to determine whether it had grown at all within the week, then you would only need to measure to an accuracy of about +/- 2 cm, and you would still have very high confidence that the sunflower had grown, and not stayed the same height.

Another point that I would like to make is that the hockey stick graph is only a single line of evidence out of hundreds of lines of evidence that show that the climate is changing, and I'm not sure it is wise to be so fixated on this one piece of evidence. Climate science is not based on the hockey stick graph. There are hundreds of measurements of other variables from all over the world, such as surface ocean temperature, ocean alkalinity, ocean oxygen content, sea ice extent, glacier extent, ice sheet extent, greenhouse gas measurements in the troposphere and stratosphere, outgoing radiation measurements made in space, polewards migration of species, mass extinctions, coral reef bleaching, isotopic measurements of CO2, measurements of solar activity, measurements of volcanic activity, etc.

As for your second question:

I'm not sure if I can really answer this without having more information. Which climate models are you referring to? There are many different types of climate models - do you mean the global climate models presented in the IPCC reports?

If you tell me which models you would like to know about then I can be more specific, but in general, global climate models are run using current and predicted greenhouse gas emissions from national inventories, which are reported annually. They also account for solar forcing, volcanic forcing, climate feedbacks, such as those associated with the ice caps melting, carbon sinks, such as the ocean and land biosphere, land use change, human population change, and so on. They are pretty comprehensive. Sometimes they are run in specific ways to investigate specific things. For example, you can run a global climate model with no greenhouse gas forcing, and only solar and volcanic forcing, plus the natural carbon sinks, from 1750 to present day to see if the model can reproduce the observed temperature changes over the past 250 years. What happens is that the models can't produce the observed temperature changes unless you put the greenhouse gas forcing back in. They don't even get close to reproducing the observed temperature record, in fact, which gives us quite high confidence that the observed warming is due to greenhouse gas forcing. But yet again, there are numerous other data sets that confirm this conclusion (e.g. outgoing radiation changes and isotope measurements) - we do not rely on the models alone.

Another point I would like to make about climate models is that our understanding of climate change is based on measurements and data, not climate models. Climate models are a useful tool, for helping us to try and understand something that we cannot measure. This is why we use climate models to try and determine future climate change. But we certainly do not rely on the models, and we know that they can be wrong. If 10 different global climate models are run for the period 2000 - 2100, and all 10 models produce results that indicate that the climate will continue to warm, then we think that it is probably likely that this is what will happen, but we do not know for sure.

I hope I have answered your questions - please let me know if there is anything else you would like to discuss.

Im a BM wrote: When IBdaMann first reared his ugly head at climate-debate.com, one of the members was an actual climate scientist.

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:

climate scientist wrote:
Let's get a few things straight here:

Your posts so far have largely been ramblings *not* because you do not believe in climate change, but because you do not seem to base your opinions on any credible evidence.

Im a BM wrote:

climate scientist wrote:
I am not an alarmist troll. I certainty don't think that climate change is the end of the planet, or even the end of the human race, but I am concerned that a lot of people, particularly those in developing countries, will face serious consequences as a result of climate change, not to mention the impacts that other species will face/are already facing.

Im a BM wrote:

climate scientist wrote:
I have not been 'schooled' to put anyone down. I'm not even sure what you mean by this. I am trying to encourage you to ask reasonable questions about specific aspects of climate change that you do not understand/disagree with, rather than a mass onslaught of your opinions that I have no idea where to even begin addressing. I am also trying to encourage you to be more open minded, and consider all the options, before making up your mind.

Im a BM wrote:

climate scientist wrote:
For me, climate change is not a question of belief - it is happening, and it is caused largely by anthropogenic influences. I know this because of the scientific evidence from many measurements of many different variables - including but by no means limited to surface temperature - which indicates that the climate is warming and humans are the main contributing factor. Do you believe in gravity? Of course not - you simply know that it exists. What we do not know, is exactly how the climate will change in the future - this is what a lot of scientists in a lot of different institutions all over the world are working on, from a broad range of disciplines.

Im a BM wrote:

climate scientist wrote:
Now to address your questions:

There have been many reviews into the original Mann hockey stick graph, including one by Hans Von Storch (in 2004 I think). These reviews in general have found that the statistical methods used by Mann et al have a tendancy to underestimate variability, by up to a factor of 2.

Im a BM wrote:

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.) Here is a graph showing all of these other studies, including the Mann et al study, published in the 4th IPCC report: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-6.html. This page provides very detailed information about how this graph was constructed. The following text from the IPCC report summarises the graph:

Im a BM wrote:

climate scientist wrote:
"The instrumental temperature data that exist before 1850, although increasingly biased towards Europe in earlier periods, show that the warming observed after 1980 is unprecedented compared to the levels measured in the previous 280 years, even allowing for the greater variance expected in an average of so few early data compared to the much greater number in the 20th century. Recent analyses of instrumental, documentary and proxy climate records, focussing on European temperatures, have also pointed to the unprecedented warmth of the 20th century and shown that the extreme summer of 2003 was very likely warmer than any that has occurred in at least 500 years (Luterbacher et al., 2004; Guiot et al., 2005; see Box 3.6)."

Im a BM wrote:

climate scientist wrote:
Therefore, with respect to your question - statistical issues have been found with the method used by Mann et al, however, their conclusions still stand, as they have been independently replicated by many other studies. As you can see, there is quite a large error associated with the proxies used to create the IPCC graph, however, the recent temperature trend stands out above this error. I'm not sure what you mean when you refer to 'measurements within one hundredth of a degree Celcius'. The proxy data do not have to be this accurate, because the recent temperature trend is so large. An example: if you measure the height of a sunflower one day, and it is 15 cm tall, and one week later it is 20 cm tall then you know that it has grown by about 5 cm. You didn't need to measure to 0.1 cm accuracy to be able to come up with this conclusion. In fact, if you were simply trying to determine whether it had grown at all within the week, then you would only need to measure to an accuracy of about +/- 2 cm, and you would still have very high confidence that the sunflower had grown, and not stayed the same height.

Im a BM wrote:

climate scientist wrote:
Another point that I would like to make is that the hockey stick graph is only a single line of evidence out of hundreds of lines of evidence that show that the climate is changing, and I'm not sure it is wise to be so fixated on this one piece of evidence. Climate science is not based on the hockey stick graph. There are hundreds of measurements of other variables from all over the world, such as surface ocean temperature, ocean alkalinity, ocean oxygen content, sea ice extent, glacier extent, ice sheet extent, greenhouse gas measurements in the troposphere and stratosphere, outgoing radiation measurements made in space, polewards migration of species, mass extinctions, coral reef bleaching, isotopic measurements of CO2, measurements of solar activity, measurements of volcanic activity, etc.

Im a BM wrote:

climate scientist wrote:
As for your second question:

I'm not sure if I can really answer this without having more information. Which climate models are you referring to? There are many different types of climate models - do you mean the global climate models presented in the IPCC reports?

Im a BM wrote:

climate scientist wrote:
If you tell me which models you would like to know about then I can be more specific, but in general, global climate models are run using current and predicted greenhouse gas emissions from national inventories, which are reported annually. They also account for solar forcing, volcanic forcing, climate feedbacks, such as those associated with the ice caps melting, carbon sinks, such as the ocean and land biosphere, land use change, human population change, and so on. They are pretty comprehensive. Sometimes they are run in specific ways to investigate specific things. For example, you can run a global climate model with no greenhouse gas forcing, and only solar and volcanic forcing, plus the natural carbon sinks, from 1750 to present day to see if the model can reproduce the observed temperature changes over the past 250 years. What happens is that the models can't produce the observed temperature changes unless you put the greenhouse gas forcing back in. They don't even get close to reproducing the observed temperature record, in fact, which gives us quite high confidence that the observed warming is due to greenhouse gas forcing. But yet again, there are numerous other data sets that confirm this conclusion (e.g. outgoing radiation changes and isotope measurements) - we do not rely on the models alone.

Im a BM wrote:

climate scientist wrote:
Another point I would like to make about climate models is that our understanding of climate change is based on measurements and data, not climate models. Climate models are a useful tool, for helping us to try and understand something that we cannot measure. This is why we use climate models to try and determine future climate change. But we certainly do not rely on the models, and we know that they can be wrong. If 10 different global climate models are run for the period 2000 - 2100, and all 10 models produce results that indicate that the climate will continue to warm, then we think that it is probably likely that this is what will happen, but we do not know for sure.

Im a BM wrote:

climate scientist wrote:
I hope I have answered your questions - please let me know if there is anything else you would like to discuss.

When IBdaMann first reared his ugly head at climate-debate.com, one of the members was an actual climate scientist.

Im a BM wrote:
This post by "climate scientist" is well informed and articulate.

IBdaMann had begun this thread, but didn't come back for nearly a year.

Before IBdaMann returned to begin his eleven year trolling rampage, intelligent discussion was occurring on IBdaMann's first thread at climate-debate.com

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: IBdaMann was never told explicitly not to continue referring to other members as "moron", ...

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann was never told explicitly not to continue referring to other members as "moron", ...

... because it is appropriate to refer to morons as "morons," e.g. someone who denies that water evaporates, etc.

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: IBdaMann was never told explicitly not to continue referring to other members as "moron", ...

... because it is appropriate to refer to morons as "morons," e.g. someone who denies that water evaporates, etc.

Apparently, IBdaMann is convinced that some other member here is in denial about whether or not water can evaporate.

Im a BM wrote:
I have never seen a post here by anyone which could be rationally interpreted as suggesting that "water cannot evaporate".

Im a BM wrote:
I have tried to make the point that neither dilution nor evaporation is a pH buffering mechanism. Such buffering requires the presence of the conjugate base of a weak acid (e.g. carbonate ion). Water doesn't qualify even as a weak acid in this context. Water itself is NOT a pH buffer.

Im a BM wrote:
Evaporation of water off the sea water surface does occur, and I have believed in it for nearly my entire life. At least by the time I learned what "water" and "evaporation" were.

But carbonic acid is more dense than water and has lower vapor pressure at any given temperature, compared to water. CO2 gets sucked into the sea at a much higher rate than the sea can spit it back out to the atmosphere.

Im a BM wrote:
Neither dilution nor evaporation accomplish jack shit, in terms of maintaining sea water pH near 8.2.

Im a BM wrote:
To understand what DOES regulate sea water pH, one needs to learn about the "carbonate system" and the three-way equilibria between dissolved CO2 and carbonic acid, carbonic acid and bicarbonate ion, and bicarbonate ion's equilibrium with carbonate ion.

Im a BM wrote:
Trolls who have proved themselves to be unteachable aren't expected to suddenly see the light and get it. They were never the "target audience".

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).

From October 2014, when IBdaMann first tested the waters at climate-debate.com

Who is this guy?

I asked Google for an answer.

Google inquiry: "Who is the climate debate internet troll known as 'IBdaMann'?"

Google knows about this punk!

Google say: "'IBdaMann' is an online pseudonym used by a persistent participant in internet political and environmental discussion forums - Such as Just Plain Politics and climate-debate.com- who aggressively argues against mainstream climate science."

True enough, but Google left out the part about IBdaMann being an obnoxious prick who is scientifically-illiterate.

However, Google does go on to say this about IBdaMann:

"Online Activity and Behavior
* Stance: Rejects anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming and mainstream greenhouse physics,
* Tactics: Frequently engages in adversarial, sarcastic arguments, accusing mainstream scientists and pro-climate commentators of dogmatic thinking and lack of thermodynamic understanding.
* Reputation: Viewed by opponents and forum members as a classic internet troll or provocateur due to a repetitive, confrontational posting style rather than recognized scientific expertise or institutional affiliation."

Hey, I don't pretend to speak for everyone, but I think Google got it right.

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:
From October 2014, ...deleted cross thread spam...

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
From October 2014, ...deleted cross thread spam...

Stop spamming.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
From October 2014, ...deleted cross thread spam...

Stop spamming.

Stop trolling.

For God's sake, just STOP trolling!

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
From October 2014, ...deleted cross thread spam...

Stop spamming.

Stop trolling.

For God's sake, just STOP trolling!

Perhaps there is a 12-step recovery program for Internet trolls..

1. Admit that you are powerless over trolling, and that your life has become unmanageable.

2. Believe that a power greater than yourself can restore you to sanity.

3. Make a decision to turn your will and life over to the care of God as you understand him.

4. Make a searching and fearless moral inventory of yourself.

5. If you weren't such a lost cause, there might be a way to help you..

6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12...

Nope. There is no way you will get farther than to superficially begin a moral inventory of yourself, before you drop it like a hot potato.

It is tragic that you won't accept some kind of treatment for your disease.

Im a BM wrote:Perhaps there is a 12-step recovery program for Internet trolls..
1. Admit that you are powerless over trolling, and that your life has become unmanageable.
2. Believe that a power greater than yourself can restore you to sanity.
3. Make a decision to turn your will and life over to the care of God as you understand him.
4. Make a searching and fearless moral inventory of yourself.
5. If you weren't such a lost cause, there might be a way to help you..
6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12...

On 16-08-2019 22:11 IBdaMann wrote to tmiddles:Look, I'm here to work you through this. Don't hesitate with any questions. I'll be your personal one-man Global Warming 12-Step program ... and I really only need eight steps, and you've gone through four already.

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).

From October 2014, when IBdaMann first tested the waters at climate-debate.com

Who is this guy?

I asked Google for an answer.

Google inquiry: "Who is the climate debate internet troll known as 'IBdaMann'?"

Google knows about this punk!

Google say: "'IBdaMann' is an online pseudonym used by a persistent participant in internet political and environmental discussion forums - Such as Just Plain Politics and climate-debate.com- who aggressively argues against mainstream climate science."

True enough, but Google left out the part about IBdaMann being an obnoxious prick who is scientifically-illiterate.

However, Google does go on to say this about IBdaMann:

"Online Activity and Behavior
* Stance: Rejects anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming and mainstream greenhouse physics,
* Tactics: Frequently engages in adversarial, sarcastic arguments, accusing mainstream scientists and pro-climate commentators of dogmatic thinking and lack of thermodynamic understanding.
* Reputation: Viewed by opponents and forum members as a classic internet troll or provocateur due to a repetitive, confrontational posting style rather than recognized scientific expertise or institutional affiliation."

Hey, I don't pretend to speak for everyone, but I think Google got it right.

Im a BM wrote:From October 2014, when IBdaMann first tested the waters at climate-debate.com

Who is this guy?

I asked Google for an answer.

Google inquiry: "Who is the climate debate internet troll known as 'IBdaMann'?"

Google knows about this punk!

Google say: "'IBdaMann' is an online pseudonym used by a persistent participant in internet political and environmental discussion forums - Such as Just Plain Politics and climate-debate.com- who aggressively argues against mainstream climate science."

AI Response: AI Overview +1
IBDaMann is an online username used across various digital platforms, most notably as an active contributor on discussion boards like Religious Forums and as a digital creator/artist on DeviantArt. On forums, the handle is known for debating topics related to science, physics models, and religion.Are you looking for specific posts, artwork, or information related to this user handle?

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:From October 2014, when IBdaMann first tested the waters at climate-debate.com

Who is this guy?

I asked Google for an answer.

Google inquiry: "Who is the climate debate internet troll known as 'IBdaMann'?"

Google knows about this punk!

Google say: "'IBdaMann' is an online pseudonym used by a persistent participant in internet political and environmental discussion forums - Such as Just Plain Politics and climate-debate.com- who aggressively argues against mainstream climate science."

It turns out you were only stroking my ego.

AI Response: AI Overview +1
IBDaMann is an online username used across various digital platforms, most notably as an active contributor on discussion boards like Religious Forums and as a digital creator/artist on DeviantArt. On forums, the handle is known for debating topics related to science, physics models, and religion.Are you looking for specific posts, artwork, or information related to this user handle?

Im a BM wrote:
Google inquiry: "Why do people hate the internet troll known as 'sealover' at climate discussion websites?"

The answer is interesting, and not the same as when the same question is asked about the internet troll known as "IBdaMann".

Google say: "The term 'sealover' appears to be a slight misremembering or variation of sealioning, a well-known internet harassment and trolling tactic. People dislike sealioning on climate discussion sites because users pretend to ask polite, sincere questions while demanding endless proof, aiming only to exhaust others rather than hold a real debate."

Isn't that how Ceist described what happened with IBdaMann right here?

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:
...deleted whining...
It was a sad loss for this website when IBdaMann succeeded at driving "Climate Scientist" away. An articulate, well-informed member operating in good faith who actually had a PhD and relevant publications in the field of climate science!

Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann wasn't trying to earn anyone's respect, nor did he manage to do so inadvertently. Just an arrogant, obnoxious, scientifically-illiterate troll looking for opportunities to throw personal insults and false accusations.

Im a BM wrote:
His behavior in these interactions is consistent with that of a malignant narcissist, somewhat sociopathic, and more than somewhat sadistic and twisted individual who enjoys some sense of power and importance in the process.
...deleted whining...

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).