Remember me
▼ Content

Well, that's another forum trolled to death.



Page 1 of 212>
Well, that's another forum trolled to death.02-10-2015 23:18
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
I'm sure your paymasters are very pleased with your work, IBdaMann. I don't know how you sleep at night.
03-10-2015 06:11
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
Surface Detail wrote:
I'm sure your paymasters are very pleased with your work, IBdaMann. I don't know how you sleep at night.

Boy, when you pout, you really pout. All you said here is that you now recognize that your religious Global Warming groupthink left you completely unprepared to discuss actual science with adults.

Go learn some science. Oh, wait, your religion forbids you from doing so, otherwise you would have at least thanked me once or twice for the free lessons.

If this is your teary-eyed "I'm taking my ball and going home" speech, then god-speed to you. Farewell.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
03-10-2015 12:49
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Don't get too comfortable IBdaMann - I'm not done yet!

And I have plenty of science left to discuss.

I have yet to see much science being presented by you, however! This (the above) is so very typical of your posts (it's getting pretty predictable and boring now). Actually no science content whatsoever (even though you claim to know all about science), just lots of unsubstantiated waffle.

You are the one who actually cannot find fault in the science, because if you could, you would present it on this forum, with links to the original source information. But you can't do that, can you? Because you can't find anywhere, in any published scientific document, anything that disputes the existence of the greenhouse effect.

And btw, I think you might be confused about your whole 1st LoT argument. I've looked through a few climate change sceptic websites, and there are plenty of people stating that the 2nd LoT is not upheld by the greenhouse effect, but nothing about the 1st LoT...
03-10-2015 18:26
Tom_A
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
Reading here regularly, although not participating (yet!).

I think it takes more than IBdaMann to kill the forum.

Thanks for interesting discussions.
03-10-2015 19:10
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hi Tom_A,

Yes, let me echo you're sentiment. But please note that I've actually had some very productive discussions with IBdaMann (see: http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/bursting-the-atmosphere-what-happens-when-rain-falls-up-d6-e703.php#post_2193)

With that said, let me also share with you something I posted in another forum today (see: http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/there-is-still-no-global-warming-science--d10-e507-s80.php#post_2331)

Now, one last thought, Climate Scientist. When it comes to climate change doubters, I have found them to be much like the people who claimed cigarettes don't cause lung cancer. Yes, there are always exceptions to any rule, but the overwhelming data we have today does back the existence of man-made climate change. However, rather than take the big picture into account, climate change doubters will latch onto and question every minute detail like the child who always responds with "why?" no matter what answer you give to them. Don't get me wrong, doubt and skepticism are healthy components of any scientific inquiry. But doubt for the sake of saying "you are wrong," solely so one can say "I am right" and end the discussion, is not the foundation of healthy debate. In the end, this latter type of doubting is what leads to a self-justifying, self-centered Ptolemaic model of discourse that, no matter which way you spin it, cannot encompass the whole truth. Therefore, though I often doubt and am skeptical about many things, when it comes to debate entrenched in redundant self-serving doubt, I like to leave those kind of discourses, like irksome children, where they belong: in the corner.
03-10-2015 21:02
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Hear, hear, trafn! Keeping an open mind is important. I base my knowledge on evidence, and there are some things that are so well established and engrained into science that I do not doubt them. The existence of greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect is one of these, as is the existence of gravity, and the knowledge that the Earth is not flat. However, there are lots of aspects of climate science that are still extremely uncertain, and I make no claims to know all the answers. For example, if someone asked me exactly how high sea level will be in 100 years time, or what the mean atmospheric temperature will be in 2100, then I won't know the exact answer.

As a scientist, it is very important to be sceptical, to prevent one from jumping to false conclusions. I am very willing to discuss sceptical aspects of climate science, and would be particularly interested if anyone has some peer reviewed literature that shows something which seems to bring current climate science knowledge/predictions into dispute.
04-10-2015 00:32
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
climate scientist wrote: Don't get too comfortable IBdaMann - I'm not done yet!

Always an excellent idea. I plan to keep my comfort level at "just right." It never had anything to do with whether you were finished with anything.

climate scientist wrote: And I have plenty of science left to discuss.

I would be elated if you would actually begin.

climate scientist wrote:I have yet to see much science being presented by you, however!

Read my posts. I'm the only one presenting any science. The reason you haven't seen "much" more from me is because you can't get beyond your stupid violation of the 1st LoT. Apparently your dogma depends on it. It's almost as if your funding depends on it. Regardless, you won't explain how work is being accomplished so we don't get out of the starting gates.

climate scientist wrote: You are the one who actually cannot find fault in the science,

I can't find any fault in "The Science" because it is an unfalsifiable, physics-violating dogma that consfuses its congregation by its very name. When warmazombies venture unaware into a science discussion with adults, they can't even join the discussion without having to reach for a dictionary in the hopes that it will explain the science they need to understand.

I'll tell you what, I'll start a thread for you. It will be a thread dedicated to your explanation of the science of the "greenhouse effect." You and I will keep the discussion limited to science. I will continue to post verifiable science that you are free to look up yourself. You will be responsible for providing all the science that you insist you have that is new to me.

The rules:

1) Anything you claim to be "science" must be supported with the corresponding falsifiable model that resides in the current body of science.

1a) Papers and "studies" don't qualify as science, even if they are said to be "peer reviewed" ...or even "poor reviewed" ...because anyone can write a paper.


2) You must directly answer questions that are asked about your science (no dodges, no evasion) and answers to questions that are not asked don't count as answers

2a) Wikipedia citations and other non-authoritative sources don't count as "answers"

I'm guessing that these rules above will not sit well with you because they kind of back you into a corner whereby you must 1) provide actual science and 2) you can't evade direct questions addressing apparent contradictions and violations, but we'll see. I will extend to you every opportunity to present the science you insist you have.

climate scientist wrote: But you can't do that, can you? Because you can't find anywhere, in any published scientific document, anything that disputes the existence of the greenhouse effect.

You are falling back on the same, tired religious argument that I can't prove your deity does not exist, just like Christians can correctly assert that we can't prove "God" doesn't exist. This is the very essence of "unfalsifiability." This is why falsifiable models are required for science, and why neither "God" nor the "greenhouse effect" have any associated science.

So, yes, you are absolutely correct that I cannot prove your "greenhouse effect" doesn't exist.

climate scientist wrote: And btw, I think you might be confused about your whole 1st LoT argument. I've looked through a few climate change sceptic websites, and there are plenty of people stating that the 2nd LoT is not upheld by the greenhouse effect, but nothing about the 1st LoT...

First, you need to understand that I am not a "climate skeptic." "Climate Skeptics" are all religious believers in Global Warming, and believe in the "greenhouse effect" and in "greenhouse gases" just as you do. They are simply a competing denomination that does not accept the catastrophist part of the dogma and thus formed a separated schism within the Global Warming church.

Second, the discussions you read were of a very different "greenhouse effect". Just as it is with any religious dogma, different members of the congregation assign their own personal meaning to the symbols of the faith. What the "greenhouse effect" means varies among different people. The bottom line is that every single one of them involves a violation of the laws of physics. Yours happens to involve a violation of the 1st LoT. The one you read was from the "Climate Forcing" sect. According to them, the "greenhouse effect" is the cooler upper atmosphere warming the warmer lower atmosphere, in direct violation of the 2nd LoT. Of course they, just like you, insist this is not a violation of thermodynamics and that anyone who dares to blaspheme against the "greenhouse effect" obviously doesn't understand "The Science."

Third, I am an atheist. I have no theism. I have no dogma. I exclusively take the science perspective so I readily recognize dogmatic bullchit when I see it. I thoroughly understand the laws of thermodynamics and when someone resorts to telling me that I am somehow confused on the matter, I know s/he is getting desperate and simply won't admit not fully understanding him/herself.

Look, all you have to do is ask. I don't mind explaining.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
04-10-2015 16:12
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
To everyone following this thread,

Might I suggest that if you'd like to participate in the process that IBdaMann gave the rules for in the prior post, that you do so in the thread he's created for this purpose at:

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/the-science-of-the-greenhouse-effect-d6-e713.php#post_2340

This way, all contributions to this discussion will be in one place instead of spread out and, therefore, easier to follow.
04-10-2015 19:17
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
I agree that it is a good idea to move everything to a single thread. However, the rules are ridiculous. Why not just keep things simple: stick to the science, and back up your arguments with examples/evidence/reasoning.
05-10-2015 00:36
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
- not a bad idea! But let's play along anyways!
05-10-2015 04:50
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
climate scientist wrote: However, the rules are ridiculous.

I explained why I knew these rules would not sit well with you and I explained why they were necessary.

climate scientist wrote: Why not just keep things simple: stick to the science, and back up your arguments with examples/evidence/reasoning.

Frankly, because warmazombies and climate lemmings are the most intellectually dishonest bunch of bastards that ever walked or crawled. Sorry, no offense intended. They will seize every opportunity to EVADE and to dodge, posting crap from non-authoritative sources, to attempt to shift the burden of proof, and will cycle through EVERY logical fallacy before starting over from square one.

I have created this same thread in many different forums and it is always the same. Complaints. No science ever gets discussed, just preemptive complaints about my pointing out logical fallacy after logical fallacy. I figured I'd just get the complaints out of the way up front and enable us to forego the otherwise inevitable dodging and EVASION.

I'm looking forward to actually discussing with you the science you insist you have.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
05-10-2015 05:49
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
*sigh* Sky Dragon Slayers.


Arguing with Sky Dragon Slayers is probably as pointless and timewasting as arguing with Young Earth Creationists.

Their crackpot pseudoscience views come straight from the Slayer's self-published 'bible':

Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory
http://www.amazon.com.au/Slaying-Sky-Dragon-Greenhouse-Theory-ebook/dp/B004DNWJN6

and their website http://www.principia-scientific.org/



Even so called 'skeptics' Judith Curry and Roy Spencer have tried to chase them away from their blogs

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/05/time-for-the-slayers-to-put-up-or-shut-up/
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/


Even conspiracy blogger Anthony Watts says he has a problem with them:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/27/new-wuwt-tv-segment-slaying-the-slayers-with-watts/

...but then Watts welcomes a lot of pseudoscience Guest posts by the grand poohbah of the Slayers Tim Ball


http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/10/anthony-watts-has-lost-plot-wuwt.html
Edited on 05-10-2015 05:57
05-10-2015 09:05
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
Ceist wrote:
*sigh* Sky Dragon Slayers.


Arguing with Sky Dragon Slayers is probably as pointless and timewasting as arguing with Young Earth Creationists.

Their crackpot pseudoscience views come straight from the Slayer's self-published 'bible':

Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory
http://www.amazon.com.au/Slaying-Sky-Dragon-Greenhouse-Theory-ebook/dp/B004DNWJN6

and their website http://www.principia-scientific.org/

I'm having a little difficulty sorting through your categories.

What am I in all this?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
05-10-2015 10:19
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
IBdaMann wrote:
Ceist wrote:
*sigh* Sky Dragon Slayers.


Arguing with Sky Dragon Slayers is probably as pointless and timewasting as arguing with Young Earth Creationists.

Their crackpot pseudoscience views come straight from the Slayer's self-published 'bible':

Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory
http://www.amazon.com.au/Slaying-Sky-Dragon-Greenhouse-Theory-ebook/dp/B004DNWJN6

and their website http://www.principia-scientific.org/

I'm having a little difficulty sorting through your categories.

What am I in all this?

Sky Dragon Slayer.



Edited on 05-10-2015 10:21
05-10-2015 15:32
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
Ceist wrote: Sky Dragon Slayer.

To be honest, I really don't think so. Sky Dragon Slayers won't allow me into their group because they are still devout climate lemmings and I am an atheist who doesn't share their brand of theology either.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
05-10-2015 15:42
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
IBdaMann wrote:
Ceist wrote: Sky Dragon Slayer.

To be honest, I really don't think so. Sky Dragon Slayers won't allow me into their group because they are still devout climate lemmings and I am an atheist who doesn't share their brand of theology either.


Are you admitting to being even whackier than the Sky Dragon Slayers?



05-10-2015 16:03
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
Ceist wrote: Are you admitting to being even whackier than the Sky Dragon Slayers?

In your mind, yes, absolutely, ...except I would write it "wackier" (without the "h").

I don't know if you have ever had the privilege of listening to two Christians of differing denominations seriously arguing over some stupid difference of their respective dogmas. They could be hurling insults over how the other is not a "true" Christian. However, the one thing neither of them wants is for an atheist like me to jump into the discussion and start telling them what science has to say about the topic. They will join forces until I leave, then when they believe I'm gone they'll resume their petty squabble.

The same thing applies to warmazombies and climate lemmings, i.e. differing denominations of the Global Warming faith. The warmazombies refer to the climate lemmings as "deniers" because the climate lemmings don't accept the catastrophic doom-n-gloom of the warmazombie denomination, and the climate lemmings insult warmazombies as baseless fear-mongers who should be ignored. But neither want an atheist like me to jump into the discussion and say what science has to say about the topic. Warmazombies and climate lemmings even moreso than Christians because Global Warming dogma, called "The Science" really confuses the entirety of the congregation by its name alone. Many, like yourself, naturally put the word "mainstream" in front of it to reflect your belief that you are in the majority, and that a majority of subjective "consensus" is somehow important.

So, yes, I bring that wacky, falsifiable, verifiable science to the discussion that will certainly rub you the wrong way, moreso than mere sky dragon slayers.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
05-10-2015 17:46
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hi Everyone,

I have enjoyed participating on various threads over the past few weeks here on Cimate-Debate.com. It is wonderful to have a place where we can freely exchange ideas on this topic.

Unfortunately, some of the threads like this one have taken on negative overtones which no longer facilitate ongoing goodwill which is the foundation of this website. In cases such as this, I have decided that the best way to respond to such threads is by not responding to them at all and ceasing any further participation in them.

The reason I'm posting this is to let you know that instead of continuing participation here, I have created my own new thread, and I invite you to do the same. You can join my new thread at:

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/the-2-minute-warning-clock-on-climate-change-d6-e714.php

To assist in maintaining a welcoming and inclusive atmosphere on my thread, I'm going to suggest the following guidelines:

1. Please stay on topic. If you find my new thread inspires tangential ideas which you'd like to share with others, then create a new thread of your own for that purpose and post an invitation to it from my thread.

2. Please direct your critical posts/comments to the message and not the messenger (i.e. - anyone expressing themselves either on this website or outside of this website). Agreement is not required, but respect is requested.

3. Please avoid posting road blocks. Repetitive and redundant posts serve only to draw attention to oneself and create conflict.

Given I lack the capacity to take authoritative action, I cannot moderate my new thread. However, think of me like a janitor who aspires to maintain a welcoming environment for everyone.

If someone does not follow the thread's guidelines, I will post a request asking them to amend their post of concern. Should they refuse, then in the spirit of maintaining goodwill here I will contact the website administrator/moderator and ask that they intervene.

Should you find another participant violating these guidelines, I would ask that you not respond to them. Instead, if I have not already addressed your concerns by post in my new thread, please notify me so that I might do so immediately.

I look forward to your participation in my new thread and the opportunity to exchange ideas with you.

Sincerely,

Trafn
05-10-2015 18:17
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
IBdaMann wrote:
Ceist wrote: Are you admitting to being even whackier than the Sky Dragon Slayers?

In your mind, yes, absolutely, ...except I would write it "wackier" (without the "h").

I don't know if you have ever had the privilege of listening to two Christians of differing denominations seriously arguing over some stupid difference of their respective dogmas. They could be hurling insults over how the other is not a "true" Christian. However, the one thing neither of them wants is for an atheist like me to jump into the discussion and start telling them what science has to say about the topic. They will join forces until I leave, then when they believe I'm gone they'll resume their petty squabble.

The same thing applies to warmazombies and climate lemmings, i.e. differing denominations of the Global Warming faith. The warmazombies refer to the climate lemmings as "deniers" because the climate lemmings don't accept the catastrophic doom-n-gloom of the warmazombie denomination, and the climate lemmings insult warmazombies as baseless fear-mongers who should be ignored. But neither want an atheist like me to jump into the discussion and say what science has to say about the topic. Warmazombies and climate lemmings even moreso than Christians because Global Warming dogma, called "The Science" really confuses the entirety of the congregation by its name alone. Many, like yourself, naturally put the word "mainstream" in front of it to reflect your belief that you are in the majority, and that a majority of subjective "consensus" is somehow important.

So, yes, I bring that wacky, falsifiable, verifiable science to the discussion that will certainly rub you the wrong way, moreso than mere sky dragon slayers.


Your rants are funnier than a Young Earth Creationist trying to argue that the earth is only 6000 years old or that 'evilution' is false, and all the scientists are 'Satan's followers' - but shows a fundamentally flawed understanding of science.

Definitely 'whacky' with a 'h'. As in: whack one's head.



05-10-2015 20:41
branner
AdministratorProfile picture☆☆☆☆☆
(33)
As admin, I'm glad to see the high activity in the forum, and the many interesting new discussions! I would like to stress again, that the forum can only thrive if we all keep a good tone.

Due to limited time at the moment, please give me a hint at jb@klimadebat.dk, if something needs my attention.

And a warm welcome to the new members! I hope everything works as it should.

As always, feel free to spread the word about Climate-Debate.com on other sites, blogs, social media etc.
05-10-2015 20:50
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
Ceist wrote: Your rants are funnier than a Young Earth Creationist ...

Your mindless ravings are akin to an Intelligent Design freak who wants his religion to be treated as an "alternate" scientific theory, with the only obvious problem being that he doesn't understand word one of science, math or logic.


...oh yeah,



Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
06-10-2015 01:30
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
IBdaMann wrote:
Ceist wrote: Your rants are funnier than a Young Earth Creationist ...

Your mindless ravings are akin to an Intelligent Design freak who wants his religion to be treated as an "alternate" scientific theory, with the only obvious problem being that he doesn't understand word one of science, math or logic.


...oh yeah,


Nope. Not a religious bone in my body. I prefer logic and science. I'm not the one who appears to be personally offended by science and feels an emotional need to run around the internet posting irrational rants and throwing childish insults at everyone to get attention. That's you.



Edited on 06-10-2015 01:35
06-10-2015 04:34
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
Ceist wrote: Nope. Not a religious bone in my body.

Well, not merely "religious" bones, but "dogmatically zealous" bones.

Ceist wrote: I prefer logic and science.

Only because you think your religion is "logic and science."

Ceist wrote:I'm not the one who appears to be personally offended by science

Yes, you are behaving like science threatens your very self identity. You run from it at every turn. You know nothing of science and you don't want to learn anything. You are keenly aware that learning is the single greatest threat to faith, and that science poses the single greatest threat of learning. You might as well be a fundamentalist Christian. Your scientific illiteracy is obvious to all but other warmazombies who think your dogma-babble is actual science. There's a reason you haven't added any science to any of the discussions on this forum. You don't even know what science is.

...but I'm hoping you'll say a Global Warming prayer for me anyway.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
06-10-2015 08:15
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
IBdaMann wrote:
Ceist wrote: Nope. Not a religious bone in my body.

Well, not merely "religious" bones, but "dogmatically zealous" bones.

Ceist wrote: I prefer logic and science.

Only because you think your religion is "logic and science."

Ceist wrote:I'm not the one who appears to be personally offended by science

Yes, you are behaving like science threatens your very self identity. You run from it at every turn. You know nothing of science and you don't want to learn anything. You are keenly aware that learning is the single greatest threat to faith, and that science poses the single greatest threat of learning. You might as well be a fundamentalist Christian. Your scientific illiteracy is obvious to all but other warmazombies who think your dogma-babble is actual science. There's a reason you haven't added any science to any of the discussions on this forum. You don't even know what science is.

...but I'm hoping you'll say a Global Warming prayer for me anyway.


It's sad you are so scared by science that you automatically reject it and refuse to learn anything that makes you feel uncomfortable or threatens your ideology. Don't you realise that you just show you have a strong emotional need for attention when you lash out childishly and throw ridiculous insults at everyone and make up silly stories? How many forums have you been banned from now?



Edited on 06-10-2015 08:37
06-10-2015 15:22
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
Ceist wrote:It's sad you are so scared by science that you automatically reject it and refuse to learn anything that makes you feel uncomfortable or threatens your ideology.

I'm not scared by your dogma "The Science" that you mistakenly believe is actually science. Don't take this the wrong way but I'm not interested in any theology at this time. I don't accept "The Science" nor do I accept "The Word of God" nor any other unfalsifiable dogma.

Ceist wrote: Don't you realise that you just show you have a strong emotional need for attention

What kind of attention do you imagine I would possibly seek here in this forum? Yours? Your vanity is showing.

Actually, I think you are projecting again. You don't seem to be here to add any value to any discussion. Are you here just for attention? You are, aren't you? Isn't there a Global Warming church group or something you could join?

Ceist wrote: How many forums have you been banned from now?

I've been banned from three Marxist-run sites, specifically for blaspheming against Global Warming, and two Christian sites, specifically for pointing out biblical errors/problems. Science and logic are not universally appreciated. I know you are not a fan.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
06-10-2015 17:55
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
I've been banned from three Marxist-run sites, specifically for blaspheming against Global Warming, and two Christian sites, specifically for pointing out biblical errors/problems


My my, you must be proud of yourself!
06-10-2015 19:18
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
climate scientist wrote:My my, you must be proud of yourself!

Actually I'm disappointed. In an ideal world, everyone would appreciate science. But in this world, science threatens the religious sensitivities of those that have strong faiths in unfalsifiable dogmas. You of all people understand that. The tendency for them is to deny science that is right in front of them in defense of their faith and to do whatever is necessary to remove any disturbing science from having to be faced.

Usually that means EVASION but sometimes that means banning the guy presenting the science.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
06-10-2015 19:27
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Usually that means EVASION but sometimes that means banning the guy presenting the science.


You are the epitome of a hypocrite. I have asked you numerous times to post links to the source information of your inaccurate 'scientific' posts and you have not done so. You are the one evading the science, which I have clearly posted for you, with reference to physics resources.

If you expect anyone to believe a word of what you have posted above, then post some links that support your 'scientific' statements.

Your pathetic attempts to avoid my very easy request are exposing you as a fraud.
06-10-2015 19:31
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
IBdaMann wrote:
climate scientist wrote:My my, you must be proud of yourself!

Actually I'm disappointed. In an ideal world, everyone would appreciate science. But in this world, science threatens the religious sensitivities of those that have strong faiths in unfalsifiable dogmas. You of all people understand that. The tendency for them is to deny science that is right in front of them in defense of their faith and to do whatever is necessary to remove any disturbing science from having to be faced.

Usually that means EVASION but sometimes that means banning the guy presenting the science.

The thing is, though, you're not presenting science. You're presenting a confused mess of non sequiturs peppered with misused scientific terminology. That's why all the world's scientists and textbooks disagree with you. It's you that's wrong, not them, difficult as this may be for you to accept.
06-10-2015 19:33
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
climate scientist wrote: You are the epitome of a hypocrite.

You're a loser and a fraud.

climate scientist wrote: I have asked you numerous times to post links to the source information

I used your information. You simply can't perform basic math. You expect to discuss the 1st LoT when you don't even understand basic arithmetic or the concept of units of measure.

As a fraud, you don't get to demand anything. You either need to shut up and listen to your teachers or just shut up and go away.
If you expect anyone to believe a word of what you have posted above, then post some links that support your 'scientific' statements.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
06-10-2015 19:38
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Wow, I guess I've found a way to push your buttons!

I'm not going anywhere. You are free to leave if you are too upset to participate in this discussion any further.

It is not an unreasonable or difficult request. Apparently I am a loser and a fraud, and yet I am still able to post references and links that support the information I have posted on this blog. Why are you not capable of doing this too?
06-10-2015 19:39
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
[/quote]
I've been banned from three Marxist-run sites, specifically for blaspheming against Global Warming, and two Christian sites, specifically for pointing out biblical errors/problems. Science and logic are not universally appreciated. I know you are not a fan.[/quote]

Maybe it's the way you argue that gets you banned. Anyway, I found your "Science of the Greenhouse Effect" post interesting but I'm not sure what you are proposing there.

I'm curious about what is your field of study if you don't mind me asking.
07-10-2015 23:16
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hi IBdaMann,

Personally, I'm neither religious, agnostic, nor an atheist, as I don't think that we as a species have evolved far enough to be able to understand the concept of God. In addition, I find it laughable to think that we could be of any interest or importance to anything that was God. Check out this Youtube clip, The Island of Misfit Toys:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SH1j1luFOw

I think we live on the planet of misfit toys. Everything here, the people, the animals, the plants, etc. are things that didn't work out as planned and were, therefore, exiled to Earth. And to as whether there's other life in the universe, if there isn't and we're the best God can do, then God's an idiot. No, I believe there is other life in the universe and they know better to leave us alone as we don't play well with others. In fact, we don't even play well with ourselves.
08-10-2015 04:49
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
trafn wrote: Hi IBdaMann, Personally, I'm neither religious, agnostic, nor an atheist, ...

I think you misunderstand those words.

Do you have any theism? If you do not then you are atheistic. If you do have a theism then you are theistic (which would make you religious to that extent).

Agnosticism is a philosophical view on what is knowable and what is not knowable, and is not a theistic position.

trafn wrote: In addition, I find it laughable to think that we could be of any interest or importance to anything that was God.


Very true. What kind of sick, narcissistic ego-maniac creates sentient beings for the purpose of being worshiped by them and who punishes with eternal torment those who fall short of the "worship" mark...out of unconditional love for all of his/her creations?


trafn wrote: In fact, we don't even play well with ourselves.

If we were discussing this in a political forum then I would be pointing out that this is actually a sign of intelligence in the struggle to survive in a world of competition induced by limited resources.

The question becomes: If there is a gOd, why did she/he/it imprison us on a dust speck with so limited resources while making an entire universe of space that is completely hostile to human life? Christians absurdly claim that the universe is "fine-tuned" for human life. The truth is that the universe, if it were engineered/designed, was therefore obviously created to kill any humans who tried to escape the terrestrial prison. To believe Christianity, one must believe that we are more like gladiator slaves who are forced to fight in the arena and emerge victorious if we wish to live another day. Or perhaps we're the dogs in the pit with gOd tossing in a single piece of meat over which we can choose to fight for his/her/its entertainment or we can opt to starve.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
08-10-2015 05:15
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Not that it's particularly relevant, like a lot of stuff in this thread, but God is merely the manifestation of an obscure and futile desire to draw attention to oneself.
08-10-2015 06:10
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
trafn wrote:
Not that it's particularly relevant, like a lot of stuff in this thread, but God is merely the manifestation of an obscure and futile desire to draw attention to oneself.

Religion is an investment of self-identity. Science threatens that investment.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
08-10-2015 06:44
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Agreed, IBdaMann. Actually, science (that of climate change or any other form) and religion are two different sides of the same coin. Religion tries to explain away the unknown by invoking blind faith (i.e. - A + "a miracle" =
, whereas science tries to expand our knowledge of the world by invoking logic (i.e. - A + B = C). Sadly, in today's world, the reigning religion is money, and capitalist are its high priest. They and their corporate henchmen will stop at nothing to protect their hoarded material wealth which they have created by stealing away free will from the masses and enslaving us all with an addiction to petrochemicals.

That said, I go off-line for a moment so I can fill up my car with gas.
RE: Almost, but not quite dead.08-10-2015 07:36
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
Ceist wrote:Nope. Not a religious bone in my body. I prefer logic and science. I'm not the one who appears to be personally offended by science and feels an emotional need to run around the internet posting irrational rants and throwing childish insults at everyone to get attention. That's you.
Hear hear.


"We have a vested interest in creating panic, because then money will flow to climate science." John Christy
08-10-2015 18:02
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Hi Earthling,

John Christy, who you quote above, is undoubtedly a highly intelligent and highly educated individual who, unlike many climate science critics, is actually a climate scientist, all of which are things I admire about him. Given the study of man-made climate change is relatively new (James Hansen didn't make the first announcements before the U.S. congress until the 1908's), it's quite reasonable to assume that there will still be some respectable skeptics like Dr. Christy within the scientific community. That said, he is part of a grossly outnumbered minority which are worth listening to, but not, perhaps, in exclusion to the overwhelming majority of the scientific community which sees the issue contrary to his viewpoint.

His position is analogues to that of Peter H. Duesberg (1936-?), a German American molecular biologist and a professor of molecular and cell biology at the University of California, Berkeley. At the age of 49 he was elected to the National Academy of Sciences. He received an Outstanding Investigator Grant (OIG) from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 1986, and from 1986 to 1987 was a Fogarty Scholar-in-Residence at the NIH laboratories in Bethesda, Maryland.

He too, like Dr. Cristy, is a highly educated and intelligent person. Yet, starting in 1987, he denied that HIV was the cause of AIDS, a position I believe he still holds today. I had the opportunity to speak by phone several times with Professor Duesburg between 1987 and 2000, and his arguments are not without merit. Yet, few people then or now give his position much credence.

Perhaps you might want to reassess Dr. Christy from this perspective.
08-10-2015 19:04
EarthlingProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(107)
trafn wrote:Hi Earthling,

John Christy, who you quote above, is undoubtedly a highly intelligent and highly educated individual who, unlike many climate science critics, is actually a climate scientist, all of which are things I admire about him. Given the study of man-made climate change is relatively new (James Hansen didn't make the first announcements before the U.S. congress until the 1908's[sic]), it's quite reasonable to assume that there will still be some respectable skeptics like Dr. Christy within the scientific community. That said, he is part of a grossly outnumbered minority which are worth listening to, but not, perhaps, in exclusion to the overwhelming majority of the scientific community which sees the issue contrary to his viewpoint.
You evidently don't have a grasp of Christy's viewpoint.

trafn wrote:His position is analogues to that of Peter H. Duesberg (1936-?), a German American molecular biologist and a professor of molecular and cell biology at the University of California, Berkeley. At the age of 49 he was elected to the National Academy of Sciences. He received an Outstanding Investigator Grant (OIG) from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 1986, and from 1986 to 1987 was a Fogarty Scholar-in-Residence at the NIH laboratories in Bethesda, Maryland.

He too, like Dr. Cristy[sic], is a highly educated and intelligent person. Yet, starting in 1987, he denied that HIV was the cause of AIDS, a position I believe he still holds today. I had the opportunity to speak by phone several times with Professor Duesburg between 1987 and 2000, and his arguments are not without merit. Yet, few people then or now give his position much credence.

Perhaps you might want to reassess Dr. Christy from this perspective.
I have no reason to, there is no similarity.


"We have a vested interest in creating panic, because then money will flow to climate science." John Christy
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Well, that's another forum trolled to death.:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Definitions required to address discussions in this forum.2728-08-2019 06:12
'Little Ice Age' caused by death of 55-million Indigenous people after colonization: study103-03-2019 22:30
If Sun will die, Earth will die, all life will die, then why are people so afraid of death by climate cha125-02-2019 05:21
Reddit's science forum banned climate deniers. Why don't all newspapers do the same? (2013)921-11-2017 19:25
This forum is f ucking garbage8913-11-2017 06:00
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact