Why is Climate-debate.com so messed up?

IBdaMann wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:To piggy back #3, he is trying to discredit you by way of "non possession of meaningless credentials", even before attempting to discuss any science. Quite humorous.

I'm keeping my supercredential at the ready in my back pocket: I'm a card-carrying member of the GasGuzzler fan club. I can play it anytime; I'm just waiting for the right moment ... you know, to go in for the kill.

But I'm keeping it under wraps for the moment.

(Sven has one too. We took advantage of the "Invite a Friend" discount)

sealover wrote:
Some of us have VERY impressive credentials

sealover wrote:
but they are meaningless here.

sealover wrote:
Let's try to establish an "unambiguous definition" for scientific literacy.
First "literacy" - the ability to understand, read, and write a language.

sealover wrote:
Therefore, scientific literacy is the ability to understand, read, and write the scientific language.

sealover wrote:
Do you understand, read, and write the kind of "buzzwords" and "gibber babble" that real world scientists (the kind who have actual credentials, publications, etc.) use to communicate?

sealover wrote:
I do not speak Arabic

sealover wrote:
but I know that when two people speak to each other in that language, they are probably using real words with meaning understood by both parties.

sealover wrote:
The local trolls candidly call out my scientific illiteracy.

sealover wrote:
They dismiss as "buzzwords" and "gibber babble" the science that is beyond their comprehension.

sealover wrote:
As long as all involved are equally ignorant, it wins the debate.

sealover wrote:
For those whose infallible omniscience is self evident, there is no need to cite any credible source for unsupported contrarian assertions.

sealover wrote:
Those with less obvious omniscience can cite a score they received on a test they took as a child. That trumps credentials and publications any time.

sealover wrote:
I'm pessimistic that a valuable discussion will result, but I'm curious to know how scientifically literate the newest member is.

sealover wrote:
I'd be happy to guide anyone to my widely cited pubs in prestigious journals and advanced degrees from prestigious universities (by PM).

sealover wrote:
you might be scientifically literate and able to cite credible sources ... for assertions you make.

sealover wrote:
This would allow, for the first time, genuine "debate" on this website.

IBdaMann wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:To piggy back #3, he is trying to discredit you by way of "non possession of meaningless credentials", even before attempting to discuss any science. Quite humorous.

I'm keeping my supercredential at the ready in my back pocket: I'm a card-carrying member of the GasGuzzler fan club. I can play it anytime; I'm just waiting for the right moment ... you know, to go in for the kill.

But I'm keeping it under wraps for the moment.

(Sven has one too. We took advantage of the "Invite a Friend" discount)

Follow up:

One of the many perks of GasGuzzler fan club membership is the ability to apply for the exclusive Renewables DisCredit card. I so applied and my card just arrived today. I get discounts on premium gasoline, peanut butter, and all sorts of goodies. Of course, I only get to use the DisCredit card as long as my account is in good standing, and that means mooning Prius drivers wherever I find them.
.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Science never existed, until around 1934. When Karl Popper started marketing, and selling his book. Which attracted an almost cult-like following, among philosophers.

Nielsenbr56 wrote:
Looks like I was right on all counts. Like Zoidberg says "I'm not hearing a no..."

Nielsenbr56 wrote:
I think the best addition to these sites would be 'break out rooms' which would be invite only and set up by members. Then, if you want to have a rational, science based discussion, you can advertise your room and screen who comes in (and throw out those who don't conform to the rules, either through majority vote of members (democracy) or by owner (autocracy)).

Nielsenbr56 wrote:
As to break out rooms that are managed by owners - it seems to work well for Meetup, and I think if you add a minor cost element, it will eliminate most of the trolls. Give them a free room and they can play in there and annoy each other. Maybe people here who think it worthwhile, we could create a space?

sealover wrote:
One school of thought is that the apparent acceleration of temperature rise and sea level rise in the last 50 years is purely natural as part of the glacial cycle.

Another school of thought is that at this point in the glaciation cycle we should be seeing the rate of rise slowing rather than accelerating, and that it is the influence of greenhouse gases at higher concentrations that before the last fifty years that is driving the shift in the opposite direction.

Yet another school of thought is that the glaciation cycle never really happens and temperature and sea level never really change.

sealover wrote:Yes, if only the trolls would leave at least ONE thread free of interference.

sealover wrote:Another potential topic of discussion is about what climate actually is, and how it can be quantified as a variable.

sealover wrote:Soil scientists have been doing this for more than 80 years.

sealover wrote:I had the incredible fortune of being friends with Hans Jenny, the man who revolutionized modern soil science.

sealover wrote:Hans identified climate as the single most important state factor variable influencing soil formation.

sealover wrote:Never claimed there was any "global" climate,

sealover wrote:but quantified regional climates in a way that permitted accurate prediction of soil properties.

sealover wrote:An example of regional climate would be "Mediterranean", which occurs somewhere on most of the continents (e.g. California)

sealover wrote:A Mediterranean climate has a mesic temperature regime and a xeric moisture regime.

sealover wrote:Potential topic for a rational, science based discussion:

Natural Glaciation Cycle versus Anthropogenic Global Warming

sealover wrote:A scientifically valid question worthy of debate is regarding what is driving the rise in temperature and rise in sea level.

Nielsenbr56 wrote:
Still no "No..."

sealover wrote:

Nielsenbr56 wrote:
I think the best addition to these sites would be 'break out rooms' which would be invite only and set up by members. Then, if you want to have a rational, science based discussion, you can advertise your room and screen who comes in (and throw out those who don't conform to the rules, either through majority vote of members (democracy) or by owner (autocracy)).

Potential topic for a rational, science based discussion:

sealover wrote:
Natural Glaciation Cycle versus Anthropogenic Global Warming

sealover wrote:
A scientifically valid question worthy of debate is regarding what is driving the rise in temperature and rise in sea level.

sealover wrote:
The natural glaciation cycle involves large changes in average temperature and large shifts in sea level.

sealover wrote:
One school of thought is that the apparent acceleration of temperature rise and sea level rise in the last 50 years is purely natural as part of the glacial cycle.

sealover wrote:
Another school of thought is that at this point in the glaciation cycle we should be seeing the rate of rise slowing rather than accelerating, and that it is the influence of greenhouse gases at higher concentrations that before the last fifty years that is driving the shift in the opposite direction.

sealover wrote:

Nielsenbr56 wrote:
As to break out rooms that are managed by owners - it seems to work well for Meetup, and I think if you add a minor cost element, it will eliminate most of the trolls. Give them a free room and they can play in there and annoy each other. Maybe people here who think it worthwhile, we could create a space?

Yes, if only the trolls would leave at least ONE thread free of interference.

sealover wrote:
Another potential topic of discussion is about what climate actually is, and how it can be quantified as a variable.

sealover wrote:
Soil scientists have been doing this for more than 80 years.

sealover wrote:
I had the incredible fortune of being friends with Hans Jenny, the man who revolutionized modern soil science.

sealover wrote:
Hans identified climate as the single most important state factor variable influencing soil formation.

sealover wrote:
Never claimed there was any "global" climate, but quantified regional climates in a way that permitted accurate prediction of soil properties.

sealover wrote:
An example of regional climate would be "Mediterranean", which occurs somewhere on most of the continents (e.g. California)

sealover wrote:
A Mediterranean climate has a mesic temperature regime and a xeric moisture regime. Cool (not frozen) wet winters, and long, hot, dry summers.

sealover wrote:
Buried soils can tell us what the regional climate used to be in places where climate has changed.

sealover wrote:
My favorite example is the Ione Formation very near the Mother Lode of California Gold Rush fame.

sealover wrote:
Tens of millions of years ago, a basalt flow from a volcanic eruption capped and preserved the soil of the Ione formation. The ancient soil has an upper layer of hematite over a much thicker layer of kaolinite. The kind of soil that only forms under tropical rain forest conditions. Certainly not in a Mediterranean climate.

sealover wrote:
With the glaciation cycle

sealover wrote:
causing climate to gradually shift,

sealover wrote:
many examples less than 10,000 years old exist.

sealover wrote:
Even when Jericho existed a walled city, much of what is now the Sahara was covered in forests and lakes.

sealover wrote:
California's Death Valley was wetlands at the time,

sealover wrote:
and ancient jaguar bones can still be found nearby.

sealover wrote:
Where African forests shifted to savanna,

sealover wrote:
the underlying soil still retains properties that cannot form under grassland climate conditions - only forests.

sealover wrote:
Back to the point, Hans Jenny created a system that allows climate to be entered as a quantifiable variable in a mathematical equation.

sealover wrote:
Present day soil properties can be predicted from the climate variable (also knowing what kind of geologic parent material it started from, age, topography and vegetation type). The vegetation type doesn't have to be known necessarily, as it too can be predicted from the other variables.

sealover wrote:
Perhaps most useful to the discussion, the past climate can be quantified from soil properties preserved by past burial.

sealover wrote:
Climate has changed many times in the past, and continues to change.

sealover wrote:
Or should we just play word games with the term "climate"?

Nielsenbr56 wrote: Well there are geological tracts that are independent indications of glaciation

Nielsenbr56 wrote:... so I haven't heard of a theory that there are no sea level or temperature variations

Nielsenbr56 wrote: Snow falls over Antarctica and is slowly converted to ice. Stable isotopes of oxygen (Oxygen [16, 18] and hydrogen [D/H]) are trapped in the ice in ice cores. The stable isotopes are measured in ice through a mass spectrometer. Measuring changing concentrations of δD and δ18O through time in layers through an ice core provides a detailed record of temperature change, going back hundreds of thousands of years.

Nielsenbr56 wrote:Since the same technique matches recent temperatures, the technique is considered accurate and shows that the Earth is mostly an icy planet

Nielsenbr56 wrote: I produced a logarithmic response equation, also taking into account NASA's claim that the Earth would be at -18degC if CO2 was essentially zero

Nielsenbr56 wrote: Of course, this predicts the IPCC expectations closely (about 1.7degC rise for a doubling of CO2) but doesn't fit the measured data from ice cores (190ppm and 8 degC).

Nielsenbr56 wrote:Frankly, it's a real stretch to think you can link GW to a single atmospheric component

Nielsenbr56 wrote:The equation is: y=3.2563ln(x)-3.0323, where x is the concentration of CO2 in ppm (from 0.01) and y is temperature in degC.

IBdaMann wrote:
Has Nielsenbr56 fled again? He's just going little hit-n-runs amounting to "The Climate religion is science, the Church of No God is science as well, and those who disagree are not experts".

I haven't seen any science from Nielsenbr56, nor have I seen any unambiguous definitions, nor have I seen him present any arguments for discussion ... although he has made preemptive attacks against "all of my rants".

Have I missed anything?

Nielsenbr56 wrote:
Hi Sealover. Well there are geological tracts that are independent indications of glaciation,

Nielsenbr56 wrote:
so I haven't heard of a theory that there are no sea level or temperature variations, and the use of .

Nielsenbr56 wrote:
In fact, it was the expectation that the next ice age would soon start that had Callendar proposing in his CO2 GW paper to increase CO2 production in order to stabilise the climate - keeping it warm.

Nielsenbr56 wrote:
Snow falls over Antarctica and is slowly converted to ice.

Nielsenbr56 wrote:
Stable isotopes of oxygen (Oxygen [16, 18] and hydrogen [D/H]) are trapped in the ice in ice cores. The stable isotopes are measured in ice through a mass spectrometer. Measuring changing concentrations of δD and δ18O through time in layers through an ice core provides a detailed record of temperature change, going back hundreds of thousands of years.

Nielsenbr56 wrote:
Since the same technique matches recent temperatures,

Nielsenbr56 wrote:
the technique is considered accurate

Nielsenbr56 wrote:
and shows that the Earth is mostly an icy planet, with only short periods of warming.

Nielsenbr56 wrote:
I produced a logarithmic response equation,

Nielsenbr56 wrote:
also taking into account NASA's claim that the Earth would be at -18degC if CO2 was essentially zero,

Nielsenbr56 wrote:
and fit it through Callander's data.

Nielsenbr56 wrote:
Of course, this predicts the IPCC expectations closely (about 1.7degC rise for a doubling of CO2)

Nielsenbr56 wrote:
but doesn't fit the measured data from ice cores (190ppm and 8 degC).

Nielsenbr56 wrote:
Frankly, it's a real stretch to think you can link GW to a single atmospheric component,

Nielsenbr56 wrote:
but it makes for good money-making opportunities (I made $350k out of it via government grant! Those troll's tax dollars at work - thanks, guys!).

Nielsenbr56 wrote:
The equation is: y=3.2563ln(x)-3.0323, where x is the concentration of CO2 in ppm (from 0.01) and y is temperature in degC.

Nielsenbr56 wrote:Continuing the interesting observation of trolls: their egocentric views lead them to think people should explain things to them.

Nielsenbr56 wrote:They haven't twigged we're here to laugh at their inability to look things up themselves!

Nielsenbr56 wrote:Which leads them, inevitably, to regurgitate nonsense they're spoon fed inside their google-algorithm fed news bubble.

Nielsenbr56 wrote:Conclusion: While trolls appear to have brains,

Nielsenbr56 wrote: [we] cannot think for [our]selves.

Nielsenbr56 wrote: Suggestion: Reclassify trolls as zombies.

HarveyH55 wrote:Third dose? That's so last month. There is a new, improved, Covid Vaccine 2.0 out. All the 'cool' and trendy democrats are getting jabbed with.

Nielsenbr56 wrote:
Continuing the interesting observation of trolls: their egocentric views lead them to think people should explain things to them. They haven't twigged we're here to laugh at their inability to look things up themselves! Which leads them, inevitably, to regurgitate nonsense they're spoon fed inside their google-algorithm fed news bubble. Conclusion: While trolls appear to have brains, they cannot think for themselves. Suggestion: Reclassify trolls as zombies.

IBdaMann wrote:
Somehow I got on the gfm7175 mailing list and ever since I've been getting ads for their services. I never game them much thought but since I began evaluating financial products recently I decided to apply for the Jab DisCredit Mastercard Gold Card. I've been happy with the GG Renewables DisCredit Card, but I figured I'd look at what the competition is offering.

First off, the JabDis! card charges no fees for any balance of power transfers to the US government within the first six months. I can consolidate all my liberties and personal freedoms into one convenient giveaway package. I can even arrange for flexible terms, e.g. I can pay for the rest of my life if I wish.

Next I noticed this really cool esoteric feature that isn't offered on the GG Renewables DIS card: A Biblical concierge. If ever I'm looking for just the right passage for that special someone, I can just call the number on the back of the card and they have experts that will help me. Pretty cool.

The JabDis! card won't get me the same kind of discounts on bulk bacon purchases as the GG Renewables DIS card, but it will give me reserved seating to any Wisconsin University Badgers events that coincide with mandatory COVID vaccination drives.

I've only started and the list is long, but I'll keep you posted.

IBdaMann wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:Third dose? That's so last month. There is a new, improved, Covid Vaccine 2.0 out. All the 'cool' and trendy democrats are getting jabbed with.

According to the literature, that's included with the JabDis! Platinum card. We can ask gfm7175 the next time we see him.

Looking at a different line of cards, specifically the gfm7175 Facemask DisCredit Card, I see quite a few benefits that would work out for you in building your moraine garden museum, such as allowing you to convert between US Dollars, moraines and Christacoins with no currency conversion fees or hidden costs, even if you are draining value from the Binance Exchange.

I think you should look into it.

.

Nielsenbr56 wrote:
Hi Sealover. Well there are geological tracts that are independent indications of glaciation, so I haven't heard of a theory that there are no sea level or temperature variations, and the use of . In fact, it was the expectation that the next ice age would soon start that had Callendar proposing in his CO2 GW paper to increase CO2 production in order to stabilise the climate - keeping it warm.
Snow falls over Antarctica and is slowly converted to ice. Stable isotopes of oxygen (Oxygen [16, 18] and hydrogen [D/H]) are trapped in the ice in ice cores. The stable isotopes are measured in ice through a mass spectrometer. Measuring changing concentrations of δD and δ18O through time in layers through an ice core provides a detailed record of temperature change, going back hundreds of thousands of years.
Since the same technique matches recent temperatures, the technique is considered accurate and shows that the Earth is mostly an icy planet, with only short periods of warming. I produced a logarithmic response equation, also taking into account NASA's claim that the Earth would be at -18degC if CO2 was essentially zero, and fit it through Callander's data. Of course, this predicts the IPCC expectations closely (about 1.7degC rise for a doubling of CO2) but doesn't fit the measured data from ice cores (190ppm and 8 degC). Frankly, it's a real stretch to think you can link GW to a single atmospheric component, but it makes for good money-making opportunities (I made $350k out of it via government grant! Those troll's tax dollars at work - thanks, guys!). The equation is: y=3.2563ln(x)-3.0323, where x is the concentration of CO2 in ppm (from 0.01) and y is temperature in degC.

squeal over wrote:This is an excellent example of rational science based discussion.

squeal over wrote:It displays scientific literacy.

squeal over wrote:It is not intended to insult or enrage.

squeal over wrote:It does not include personal attacks or false accusations.

squeal over wrote:It has the potential to attract a new viewer into the discussion, rather than drive them away.

squeal over wrote:I wish there were more like it on this website.

squeal over wrote:Before I logged on, I noticed a couple of [Swan's] thread titles.

squeal over wrote:Due to complete lack of [censorship], this website [permits all viewpoints]." No [censor] will ever [silence voices]."

squeal over wrote:I regret that I posted the name of a deceased scientist who I greatly admired.

squeal over wrote:I know he would not want his name associated with a hate speech filled website.

squeal over wrote: But they are never denounced or removed.

gfm7175 wrote:You better get into the program while you still can, but it might already be too late...

Nielsenbr56 wrote:Well it seems there is some interest in proper scientific debate,

Nielsenbr56 wrote: ... so I think it's feasible to set up a site to provide that.

Nielsenbr56 wrote: To eliminate [those who would disagree with me] that site would require [a voting system run by leftist morons]and use [full-fledged doxing threats]. It's unlikely any [of those who would disagree with me] would want to [be fully doxed and dog-whistled] - it's often the anonymity that allows them free [expression].

Nielsenbr56 wrote:
Well it seems there is some interest in proper scientific debate, so I think it's feasible to set up a site to provide that. To eliminate the trolls that site would require 100 point identification, and use video interviews. It's unlikely any trolls would want to reveal their identity, much less where they live - it's often the anonymity that allows them free rein.

GasGuzzler wrote:I'm asking you to discuss one subject that is the basis for the entire global warming claim.

How do you know the global temperature? How is it measured? What is the margin of error? Is there data available?

This is very simple and very straightforward.

IBdaMann wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:I'm asking you to discuss one subject that is the basis for the entire global warming claim.

How do you know the global temperature? How is it measured? What is the margin of error? Is there data available?

This is very simple and very straightforward.

I sincerely hope that Nielsenbr56 realizes that you are genuine and true, and that you simply want to learn. Yes, I am pessimistic about the likelihood he will ever engage you or anyone in an honest discussion but I hope I am mistaken. I stand ready to apologize and to announce publicly that I stand corrected.

Nielsenbr56 wrote:
Hi Sealover. Well there are geological tracts that are independent indications of glaciation, so I haven't heard of a theory that there are no sea level or temperature variations, and the use of . In fact, it was the expectation that the next ice age would soon start that had Callendar proposing in his CO2 GW paper to increase CO2 production in order to stabilise the climate - keeping it warm.
Snow falls over Antarctica and is slowly converted to ice. Stable isotopes of oxygen (Oxygen [16, 18] and hydrogen [D/H]) are trapped in the ice in ice cores. The stable isotopes are measured in ice through a mass spectrometer. Measuring changing concentrations of δD and δ18O through time in layers through an ice core provides a detailed record of temperature change, going back hundreds of thousands of years.
Since the same technique matches recent temperatures, the technique is considered accurate and shows that the Earth is mostly an icy planet, with only short periods of warming. I produced a logarithmic response equation, also taking into account NASA's claim that the Earth would be at -18degC if CO2 was essentially zero, and fit it through Callander's data. Of course, this predicts the IPCC expectations closely (about 1.7degC rise for a doubling of CO2) but doesn't fit the measured data from ice cores (190ppm and 8 degC). Frankly, it's a real stretch to think you can link GW to a single atmospheric component, but it makes for good money-making opportunities (I made $350k out of it via government grant! Those troll's tax dollars at work - thanks, guys!). The equation is: y=3.2563ln(x)-3.0323, where x is the concentration of CO2 in ppm (from 0.01) and y is temperature in degC.

Frankly, it's a real stretch to think you can link GW to a single atmospheric component, but it makes for good money-making opportunities (I made $350k out of it via government grant! Those troll's tax dollars at work - thanks, guys!).

Nielsenbr56 wrote:
The problem is you don't find any answer acceptable to fit your world view

Nielsenbr56 wrote:
so discussion is useless with you.

Nielsenbr56 wrote:
It's just like flat earthers - or religious people - despite overwhelming evidence,

Nielsenbr56 wrote:
they do not accept rational explanations or measurements.

Nielsenbr56 wrote:
Understand this is your problem

Nielsenbr56 wrote:
no-one can fix it for you, partly due to the above and partly we don't give a damn that you don't understand

Nielsenbr56 wrote:
- you're just insignificant.

Nielsenbr56 wrote:
WE'RE NOT HERE TO TEACH

Nielsenbr56 wrote:
CONVINCE YOU OF ANYTHING!