Remember me
▼ Content

Why is Climate-debate.com so messed up?



Page 4 of 5<<<2345>
30-11-2022 23:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13337)
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.
.
Attached image:

01-12-2022 00:01
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4522)
Science never existed, until around 1934. When Karl Popper started marketing, and selling his book. Which attracted an almost cult-like following, among philosophers.
01-12-2022 04:37
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2689)
sealover wrote:
Some of us have VERY impressive credentials

Who is impressed? Can you cite a credible source to back your assertion??
sealover wrote:
but they are meaningless here.

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

OK, good so far. You're doing well!
sealover wrote:
Therefore, scientific literacy is the ability to understand, read, and write the scientific language.

Awe shit! You just fell off the rails. Back the truck up and establish a definition of science.
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?

What is a "real world scientist"? Wait, you still haven't defined science.
sealover wrote:
I do not speak Arabic

...and I thank God for that! Wait...does this make me religious?
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.

Sure. So as long as the language is shared, then it must be correct. Got it.
sealover wrote:
The local trolls candidly call out my scientific illiteracy.

Isn't that embarrassing with all your credentials?
sealover wrote:
They dismiss as "buzzwords" and "gibber babble" the science that is beyond their comprehension.

You really should define science or at least learn what it is.
sealover wrote:
As long as all involved are equally ignorant, it wins the debate.

Damn, there's that equality BS again. Ralph will be fine.
sealover wrote:
For those whose infallible omniscience is self evident, there is no need to cite any credible source for unsupported contrarian assertions.

What is it with you and credible sources?! It's almost as if a pat on the back and a big atta boy makes you right.
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.

Nothing Trumps the GasGuzzler Discredit card.
sealover wrote:
I'm pessimistic that a valuable discussion will result, but I'm curious to know how scientifically literate the newest member is.

How will you know? It'd help immensely if you would first define science.
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).

Chicken shit. Put a list right here.
sealover wrote:
you might be scientifically literate and able to cite credible sources ... for assertions you make.

Still don't know why you need "credible sources" if you are scientifically literate.
Are you that desperate for someone to agree with you?!
sealover wrote:
This would allow, for the first time, genuine "debate" on this website.

You know, I do recall an attempt to debate an assertion you made about CO2 causing global warming, which you will agree your very life and self worth depend on it. I believe you said "thermodynamics isn't really my area of expertise". You punted, and yet you return here periodically begging for debate. Nice.


Computer science made this page possible, whether you do not believe in science or not.- Swan
Edited on 01-12-2022 04:53
01-12-2022 05:19
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2689)
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.
.


I thought I noticed IBdaBADASS at the Prius Parade. Well done and many cash back awards coming your way sir!


Computer science made this page possible, whether you do not believe in science or not.- Swan
Attached image:

01-12-2022 16:51
Nielsenbr56
☆☆☆☆☆
(32)
Looks like I was right on all counts. Like Zoidberg says "I'm not hearing a no..."
01-12-2022 20:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(20153)
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.

Science existed before Karl Popper.
It has always existed.

All Popper did was make a sound argument for defining it.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
01-12-2022 20:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(20153)
Nielsenbr56 wrote:
Looks like I was right on all counts. Like Zoidberg says "I'm not hearing a no..."

Assumption of victory fallacy. Argument of the Stone fallacies.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
02-12-2022 02:56
Nielsenbr56
☆☆☆☆☆
(32)
Still no "No..."
RE: Natural Glaciation Cycle versus Anthropogenic Global Warming02-12-2022 04:21
sealover
★★★☆☆
(809)
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:

Natural Glaciation Cycle versus Anthropogenic Global Warming

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

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

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.
RE: Climate and Climate Change as Quantifiable Variables02-12-2022 04:48
sealover
★★★☆☆
(809)
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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

With the glaciation cycle causing climate to gradually shift, many examples less than 10,000 years old exist.

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

California's Death Valley was wetlands at the time, and ancient jaguar bones can still be found nearby.

Where African forests shifted to savanna, the underlying soil still retains properties that cannot form under grassland climate conditions - only forests.

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

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.

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

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

Or should we just play word games with the term "climate"?
02-12-2022 05:21
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2689)
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.


I will have this rational discussion with you. I know you don't want to get into thermodynamics because that isn't your thing. You're off the hook for now...

The problem with all these "schools of thought" is that it assumes the global temperature measurements are correct. I say there is no possible way to accurately measure any global temperature. Can you discuss how the measurements were taken and to what margin of error?


Computer science made this page possible, whether you do not believe in science or not.- Swan
02-12-2022 05:54
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13337)
sealover wrote:Yes, if only the trolls would leave at least ONE thread free of interference.

You are the one spamming the board and shutting down otherwise productive discussions. You make it a point to infect every thread, even digging up old threads to pile on the interference.

You then demand that others be censored for whatever you have done.

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

Sure, as long as no one insists that an unambiguous definition be part of defining what the global climate actually is, otherwise you'll whine, bitch, moan, gripe, snivel, pout and cry like a baby.

temper tantrum

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

No human has ever done this.

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

Hans Jenny never mentioned you.

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

Hans never unambiguously defined climate in any way.

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

Correct. You would never be that clear. You ensure everything you write is totally vague and undefined so that you have all the wiggle room to pivot as needed, or to pivot as convenient.

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

At least you acknowledge that you never unambiguously defined them or ever even provided any remotely useful information.

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

I already covered this exhaustively but I appreciate you providing yet another supporting example. A climate is a subjective human characterization of local conditions and has no data or numerical values. The earth has millions of climates.

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

Great. Your climates have regimes. What do your regimes have?

When you recede into playing word games, who do you most prefer to accuse of playing word games?

.
02-12-2022 06:04
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13337)
sealover wrote:Potential topic for a rational, science based discussion:

Natural Glaciation Cycle versus Anthropogenic Global Warming

OK, I'll get the ball rolling. What is the unambiguous definition of "Anthropogenic"?

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

Not until you provide a valid raw data set that concludes "rising temperature" and "rising sea levels", otherwise such a bizarre presumption is terribly unscientific.

.
02-12-2022 06:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(20153)
Nielsenbr56 wrote:
Still no "No..."

Repetition (chanting). Spamming.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
02-12-2022 06:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(20153)
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:

And now for another round of calling a religion 'sCieNcE'.
sealover wrote:
Natural Glaciation Cycle versus Anthropogenic Global Warming

What 'natural glaciation cycle'????!? What 'anthroprogenic global warming'????!? These are both religions.
sealover wrote:
A scientifically valid question worthy of debate is regarding what is driving the rise in temperature and rise in sea level.

Religion is not science, dude.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
It is not possible to measure the global sea level.
sealover wrote:
The natural glaciation cycle involves large changes in average temperature and large shifts in sea level.

More religion.
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.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
It is not possible to measure the global sea level.
What '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.

There is no such thing as 'greenhouse gas'. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You can't make energy out of nothing. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
02-12-2022 06:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(20153)
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.

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

Climate has not variable associated with it. Now you want to play word games with 'climate'.
sealover wrote:
Soil scientists have been doing this for more than 80 years.

Soil is not a science.
sealover wrote:
I had the incredible fortune of being friends with Hans Jenny, the man who revolutionized modern soil science.

Soil is not a science.
sealover wrote:
Hans identified climate as the single most important state factor variable influencing soil formation.

Climate does not create soil.
sealover wrote:
Never claimed there was any "global" climate, but quantified regional climates in a way that permitted accurate prediction of soil properties.

There is no such thing as a 'regional' climate.
sealover wrote:
An example of regional climate would be "Mediterranean", which occurs somewhere on most of the continents (e.g. California)

The SODC (formerly California) is not in the Mediterranean.
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.

California has freezing winters, and some areas never really get hot and dry at all, even during summer.
sealover wrote:
Buried soils can tell us what the regional climate used to be in places where climate has changed.

Climate cannot change. There is no variable associated with climate to change.
sealover wrote:
My favorite example is the Ione Formation very near the Mother Lode of California Gold Rush fame.

Example of what? Void argument fallacy.
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.

Climate does not create soil.
sealover wrote:
With the glaciation cycle

What glaciation cycle?
sealover wrote:
causing climate to gradually shift,

Climate cannot change.
sealover wrote:
many examples less than 10,000 years old exist.

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

The Bible disagrees with you.
sealover wrote:
California's Death Valley was wetlands at the time,

You weren't in Death Valley 6000 years ago. You are making shit up again.
sealover wrote:
and ancient jaguar bones can still be found nearby.

Someone drove a Jaguar into Death valley??????!?
sealover wrote:
Where African forests shifted to savanna,

You weren't in Africa 6000 years ago.
sealover wrote:
the underlying soil still retains properties that cannot form under grassland climate conditions - only forests.

Soil isn't created by vegetation type.
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.

Climate has no variable.
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.

Climate has no variable.
sealover wrote:
Perhaps most useful to the discussion, the past climate can be quantified from soil properties preserved by past burial.

Soil is not created by burial.
sealover wrote:
Climate has changed many times in the past, and continues to change.

Climate cannot change.
sealover wrote:
Or should we just play word games with the term "climate"?

Apparently that is you want to do.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
02-12-2022 15:49
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13337)
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?
02-12-2022 17:05
Nielsenbr56
☆☆☆☆☆
(32)
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.
02-12-2022 19:29
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13337)
Nielsenbr56 wrote: Well there are geological tracts that are independent indications of glaciation

Isn't a glacier the only indicator of glaciation?

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

Would it be safe to say that you haven't heard of any theory stating that there are no 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.

Right here. You really need to provide much more explanation for two things that you simply glossed over.

1. How, according to science, do concentrations of δD and δ18O indicate temperature?

2. When you compute a temperature value from an ice core, what temperature are you, in fact, determining? You aren't claiming that it is the temperature of the ice core, right?

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

When your model tells you that the earth is mostly an icy planet, but your eyes tell you that the earth is mostly not icy, which conclusion do you discard? Which one do you consider "accurate"?

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

Did NASA use any science to determine what Earth otherwise should be? If so, please teach it to us here.

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).

What is clear is that you insist that CO2 and plantary temperature are mathematically linked. Please provide the CO2 Global Warming equation here and explain it (top level).

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

Can anything that doesn't exist truly ever be linked to just one 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.

Why does my food not cook when I apply sufficient CO2?

.
02-12-2022 22:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(20153)
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?

That about sums it up, except for patting sealover on the back.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
02-12-2022 23:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(20153)
Nielsenbr56 wrote:
Hi Sealover. Well there are geological tracts that are independent indications of glaciation,

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

Meh.
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.

CO2 cannot warm the Earth. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. Climate has no temperature.
Nielsenbr56 wrote:
Snow falls over Antarctica and is slowly converted to ice.

Snow is 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.

Isotopes do not measure temperature. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
Nielsenbr56 wrote:
Since the same technique matches recent temperatures,

There is no recent temperature data. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
Nielsenbr56 wrote:
the technique is considered accurate

Not a technique. A religion. One that denies mathematics and science.
Nielsenbr56 wrote:
and shows that the Earth is mostly an icy planet, with only short periods of warming.

So no data and random speculation by you shows Earth is mostly an icy planet. Riiiiiight.
Nielsenbr56 wrote:
I produced a logarithmic response equation,

Random equations don't mean anything either.
Nielsenbr56 wrote:
also taking into account NASA's claim that the Earth would be at -18degC if CO2 was essentially zero,

CO2 is incapable of warming the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics
Nielsenbr56 wrote:
and fit it through Callander's data.

There is no data.
Nielsenbr56 wrote:
Of course, this predicts the IPCC expectations closely (about 1.7degC rise for a doubling of CO2)

There is no data.
Nielsenbr56 wrote:
but doesn't fit the measured data from ice cores (190ppm and 8 degC).

There is no data.
Nielsenbr56 wrote:
Frankly, it's a real stretch to think you can link GW to a single atmospheric component,

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.
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!).

I wouldn't brag about your theft if I were you.
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.

A meaningless equation.
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
It is not possible to measure the global concentration of CO2.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
03-12-2022 04:08
Nielsenbr56
☆☆☆☆☆
(32)
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.
03-12-2022 06:00
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13337)
Nielsenbr56 wrote:Continuing the interesting observation of trolls: their egocentric views lead them to think people should explain things to them.

Continuing the interesting observation of trolls: their scientific illiteracy precludes them from discussing science at the adult's table, but their desperation to appear thmart and important compels them to try nonetheless. As happens in any conversation, requests for clarification and for definitions arise. The troll cannot clarify, explain or define anything, so he does the one thing trolls instinctively do, i.e. they feign indignation and pretend that unreasonable demands have been made, in the hopes that all will be sufficiently bullied away from ever asking for those clarifications or those definitions again.

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

Continuing the interesting observation of trolls, their logical ineptitude prevents them from understanding why they need to support their own affirmative arguments. Since they are stupid trolls, they presume that everyone is already supposed to believe as they have been ordered to believe, without question and without any clarification, any definitions or any science. They never understand why that simply isn't good enough.

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

Which is what in my case?

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

No, you really do not.

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

Identifying the problem is half the cure.

Nielsenbr56 wrote: Suggestion: Reclassify trolls as zombies.

Almost all trolls are warmizombies.

.
03-12-2022 06:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13337)
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.
Attached image:

03-12-2022 07:17
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4522)
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. True believers got their third dose months ago. Many even a fourth. Although, apparently, there have already been a few infections, even after getting the new version was taken.

Only time will tell, on the long term effects, of frequent mRNA dosing. A fresh dose, every 4-6 months, is likely to present some cumulative side-effects. The spiked protein shells, the mRNA instructs the cells, is alien to our bodies. I'm sure our immune system does a fine job of finding, and eventually removing them. But, not everyone's immune system is fully functional. The cells the mRNA vaccines instruct to make those spike shells, are quickly destroyed, and need replaced. Minor tissue damage, that will eventually heal, and be repaired. The elderly, who are most likely to keep up on dosing, also heal slowest, and immune system not fully up to task. Have to see how many can keep up with repeated injury caused by the jab.
03-12-2022 07:28
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13337)
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.

.
Attached image:

03-12-2022 09:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(20153)
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.

You are describing yourself. Inversion fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
03-12-2022 21:28
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(3264)
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.

It's good stuff!! You better get into the program while you still can, but it might already be too late...
03-12-2022 21:30
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(3264)
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.

.

You should look into it, Harvey. You DO like to save lives, don't you?? If you like it, maybe there's a "mask alone" add-on in the horizon for you... Only $4.99/month.
RE: Climate-debate.com IS messed up - "Biden trannie fag.."04-12-2022 01:17
sealover
★★★☆☆
(809)
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.



Part 1.

This is an excellent example of rational science based discussion.

It displays scientific literacy.

It is not intended to insult or enrage.

It does not include personal attacks or false accusations.

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

I wish there were more like it on this website.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Part 2

Before I logged on, I noticed a couple of thread titles.

"Biden trannie fag is a low life luggage thief"

"Dumb Mexican woman (redundant)...."

Due to complete lack of adult supervision, this website "caters to" unrestricted hate speech.

No moderator will ever remove those threads.

Every new viewer will see them near the top of the list, at least for some time.

I regret that I posted the name of a deceased scientist who I greatly admired.

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

To their credit, most trolls here don't chime in on the most overtly racist, etc., threads. They often get no replies. But they are never denounced or removed.

With regret, I admit that climate-debate.com IS messed up in a way that cannot be alleviated by just two members attempting to have a rational discussion.
04-12-2022 03:42
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13337)
squeal over wrote:This is an excellent example of rational science based discussion.

You and I both know, as well as anyone reading the post in question, that there was no science in the discussion, and none of the buzzwords were defined. It was meaningless crap. You simply cannot distinguish such gibber-babble from science because you don't even know what science is. In fact, you think your particular religion is science.

squeal over wrote:It displays scientific literacy.

You are scientifically illiterate. You aren't capable of making such an assessment.

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

You find actual science threatening. It reminds you that you are scientifically illiterate. That enrages you. It makes you feel small. It insults you.

For you to not feel intimidated and totally out of your league, a post must be devoid of science and filled with meaningless gibber-babble that allows your imagination, what little there is of it, to assign whatever fantasy you have been ordered to believe to the verbiage.

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

That is all you have. You are nothing but personal attacks hurled at anyone who questions something you write. You stand poised to hurl the "troll" word in reflex response to questions or requests for definitions/clarification. You rebuff all attempts to engage you in rational discussion because you cannot support any of the crap that you claim. This is nobody else's fault. You never had any intention of participating in any science discussions because your scientific illiteracy precludes such. Your only option has ever been to preach what you have been ordered to regurgitate.

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

All gibber-babble posts threaten to drive away intelligent, rational posters while giving the false impression that we want more infantile ignorants who are looking for a children's table.

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

Of course you do. You have a permanent seat at the children's table and you are always looking for new playmates.

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

... and you are too cowardly to confront Swan with your view. This is not surprising. You are too cowardly for really anything. You have never displayed any sort of intellectual fortitude, ever. What a hoot that would be if you were to call out Swan. He'd have you pissing in your pants in one post, and you know this. Your only recourse is to make veiled attacks against others in the hopes you don't piss off Swan.

Well done.

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

Correct. You hate this. A lack of censorship means that science is permitted. You cannot abide freedom of expression. You find it insufferable that people can point out that you are a dishonest moron who refers to gibber-babble as "science-based discussion" and who calls for science to be censored.

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

That's all you do, i.e. name-drop. You won't ever post any science. You won't ever discuss any science. You name drop with full expectation that everyone suddenly grovel at your feet.

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

... because you still pretend to speak for dead people.

No dead person wants anything.

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

We know that all people are free to ignore it. We don't want to bring in censorship.

.
04-12-2022 04:06
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13337)
gfm7175 wrote:You better get into the program while you still can, but it might already be too late...

I read that in the disclosure. I need to apply immediately or else the results will be catastrophic by the end of the century, or in thirty years ... or it might already be too late because all applications are later than they otherwise should be.

I've never been adept at decyphering legalese.

Fortunately I can have my application expedited by requesting it be accelerated beyond what was previously feared. New members get a grace feedback period in which they can evaluate The Data before deciding that fossil fuels should be banned. Yadda, yadda, yadda.
04-12-2022 05:52
Nielsenbr56
☆☆☆☆☆
(32)
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.
04-12-2022 06:20
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13337)
Nielsenbr56 wrote:Well it seems there is some interest in proper scientific debate,

There is no such thing as scientific debate; there is only debate. Science is not subjective and is thus not open for debate. You are thinking of religion. I'm not surprised.

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

Climate-Debate already provides everything needed for free and open expression.

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].

Like squeal over, you need censorship of differing views in order to function.
04-12-2022 06:37
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2689)
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.


I don't care where you live, who you are, your grant money net income, your gender identity adjective, or what loser school you attended. It matters nothing. 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. If you can't even discuss it then IBdaMann is spot on, calling you out for being the chicken shit coward you are and you deserve every ounce of snarcasm laced mockery he will bestow upon you.


Computer science made this page possible, whether you do not believe in science or not.- Swan
04-12-2022 06:55
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13337)
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.
04-12-2022 07:10
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2689)
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.


Yes sir, I am 100% genuinely ready to be potentially 100% wrong and admit it. I should ad that "look it up" is not acceptable. I have looked up everything I can find to support an accurate global temperature measurement, none of which that does not insult my intelligence.

So again, how is global temperature measured? Where is the data? Why do you need a break out room to discuss your assertion? I don't want to believe it, I want to know it. How can I do that? Help me out here.


Computer science made this page possible, whether you do not believe in science or not.- Swan
04-12-2022 09:46
Nielsenbr56
☆☆☆☆☆
(32)
The problem is you don't find any answer acceptable to fit your world view, so discussion is useless with you. It's just like flat earthers - or religious people - despite overwhelming evidence, they do not accept rational explanations or measurements. Understand this is your problem, 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 - you're just insignificant. WE'RE NOT HERE TO TEACH/CONVINCE YOU OF ANYTHING! Clear enough?
04-12-2022 16:06
James_
★★★★☆
(1189)
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!).



That viewpoint of yours discredits you as far as science goes. You admit to being a con artist. When sealover said that soil can show climate in the past, it also shows temperature and moisture content of the atmosphere.
When northern Africa's climate changed, this seems to have occurred when the Mediterranean Sea filled. Before 7,500 years ago the Mediterranean Sea would fill and then go dry. This is because there was no Strait of Gibraltar.
The changing climate around the Mediterranean Sea also coincides with the end of the Old Kingdom in Egypt. At that time they had a 100 year long mega-drought.
There is also regional climate variance that goes from the Roman Warm Period through to the current warming. And yet I can say IMO that ozone depletion is what has influenced the current warming. And it is not a stretch to say that. Apparently you don't understand atmospheric chemistry and how that can influence the thermohaline circulation and warmer ocean temperatures.
The link is to my website https://climate-cycling.com/
What most people don't understand was that in the IPCC's 2001 report on climate change they stated that the warming between 1920 and 1945 was regional climate variance which was correct. They also said that warming after 1978 was global warming and explained why the 2 warming periods were different.
Then in their 2013 report they said that the warming that started in 1920 never stopped when it did between 1945 and 1978. And with ozone depletion I say UV radiation heats the oceans and that is why ozone depletion could raise ocean temperatures globally.
Also gasses like CO2 and other emissions raise the amount of kinetic energy in the Earth's atmosphere. KE = heat as in KE = 3/2kT where k is the Boltzmann constant and T is the temperature in kelvin. Yep, I just linked climate change to a single atmospheric component, ozone depletion while other things can also influence warming.
04-12-2022 16:18
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2689)
Nielsenbr56 wrote:
The problem is you don't find any answer acceptable to fit your world view

You have no clue what my world view is. Hint; it has nothing to do with global temperature.

Nielsenbr56 wrote:
so discussion is useless with you.

You don't know how to discuss. You are one hellava preacher. I'll give you that.

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

You refuse to show me ANY evidence

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

You refuse to show me ANY measurements.

Nielsenbr56 wrote:
Understand this is your problem

Understand this is your sermon.

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

I think the problem here is that you only accept what you were told to believe, thus the need for break out rooms and censorship. You have no understanding of what you preach.

Nielsenbr56 wrote:
- you're just insignificant.

Wait!...was that an insult? Should I contact the site owner and have you censored?

Nielsenbr56 wrote:
WE'RE NOT HERE TO TEACH

I know. You are only here to preach.

Nielsenbr56 wrote:
CONVINCE YOU OF ANYTHING!

You convinced me you are an ignorant chicken shit coward. Well done!


Computer science made this page possible, whether you do not believe in science or not.- Swan
Edited on 04-12-2022 17:00
Page 4 of 5<<<2345>





Join the debate Why is Climate-debate.com so messed up?:

Remember me

▲ 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 © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact