Why is Climate-debate.com so messed up?

James_ wrote:

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.

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 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.

Nielsenbr56 wrote:
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?

HarveyH55 wrote:


Isn't 1978 the same year the switch to satellite temperature measurements? That's also about the same time the ozone hole was declared 'fixed'...

James_ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:


Isn't 1978 the same year the switch to satellite temperature measurements? That's also about the same time the ozone hole was declared 'fixed'...

And yet glaciers melting has been documented

James_ wrote:
which supports warming.

James_ wrote:
The ozone layer will be depleted

James_ wrote:
until about the middle of the century. It did start recovering around 2000 - 2010.

James_ wrote:
I think heatwaves in France and Spain over the last few years shows the Gulf Stream is giving up heat IMO.

James_ wrote:
When the Gulf Stream cools then the arctic will probably starting cooling as well.

James_ wrote:
Then the North Atlantic will be heading towards another cool period which the Little Ice Age was a part of a cool period.

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:When the Gulf Stream cools then the arctic will probably starting cooling as well.

The Gulf Stream is not located in the Arctic.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:When the Gulf Stream cools then the arctic will probably starting cooling as well.

The Gulf Stream is not located in the Arctic.

What James__ is saying is that the Arctic and the Gulf Stream are entangled. That's why the Arctic is full of ice qubits.

It turns out that roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe.
https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy

Into the Night wrote:

The Gulf Stream is not located near the UK.

James_ wrote: That's kind of like my science experiment, it might show where the Van Allen radiation belts and the Earth's atmosphere are entangled.

James_ wrote: Would you believe scientists do not know how to find dark matter/energy when the universe is composed of it?

James_ wrote:What are they saying? That they don't know where the universe is?

IBdaMann wrote:
With so many hard inquiries into my credit, I figured one more wouldn't hurt. I applied for Into the Night's "One Universe" card. Did anyone know he has a credit card?

Anyway, this card markets the security angle. After establishing my normal spending routines, anytime the card is used, the activity is compared against an exhaustive fallacy database and dishonest arguments are shut down immediately. I cannot be held liable for any bogus positions that are assigned to me.

Security monitoring watches for any circular arguments, which are themselves not a problem, but any attempts to prove those purchases were made are also shut down immediately.

Additionally, any merchants who claim to know that I made purchases in the distant, unobserved past will be required to provide evidence that they were there, otherwise those charges are summarily dismissed. If the activity remains undefined, they cannot be included on the bill.

There are other benefits, but the documentation is long because none of it is merely referenced in any holy links.

.

James_ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:When the Gulf Stream cools then the arctic will probably starting cooling as well.

The Gulf Stream is not located in the Arctic.

What James__ is saying is that the Arctic and the Gulf Stream are entangled. That's why the Arctic is full of ice qubits.

That's kind of like my science experiment, it might show where the Van Allen radiation belts and the Earth's atmosphere are entangled. The problem is when scientists say;

It turns out that roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe.
https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy

Would you believe scientists do not know how to find dark matter/energy when the universe is composed of it? What are they saying? That they don't know where the universe is?

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

The Gulf Stream is not located near the UK.

The Gulf Stream actually flows past (going north) England and then has a gyre that flows south of England into the North Sea.

James_ wrote:
Although when the Meridional Overturning Circulation moves further south, less warm water from the Gulf Stream and the air it warms will flow into the arctic.

James_ wrote:
This is an example of thermodynamics.

James_ wrote:
And with the thermohaline circulation, when cold water on the sea floor rises it allows cooling waters to sink. This is a physical entanglement because where warm water from the seafloor is rising it is creating a flow along the seafloor. Basically speaking the thermohaline circulation is a heat engine.
This is where it can be asked if deep sea faults help to warm it so warm water will rise. This could be something like El Nino.

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

The Gulf Stream is not located near the UK.

The Gulf Stream actually flows past (going north) England and then has a gyre that flows south of England into the North Sea.

The Gulf Stream does not glow anywhere near England.

James_ wrote:
Although when the Meridional Overturning Circulation moves further south, less warm water from the Gulf Stream and the air it warms will flow into the arctic.

The Gulf Stream does not flow anywhere near the arctic.

James_ wrote:
This is an example of thermodynamics.

No, this is an example of your illiteracy in geography.

James_ wrote:
And with the thermohaline circulation, when cold water on the sea floor rises it allows cooling waters to sink. This is a physical entanglement because where warm water from the seafloor is rising it is creating a flow along the seafloor. Basically speaking the thermohaline circulation is a heat engine.
This is where it can be asked if deep sea faults help to warm it so warm water will rise. This could be something like El Nino.

So the Sun doesn't warm ocean water, eh?

IBdaMann wrote:

James_ wrote: Would you believe scientists do not know how to find dark matter/energy when the universe is composed of it?

If my project works out, I'll patent a new automotive wrapping material that is 62% dark matter and 38% carbon fiber. The material has a unique solid-ephemeral quality. I'll be able to have a life.

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

The Gulf Stream is not located near the UK.

The Gulf Stream actually flows past (going north) England and then has a gyre that flows south of England into the North Sea.

The Gulf Stream does not glow anywhere near England.

James_ wrote:
Although when the Meridional Overturning Circulation moves further south, less warm water from the Gulf Stream and the air it warms will flow into the arctic.

The Gulf Stream does not flow anywhere near the arctic.

James_ wrote:
This is an example of thermodynamics.

No, this is an example of your illiteracy in geography.

James_ wrote:
And with the thermohaline circulation, when cold water on the sea floor rises it allows cooling waters to sink. This is a physical entanglement because where warm water from the seafloor is rising it is creating a flow along the seafloor. Basically speaking the thermohaline circulation is a heat engine.
This is where it can be asked if deep sea faults help to warm it so warm water will rise. This could be something like El Nino.

So the Sun doesn't warm ocean water, eh?

You mean you can't sea (pun intended except for ITN) red (heat)?

El Nino can warm the ocean just as the Sun can.

James_ wrote:
Its periodicity suggests a deep sea fault.

James_ wrote:
Think Old Faithful in Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming, USA.

Into the Night wrote:


El Nino can warm the ocean just as the Sun can.

James_ wrote:
Its periodicity suggests a deep sea fault.

James_ wrote:
Think Old Faithful in Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming, USA.

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:


El Nino can warm the ocean just as the Sun can.

El Nino is not an energy source. It can't warm the ocean. El Nino is caused by a current.

James_ wrote:
Its periodicity suggests a deep sea fault.

Nope. El Nino is not warming of the ocean.

James_ wrote:
Think Old Faithful in Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming, USA.

Yellowstone National Park isn't in any sea.

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:


El Nino can warm the ocean just as the Sun can.

El Nino is not an energy source. It can't warm the ocean. El Nino is caused by a current.

James_ wrote:
Its periodicity suggests a deep sea fault.

Nope. El Nino is not warming of the ocean.

James_ wrote:
Think Old Faithful in Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming, USA.

Yellowstone National Park isn't in any sea.

Are you saying that a 2 year old kid doesn't have any energy? And now you're saying that the sea of magma beneath Yellowstone is not a sea? Can you define a sea and what constitutes a liquid? Hmm?
To be technical, a sea is a body of liquid. A liquid is the form matter takes between when it is a solid (like your head, quite dense I hear) and a gas.
I know, it's a bay like the Hudson Bay that the Labrador Current cools and where white whales migrated to when the waters adjacent to southern Greenland warmed suddenly in 1920.
You got me Sheriff RoyBoy.

They didn't.

Semantics fallacies.

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:


El Nino can warm the ocean just as the Sun can.

El Nino is not an energy source. It can't warm the ocean. El Nino is caused by a current.

James_ wrote:
Its periodicity suggests a deep sea fault.

Nope. El Nino is not warming of the ocean.

James_ wrote:
Think Old Faithful in Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming, USA.

Yellowstone National Park isn't in any sea.

Are you saying that a 2 year old kid doesn't have any energy? And now you're saying that the sea of magma beneath Yellowstone is not a sea? Can you define a sea and what constitutes a liquid? Hmm?
To be technical, a sea is a body of liquid. A liquid is the form matter takes between when it is a solid (like your head, quite dense I hear) and a gas.
I know, it's a bay like the Hudson Bay that the Labrador Current cools and where white whales migrated to when the waters adjacent to southern Greenland warmed suddenly in 1920.
You got me Sheriff RoyBoy.

They didn't.

Semantics fallacies.

OMG, you're using a double plural on me. This really sucks that I have to go easy on you. I mean why does warm water from, it's not Australia or the Philippines but is from Oceania.
From that region what can increase warming in the Pacific Ocean? It's not Tecumseh or the Duwamish River. Not the Plchuck either. This influences the northern current of the Pacific into the Salish Sea.
So really, what are we talking about? And please don't say the Maori. We're not talking New Zealand, okay?

p.s., Tecumseh was merely a warrior and not a chief like Chief Wahunsenacawh. He was also known as Chief Powhatan but that might've been an English thing.

James_ wrote:If you know what this is about then you know what shaped America.

James_ wrote:Without a conscience, America is nothing.

IBdaMann wrote:

James_ wrote:If you know what this is about then you know what shaped America.

Everything shaped America.

James_ wrote:Without a conscience, America is nothing.

The United States of America is not a person. It is a country. Speaking of America as having a conscience is speaking metaphorically.

trafn wrote:
This website is currently overrun by trolls like IBdaMann, his second rate side-kick Into the Night, and their retarded servant Tim the plumber who are only doing what the administration of this website allows them to do.

If the administration of this website truly wanted to have a place where people can rationally discuss climate change science in an adult-like fashion, they would do the following:

1. Have global website guidelines like the ones in Sharing Ideas, and then enforce them with a three-strikes-and-you're-out (banned) policy.

2. Delete every single thread that currently exists on this website, as the vast majority of content currently on Climate-debate.com is overwhelmingly garbage that just drives potential, new members away because it's such a bunch of shit.

3. After deleting everything, invite everyone - including our current trolls - back to start over, and immediately ban anyone who violates the three-strikes-and-you're-out policy.

I would strongly advocate that the administration take this approach immediately, unless of course it's goal to have a troll-based website.

If you agree, please PM branner immediately and say so!

Squeal Over Furniture wrote:Who drives away the most members and viewers?

Im a BM wrote: If you follow trafn's suggestion and contact Branner, you will be disappointed. It's just about impossible to get banned.

Squeal Over Furniture wrote:Even Elon Musk draws the line at doxxing.

Squeal Over Furniture wrote:Trafn identifies the dominant troll and his second rate sidekick as the main impediments to rational discussion.

Squeal Over Furniture wrote:Yes, if a new member is naive enough to go ahead and post something, they will find the dynamic duo instantly all over them, doing their thing.

Squeal Over Furniture wrote:This drives them away.

Squeal Over Furniture wrote:But most new members never even post one time.

Squeal Over Furniture wrote:They go so far as to sign up as members, with the only benefit being the ability to post.

Im a BM wrote:

trafn wrote:
This website is currently overrun by trolls like IBdaMann, his second rate side-kick Into the Night, and their retarded servant Tim the plumber who are only doing what the administration of this website allows them to do.

If the administration of this website truly wanted to have a place where people can rationally discuss climate change science in an adult-like fashion, they would do the following:

1. Have global website guidelines like the ones in Sharing Ideas, and then enforce them with a three-strikes-and-you're-out (banned) policy.

2. Delete every single thread that currently exists on this website, as the vast majority of content currently on Climate-debate.com is overwhelmingly garbage that just drives potential, new members away because it's such a bunch of shit.

3. After deleting everything, invite everyone - including our current trolls - back to start over, and immediately ban anyone who violates the three-strikes-and-you're-out policy.

I would strongly advocate that the administration take this approach immediately, unless of course it's goal to have a troll-based website.

If you agree, please PM branner immediately and say so!

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

Who drives away the most members and viewers?

Spoiler alert: If you follow trafn's suggestion and contact Branner, you will be disappointed.

Branner doesn't give a fart what people do here.

It's just about impossible to get banned.

Even Elon Musk draws the line at doxxing.

Not Branner.

Trafn identifies the dominant troll and his second rate sidekick as the main impediments to rational discussion.

I guess this has been going on for years and years now.

But, who really drives away the most members and viewers.

Yes, if a new member is naive enough to go ahead and post something, they will find the dynamic duo instantly all over them, doing their thing.

This drives them away. They almost never stick around for more.

But most new members never even post one time.

They go so far as to sign up as members, with the only benefit being the ability to post.

Perhaps they opened up some of the threads and read some of what the ugly trolls were saying before they realized this website is a waste of time.

I suspect a lot of them never get that far.

I suspect that they just read the TITLES of the threads and realize that this website caters to the most shameless and disgusting trolls.

"Biden trannie fag is a lowlife luggage thief"

So, the new member sees that this thread doesn't involve much discussion about climate change. Looks more like it just intends to be inflammatory.

"Dumb Mexican woman (redundant) falls in love.."

That thread title doesn't promise any climate discussion. Looks more like it just intends to be inflammatory.

Terms such as "fag" and "chink" show up in so many thread titles, the new viewer may not bother going far enough down the list to see if there are any that offer discussion of climate change.

So, you have your dominant troll and his second rate sidekick making the discussion itself ugly and pointless.

And you have Snarky with the ugly thread TITLES and the clever one liners such as "take your pills". Tee hee.

Most people who visit the website because Internet search engines identify it as a climate change discussion site don't bother signing up as members.

Most people who sign up as members don't bother posting anything even once.

Most new members who do post anything rarely do so more than twice.

So, the dominant troll, his second rate sidekick, and Snarky pretty much have the website to themselves as their personal playground.

Where nobody else wants to play.

HarveyH55 wrote:As dysfunctional as this site is, it still works, relatively clean, minimal moderation/censorship. I've been to several poorly moderate sites, that are a disgusting mess, a little criminal as well.

HarveyH55 wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

trafn wrote:
This website is currently overrun by trolls like IBdaMann, his second rate side-kick Into the Night, and their retarded servant Tim the plumber who are only doing what the administration of this website allows them to do.

If the administration of this website truly wanted to have a place where people can rationally discuss climate change science in an adult-like fashion, they would do the following:

1. Have global website guidelines like the ones in Sharing Ideas, and then enforce them with a three-strikes-and-you're-out (banned) policy.

2. Delete every single thread that currently exists on this website, as the vast majority of content currently on Climate-debate.com is overwhelmingly garbage that just drives potential, new members away because it's such a bunch of shit.

3. After deleting everything, invite everyone - including our current trolls - back to start over, and immediately ban anyone who violates the three-strikes-and-you're-out policy.

I would strongly advocate that the administration take this approach immediately, unless of course it's goal to have a troll-based website.

If you agree, please PM branner immediately and say so!

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

Who drives away the most members and viewers?

Spoiler alert: If you follow trafn's suggestion and contact Branner, you will be disappointed.

Branner doesn't give a fart what people do here.

It's just about impossible to get banned.

Even Elon Musk draws the line at doxxing.

Not Branner.

Trafn identifies the dominant troll and his second rate sidekick as the main impediments to rational discussion.

I guess this has been going on for years and years now.

But, who really drives away the most members and viewers.

Yes, if a new member is naive enough to go ahead and post something, they will find the dynamic duo instantly all over them, doing their thing.

This drives them away. They almost never stick around for more.

But most new members never even post one time.

They go so far as to sign up as members, with the only benefit being the ability to post.

Perhaps they opened up some of the threads and read some of what the ugly trolls were saying before they realized this website is a waste of time.

I suspect a lot of them never get that far.

I suspect that they just read the TITLES of the threads and realize that this website caters to the most shameless and disgusting trolls.

"Biden trannie fag is a lowlife luggage thief"

So, the new member sees that this thread doesn't involve much discussion about climate change. Looks more like it just intends to be inflammatory.

"Dumb Mexican woman (redundant) falls in love.."

That thread title doesn't promise any climate discussion. Looks more like it just intends to be inflammatory.

Terms such as "fag" and "chink" show up in so many thread titles, the new viewer may not bother going far enough down the list to see if there are any that offer discussion of climate change.

So, you have your dominant troll and his second rate sidekick making the discussion itself ugly and pointless.

And you have Snarky with the ugly thread TITLES and the clever one liners such as "take your pills". Tee hee.

Most people who visit the website because Internet search engines identify it as a climate change discussion site don't bother signing up as members.

Most people who sign up as members don't bother posting anything even once.

Most new members who do post anything rarely do so more than twice.

So, the dominant troll, his second rate sidekick, and Snarky pretty much have the website to themselves as their personal playground.

Where nobody else wants to play.

You should be aware by now, that there are more than just one way to view an issue. Just as there are usually multiple solutions as well. There are literally thousands of Climate-Change sites. Certainly you should be able to find one or two, that is a better fit for your 'beliefs'. No one here is perfect, or usually claims to be. I don't consider arguing, simply for the sake of recreation, is constructive. But, that's just me, and that's just how philosophy works. The emotionally retarded 'Apple-man', posts a lot of garbage posts. Starve for attention... Figure something traumatic happened when he was 9, or 10 years old. His gender-confusion, and obsession with sexual-disorientation, probably has some role. Maybe he learned the hard way, that the perv in the park, didn't have a pocket full of candy to offer, but at least he showed some attention, and probably something else...

As dysfunctional as this site is, it still works, relatively clean, minimal moderation/censorship. I've been to several poorly moderate sites, that are a disgusting mess, a little criminal as well.

Im a BM wrote:
The first post below was put up on January 11, 2015

Perhaps it was misleading to imply that only three members have this website as a personal playground where nobody else wants to play.

It is where ALMOST nobody else wants to play.

About ten members total like to play here.

Out of 1648.