Remember me
▼ Content

Why is Climate-debate.com so messed up?



Page 6 of 6<<<456
18-06-2023 10:23
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(816)
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote:This post was nearly seven years ago.

The dominant troll and "his second rate sidekick" were already successfully driving people away from the discussion.

But there were still a lot of members attempting to have a reality-based discussion of the actual topic.

All that remain now are the dominant troll, his second rate sidekick, a young troll apprentice, a snarky heckler who at least believes that climate has changed in the past, and a few others.

You and your trolling has already been covered under the Definition of a Troll.

With rare exceptions, your posts are mostly SPAM intended to disrupt this board.
18-06-2023 10:24
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(816)
IBdaMann wrote:
Robert Wagner wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Robert Wagner wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Robert Wagner wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:Definition of a Troll.
And yet another self-portrait of IBdaLooser troll.
LIF. Grow up.
You talking to yourself too, troll?
LIF. Grow up.
Having fun trolling trolls.

You find it fun to troll boards and to disrupt conversations. You probably go around knocking over other people's chess games.

18-06-2023 10:25
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(816)
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)).
18-06-2023 10:26
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(816)
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)).



Congratulations Nielsenbr56! You are the 50th new member to join climate-debate since I first posted about eight months ago.

In theory, there are 1632 users now.

You have probably already noticed that only a handful of members actually post in these threads, very few of which are related to climate change.

They have all been here for years, racking up many thousands of post each.

The website owner is fully aware of what goes on here and doesn't care.

I made many attempts to discuss real world environmental science.

Unfortunately, I was alone in the effort.

Fewer than eight trolls keep the place too ugly for any new members to stay.

None of the fifty new members since I joined are still here, unless you break the pattern.

Don't expect the site owner to assist with any structural change, install an ignore feature, or ban anyone no matter how intolerable their behavior.

I invite you to look at the threads I tried to generate interest in, if you would like a rational science based discussion.

We could communicate by PM if you want to avoid trolls, as no other scientist would ever see anything posted on this site anyway.

It could change overnight if even just TWO people discussed real world science.
18-06-2023 10:27
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(816)
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?
18-06-2023 10:28
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(816)
Nielsenbr56 wrote:
Well, it sounds like you're an expert on what science is, so why don't you educate us? At the same time, point me to some of your published peer-reviewed papers on your subject area.
18-06-2023 10:29
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(816)
Nielsenbr56 wrote:
Ah - so no actual published papers then - sorry, I thought you were an expert. I don't suppose you have a Physics degree either then?
18-06-2023 10:30
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(816)
sealover wrote:
Nielsenbr56 wrote:
Ah - so no actual published papers then - sorry, I thought you were an expert. I don't suppose you have a Physics degree either then?


Some of us have VERY impressive credentials, but they are meaningless here.

Perhaps the more important question to ask is simpler:

Are you scientifically literate?

Let's try to establish an "unambiguous definition" for scientific literacy.

First "literacy" - the ability to understand, read, and write a language.

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

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?

I do not speak Arabic, 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.

The local trolls candidly admit their scientific illiteracy. They dismiss as "buzzwords" and "gibber babble" the science that is beyond their comprehension. As long as all involved are equally ignorant, it wins the debate.

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

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.

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

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

Are you willing to share yours, even if only by PM?

Clearly you have a strong bias regarding the validity and politics of anthropogenic global warming.

But you might be scientifically literate and able to cite credible sources (other than self evident omniscience or your childhood IQ score) for assertions you make. This would allow, for the first time, genuine "debate" on this website.
18-06-2023 10:32
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(816)
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:

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.
18-06-2023 10:33
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(816)
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.

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"?
18-06-2023 10:35
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(816)
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.
18-06-2023 10:36
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(816)
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.
18-06-2023 10:37
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(816)
sealover 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.



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.
18-06-2023 10:38
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(816)
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.
18-06-2023 10:39
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(816)
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?
18-06-2023 10:41
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(816)
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.
18-06-2023 10:42
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(816)
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.

Which includes a NEW MEMBER TODAY.

Making them the 66th to join after I did, a year ago.

Very unlikely they will want to play here, either.

As the final post below shows, there are those who DO like it here.

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


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.
Page 6 of 6<<<456





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