Remember me
▼ Content

Why is Climate-debate.com so messed up?



Page 3 of 6<12345>>>
07-05-2022 02:09
James_
★★★★★
(2251)
Says the guy who didn't like his home. And now he likes tropical storms and hurricanes. He likes a warmer planet.
God, this is 2 sleazy. I need to make something up.
I know, my black cat is named Salem because I am a warlock. As the
preacher man (gfm's friend told me) the truth shall set me free.
John 8:32;
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.

Now if only I read the Bible and knew what it said. Just another sinner going to Hell where it's nice and warm.


https://photos.app.goo.gl/6w4rCnTXTw3GuxfT9


I guess I am d@mned Harvey......
p.s, Eve n Maze (Mazikeen)
https://photos.app.goo.gl/VSVpZ25YtBTDedgK8
HarveyH55 wrote:

I grew up on the cold, wet side of a mountain. Living in Florida, and the warmer climate is much preferred. Why would anyone want to stop nature, turn back the clock. Hurricanes kind of suck, but easy to survive, and rebuild. We can build hurricane resistant structures, and have for decades. My house was built in 1946, still standing, and only minor damage. Even when a Cat 4 passed right over... Humans thrive, and survive, because we learn (well some), improve, adapt. We don't stop nature, or try to control it. We learn to deal with what nature throws at us.

Edited on 07-05-2022 02:25
08-05-2022 07:06
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14537)
sealover wrote:Welcome to Whole Earth Festival Atendees!

Attached image:

09-05-2022 03:43
James_
★★★★★
(2251)
You must be friends with Harvey. Do you need a shoulder to cry on?

p.s., you guys have shown me where gfm just didn't get it. Thank You.


IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:Welcome to Whole Earth Festival Atendees!

Edited on 09-05-2022 03:45
09-05-2022 07:31
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14537)
James_ wrote:
You must be friends with Harvey. Do you need a shoulder to cry on?

p.s., you guys have shown me where gfm just didn't get it. Thank You.


IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:Welcome to Whole Earth Festival Atendees!

James, I didn't understand a word of your post ... but while I have you, it has been a while since I have put you somewhere in the world. Where would you like to be put next?
RE: and "his second rate sidekick" - 7 years of trolling29-09-2022 01:40
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(784)
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!




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.

Second rate sidekick kept getting referred to as "sidekick" by several others before they, too, gave up on the site.

This site would be harmless and completely unnoticed if Internet search engines weren't being deceived about the actual number of people who view the site.

Fresh meat arrives thanks to the search engines.

Trolling the trolls actually gives their life some meaning. A call to arms!

Stop trolling the trolls for about two days and see how quickly they resort to cannibalism.
29-09-2022 01:55
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14537)
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.
Attached image:


Edited on 29-09-2022 01:56
30-09-2022 17:53
Robert Wagner
★☆☆☆☆
(68)
IBdaMann wrote:
Definition of a Troll.

.


And yet another self-portrait of IBdaLooser troll.
30-09-2022 19:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21945)
Robert Wagner wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Definition of a Troll.

.


And yet another self-portrait of IBdaLooser troll.

LIF. Grow up.


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
30-09-2022 19:48
Robert Wagner
★☆☆☆☆
(68)
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?
01-10-2022 05:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21945)
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.


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
01-10-2022 12:29
Robert Wagner
★☆☆☆☆
(68)
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.
02-10-2022 03:07
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14537)
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.

02-10-2022 10:50
Robert Wagner
★☆☆☆☆
(68)
I find it fun to troll trolls.
And boy are you squeeling, troll.
29-11-2022 10:04
Nielsenbr56
☆☆☆☆☆
(32)
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)).
RE: Unfortunately, the site owner is useless29-11-2022 11:33
sealover
★★★★☆
(1600)
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.
29-11-2022 15:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14537)
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.

Safe spaces that are established simply to escape the science of the main board add no value to the main board.

trafn tried this. He had Branner's full support. In the end, the cowardly and dishonest science-phobes realized that they could not eradicate the actual science on the main board and thus they continued to feel threatened.

Nielsenbr56 wrote: 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,

No rational science-based discussion has ever resulted in any religious safe space where science is so feared and hated that it is censored and/or banned.

If you really want a science-based discussion, just join a science-based discussion on the main board.
29-11-2022 15:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14537)
sealover wrote: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.

You still have not unambiguously defined Climate Change. Who's fault is that?

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

In your case, you haven't been here that long and you engage mostly in spamming.

sealover wrote:The website owner is fully aware of what goes on here

Yep.

sealover wrote:and doesn't care.

Sure he cares, and he approves of actual science being discussed on the main board.

sealover wrote:I made many attempts to discuss real world environmental science.

You never made any attempt to honestly discuss any sort of science.

sealover wrote:Unfortunately, I was alone in the effort.

Nope. This site gets a steady stream of dishonest losers who are desperate to appear thmart and important.
29-11-2022 16:27
Nielsenbr56
☆☆☆☆☆
(32)
Yes, pity that - there is a lot of room for the discussion of real world impacts that can come from discussions that highlight actual measured science. Climate change is easy to define - just look up the Antarctic Ice Core data. This shows millennia of climate change (as opposed to weather, which is what the general public think climate change is) from ice age (average temp 8 degC) to inter-glacial periods like today at 15degC. Even Al Gore - scraping the bottom of the barrel here - presented that data in his mockumentary - pity he didn't understand it though...
29-11-2022 16:32
Nielsenbr56
☆☆☆☆☆
(32)
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?
29-11-2022 17:04
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14537)
Nielsenbr56 wrote:Yes, pity that - there is a lot of room for the discussion of real world impacts that can come from discussions that highlight actual measured science.

Not if they are totally incoherent like this sentence above.

You would benefit from learning what science is. That alone would empower you to engage in meaningful discussions on the main board without having to create a separate safe space.

Science is not measured. I realize that there are two possible meanings for the word "measured" but science is neither.

Nielsenbr56 wrote:Climate change is easy to define

Yet you have never been able to define it unambiguously. You have never been able to say what the Earth's global climate is.

Why don't you start with an unambiguous definition of the global climate?
29-11-2022 17:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14537)
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?

Everything you have mentioned on this subject amounts to creating "science-free" zones into which the scientifically illiterate can flee. Why do you want that?

In contrast, nobody can prevent anyone from discussing any science he wants to discuss on the man board. What's the problem?
29-11-2022 17:30
Nielsenbr56
☆☆☆☆☆
(32)
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.
29-11-2022 17:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14537)
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.

1. I will pont you to the Climate-Debate search function. Into the Night and I have elucidated what science is more than 100 times combined. Search on "falsifiable models"

2. "Peer Reviewed" has nothing to do with science, although the scientifically illiterate are sure it's somehow an integral part. Every time you ask for a peer-reviewed paper, you are broadcasting that you are a scientifically illiterate moron who does not belong in a science discussion at the adult's table, and that someone should create a safe-space breakout room for you
29-11-2022 17:52
Nielsenbr56
☆☆☆☆☆
(32)
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?
29-11-2022 19:11
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14537)
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?

I can deduce from your post that:

1. You are scientifically illiterate
2. You believe that a quantity of published papers, no matter how erroneous, makes one an expert
3. You are desperate to declare me "not an expert."
4. You will pivot just to avoid supporting your silly claims

I think you and I understand each other well enough.
29-11-2022 19:35
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2948)
IBdaMann 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?

I can deduce from your post that:

1. You are scientifically illiterate
2. You believe that a quantity of published papers, no matter how erroneous, makes one an expert
3. You are desperate to declare me "not an expert."
4. You will pivot just to avoid supporting your silly claims

I think you and I understand each other well enough.


All four points are spot on. 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.


Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
29-11-2022 20:05
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14537)
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)
29-11-2022 21:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21945)
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)).

Censorship doesn't work.


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
29-11-2022 21:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21945)
Nielsenbr56 wrote:
Yes, pity that - there is a lot of room for the discussion of real world impacts that can come from discussions that highlight actual measured science.
Science is not measurement nor data. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
Nielsenbr56 wrote:
Climate change is easy to define - just look up the Antarctic Ice Core data. This shows millennia of climate change (as opposed to weather, which is what the general public think climate change is) from ice age (average temp 8 degC) to inter-glacial periods like today at 15degC. Even Al Gore - scraping the bottom of the barrel here - presented that data in his mockumentary - pity he didn't understand it though...

There is no data. Circular definition. You can't define 'climate change' with itself.


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
29-11-2022 21:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21945)
Nielsenbr56 wrote:
Well, it sounds like you're an expert on what science is, so why don't you educate us?

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all.
Nielsenbr56 wrote:
At the same time, point me to some of your published peer-reviewed papers on your subject area.

Science is not a journal, paper, magazine, book, website, pamphlet, or publisher.
Science does not have a voting bloc. Consensus is not used in science.

Consensus is only used in governments and religions.


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
29-11-2022 21:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21945)
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?

Science is not a degree, license, or any other sanctification. Only religions do that.
Science is not a paper or a publisher. Science is not a buzzword or 'expert'.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories.


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
29-11-2022 22:01
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(5197)
Nielsenbr56 wrote:
Yes, pity that - there is a lot of room for the discussion of real world impacts that can come from discussions that highlight actual measured science. Climate change is easy to define - just look up the Antarctic Ice Core data. This shows millennia of climate change (as opposed to weather, which is what the general public think climate change is) from ice age (average temp 8 degC) to inter-glacial periods like today at 15degC. Even Al Gore - scraping the bottom of the barrel here - presented that data in his mockumentary - pity he didn't understand it though...


Not much to really discuss. Climate Change/Global Warming has always been a political scam. The 'data' is mostly generated with computer models, fed pretty much any guess, or speculation that seems to fit the desired output. Even the thermometer readings are biased. More temperature monitoring stations added every year, based on population growth. Not surprising, but people like living in warm climates, more than cold. The analogs, and proxy 'data', is speculation, at best. Huge margin of error, which carries to the entire data set used. Any actual measurements, render useless.

The least potent/plentiful 'greenhouse' gas is the entire focus. To save the planet, wouldn't you go after the greatest threat first? CO2 happens to be essential to survival. CO2 is a byproduct of our best energy source. Lot of people depend on burning Fossil-fuels. All living things are based on carbon molecules. But plants are the only living thing to take carbon in, directly from the environment. No plants, no food. More CO2, more food... Climate Change, is a political tool, to control (kill) the planet's growing population. We depend on food and energy. Water is just too plentiful to screw with. Falls from the sky, generously for many people.
30-11-2022 03:17
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14537)
Has Nielsenbr56 fled already? Has squeal over retreated to the underside of his bridge already?
30-11-2022 03:49
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2948)
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:

Absolutely thmart move. Don't forget the handy quick reference guide on the back. For example, you may forget what temperature matter must reach to become heat. Just flip and rip. Voila, you're out of the woods and on top of the bridge.

IBdaMann wrote:
I'm a card-carrying member of the GasGuzzler fan club.

I do appreciate the patronage. Profits are soaring this year because I quit using hydrocarbons and eating.

IBdaMann wrote:
I can play it anytime; I'm just waiting for the right moment ... you know, to go in for the kill.

May I extend a word of caution? Some cards were fraudulently issued, 58% of them to be exact. Swan is looking into it.

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

Sven's card was fraudulent and he got busted cold. He's now with Ralph in the Arctic discussing real world impacts that can come from discussions that highlight actual measured science.


Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
RE: definition of scientific literacy30-11-2022 08:17
sealover
★★★★☆
(1600)
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.
30-11-2022 09:28
Nielsenbr56
☆☆☆☆☆
(32)
Yes, I am still here - time difference. So we've established that you never went to any sort of scientific education - not that that wasn't obvious(!) - that all you harp on about is semantics to avoid the obvious conclusion you are unable to hold a cogent conversation. All your ranting is based on your incorrect world view - I wouldn't be at all surprised if a) you're religious, b) think the moon landings never happened, c) are a conspiracy theorist and d) think evolution didn't happen (in your case, you might be right on that point).
30-11-2022 11:43
duncan61
★★★★★
(2021)
Nielsenbr56 I was on this forum for a few years as a brand new person to AGW/CC. I learned what I could and then the insults became childish so i have found Reddit which has many sub forums. I have already been booted from R/climate that is the site that quotes all the NY post and Guardian rubbish that we are doomed some time next week for posting questions and getting downvoted too much. Climate skeptics is good and I fit in the group as we are all a bit more hang on a minute lets look at the real world a bit more. Alarmists come on but do not hang around a lot.R/climate change is a bit more middle of the road. The main thing is discussions are had. I have admitted to being wrong about power bills in England and some posters thanked me for being able to do that. I personally do not believe there is catastrophic warming and know a lot of the data is fudged to show warming. Not that a bit of warming would be bad in -30 Canada right now. Tomorrow is the first day of summer but I went down my local beach Monday and the whiting were on the chew and I caught my first decent tailor. Americans call them bluefish. If the water goes over my head its because I walked in to far and fell over. There is zero sea level rise for 180 years where I live. I still like the debate on humans making the weather bad however I found this forum too toxic but at least I learned what gaslighting is
30-11-2022 14:24
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14537)
Nielsenbr56 wrote:Yes, I am still here - time difference.

Excellent. I knew you were working on your unambiguous definition of the global climate. You are one of the few people who understands why it is so absolutely critical to start with clearly defined terms or else no meaningful discussions are possible.

Nielsenbr56 wrote:So we've established that you never went to any sort of scientific education

I never went to any education.

Shall I presume that you have no intention of discussing any science until you have me declared "not an expert"? Will this be your excuse for fleeing from science discussions and for pleading for censored breakout rooms?

As we scrutinize you scientific illiteracy, will we find that you are mathematically incompetent as well?

Nielsenbr56 wrote: All your ranting is based on your incorrect world view

What is my world view? In what way is it incorrect?

Nielsenbr56 wrote: I wouldn't be at all surprised if a) you're religious,

Did you just say that you wouldn't be surprised if some other person in the world who you did not know were religious? Well I suppose nothing would phase you.

By the way a Christians world view is just as valid as any other.

Nielsenbr56 wrote:c) are a conspiracy theorist

You have no credibility with this term. You are one of those mindless ignorants who got suckered into believing that "troll" means anyone who disagrees with you politically in any way. Obviously you are one of the world's dishonest fuqqs who hurls the term "conspiracy theorist" at anyone who rejects the political propaganda that you promulgate.

I nonetheless appreciate the exacting manner in which you have detailed your leftist politics. You should start a thread on why Capitalism is destroying Climate, humanity and the planet.

Nielsenbr56 wrote:and d) think evolution didn't happen (in your case, you might be right on that point).

You are free to presume that I'm not a huge fan of Darwin's theory of evolution and all that stuff. What difference are you claiming that makes? Does this get me declared "not an expert" by the State?
30-11-2022 21:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21945)
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.

We already know YOUR credentials! You revealed who you really are. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Science isn't credentials.
sealover wrote:
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.

Redefinition fallacy (language<->knowledge).
sealover wrote:
Therefore, scientific literacy is the ability to understand, read, and write the scientific language.

Science isn't a language.
sealover wrote:
Do you understand, read, and write the kind of "buzzwords" and "gibber babble" that real world scientists (the kind who have actual credentials, publications, etc.) use to communicate?

Buzzword are not a language.
sealover wrote:
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.

Science isn't Arabic.
sealover wrote:
For those whose infallible omniscience is self evident, there is no need to cite any credible source for unsupported contrarian assertions.

A theory of science supports itself.
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.

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

Science isn't a language.
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).

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.

Science isn't a language.


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
Edited on 30-11-2022 21:49
30-11-2022 21:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21945)
Nielsenbr56 wrote:
Yes, I am still here - time difference. So we've established that you never went to any sort of scientific education

There is no such thing. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That is all. That is it.
Nielsenbr56 wrote:
- not that that wasn't obvious(!) -

Science is not an class, university, school, paper, book, or website.
Nielsenbr56 wrote:
that all you harp on about is semantics

This is YOUR problem. YOU are the one making the semantics fallacy.
Nielsenbr56 wrote:
to avoid the obvious conclusion you are unable to hold a cogent conversation.

You are not having a conversation. You are preaching a load of meaningless buzzwords.
Nielsenbr56 wrote:
All your ranting is based on your incorrect world view

Bulverism fallacy. YOU don't get to declare ANYONE's world view. You are not God.
Nielsenbr56 wrote:
- I wouldn't be at all surprised if a) you're religious,

IBdaMann???????!? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Nielsenbr56 wrote:
b) think the moon landings never happened,

This old claptrap again??? Do you REALLY think pivoting to this means anything?????!? Pivot fallacy.
Nielsenbr56 wrote:
c) are a conspiracy theorist

The Democrat party is a conspiracy.
Nielsenbr56 wrote:
and d) think evolution didn't happen (in your case, you might be right on that point).

The Theory of Evolution (which states that Man evolved from more primitive life forms) is not a theory of science.


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
Page 3 of 6<12345>>>





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